THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE GAVINO S. ABAYA, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH II, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA AND FELIPE Y. SORIA, RESPONDENTS.

On December 4, 1953, a shipment of 33 cases of Christmas light bulbs
arrived in Manila from Hongkong on board the SS “Fernland,” consigned
to Felipe Y. Soria. On December 19,1953, in view of an alleged
violation of section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code and
Executive Order No. 328, the chief appraiser of the Bureau of Customs,
upon order of the Collector of Customs, filed a seizure report stating
that said goods were seized. On December 22, 1953, Felipe Y. Soria
filed an action for injunction (Civil Case No. 21497) in the Court of
First Instance of Manila against the Collector of Customs, his agents
and representatives, praying that the latter be ordered to release the
light bulbs and that, pending the final termination of the case, they
be directed to immediately do so. On December 23, 1953, Judge Gavino S.
Abaya issued ex parte, upon the filing of a bond of P2,000, a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering the Collector of
Customs his agents or representatives to immediately deliver the goods
in question to Felipe Y. Soria. On December 29, 1953, a motion to
dismiss and to dissolve the preliminary injunction was filed on behalf
of the Collector of Customs by the Office of the Solicitor General,
alleging that Judge Abaya had no jurisdiction over the subject matter
of the action, with a notice that the motion would be submitted for
hearing on January 9, 1954. In the meantime, or on December 28, 1953,
Felipe Y. Soria filed an urgent petition, praying that the Collector of
Customs be cited for contempt of court for not complying with the writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction, setting the hearing of the
petition for 10 o’clock in the morning of December 29. This urgent
petition for contempt was not however so heard, and it appears that,
upon agreement of the parties, the motion to dismiss and to dissolve
the preliminary injunction filed by the Collector of Customs and the
said urgent petition for contempt filed by Soria were to be heard on
January 9, 1954. On January 7, 1954, the Collector of Customs received
notice of an order issued by Judge Abaya, requiring him to appear on
January 9, and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of
court as prayed for in Soria’s urgent petition. On January 8, 1954, the
Collector filed an answer to the petition for contempt, calling
attention to his motion to dismiss and to dissolve the preliminary
injunction, still pending resolution by the court On January 9, a joint
hearing was held on said motion to dismiss and to dissolve the
preliminary injunction, on the urgent petition for contempt, and on
said occasion the parties, were allowed to file their respective
memoranda within five days, the memorandum for the Collector of Customs
having been actually filed on January 14. On January 16, the Collector
received notice of the order of Judge Abaya dated January 12, 1954,
denying the motion to dismiss and to dissolve the preliminary
injunction, and of another order of said Judge dated January 13,1954,
directing him to comply with the writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction of December 23, 1953, within 24 hours; otherwise the court
would order his imprisonment. On the same date, January 16, the
Collector of Customs, instituted in this court the petition for
certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in G. R. No.
L-7403 against Judge Gavino S. Abaya and Felipe Y. Soria, for the
annulment of the aforesaid orders dated January 12 and 13. As prayed
for, this Court, issued the corresponding writ of preliminary
injunction against Judge Abaya. On January 23, 1954, the latter issued
an order commanding Col. Jaime Velasquez, Acting Commissioner of
Customs, to appear before him on January 26, at 9:00 a.m., and show
cause why he should not be punished for contempt for certain
publications appearing in The Manila Chronicle and The Manila Times and
for a radio broadcast allegedly containing implications made by Col.
Velasquez which were malicious and degrading to the court, being
contrary to the facts. This order in turn gave rise to the institution
in this Court by the Acting Commissioner of Customs of the petition for
certiorari and prohibition, with preliminary injunction against Judge
Abaya, the corresponding injunction having been issued on January 26.

During the oral argument in G. R. No. L-7403, counsel for respondent
Soria manifested that he would move for the dismissal of the action in
civil case No. 21497, being convinced that the Court of First Instance
of Manila had no jurisdiction, and this manifestation was concurred in
by Atty. Juan T. David who was allowed to appear as arnicas curiae. Accordingly, we consider the petition therein as moot.

In G. R. No. L-7426 we note that, when the respondent Judge issued
his orders of January 12 and 13, the parties in civil case No. 21497
had until January 14, within which to file their respective memoranda,
the defendant Collector of Customs having in fact filed his memorandum
on said date; and that January 16, when notice of said orders was
received by the Collector, was Saturday. Considering that notice was
served at about noon, and the Collector was given only 24 hours to
comply with the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, he was
almost, if not literally, prevented from availing himself of the proper
legal remedy to suspend the effects of said orders, because Government
offices, needless to state, are closed in the afternoon of Saturday and
the whole of Sunday. Even so, the main question to decide is whether or
not the preliminary injunction issued by this Court, restraining the
respondent Judge “from further taking cognizance,” of civil case No.
21497, included the power of the lower court to order the Acting
Commissioner of Customs to show cause why he should not be punished for
contempt. We cannot countenance the dangerous proposition that, during
the suspension of a judicial proceeding, a party can either indulge in
the pastime of attacking the court or wage a contemptuous campaign
against the judge, without as much as being compelled to account
therefor in the meantime. It is not here pretended that the alleged
acts for which the respondent Judge is citing the petitioner for
contempt, will be affected by the question of jurisdiction raised in
civil case No. 21497. Without prejudging the point on the merits, we
uphold the inherent power of the respondent Judge to issue the order
complained of.

Wherefore, the petitions both in G. R. No. L-7403 and in G. R. No. L-7426 are dismissed without costs. So ordered.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.