SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. BIENVENIDO TAN, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL,…

The
Marikina Toll Bridge was constructed under the provisions of Act No.
3500. The pertinent provisions of said Act are as follows:

“SECTION
1. The sum of five million pesos is hereby appropriated out of any
funds in the Insular Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to constitute
a revolving fund for the construction of permanent bridges on
interprovincial or intercoastal roads in the Philippines, which shall
be expended under the supervision of the Secretary of Commerce and
Communications. Said bridges shall be declared toll bridges for a
period not exceeding fifteen years and tolls shall be collected from
all traffic using such bridges in accordance with rates to be fixed by
a board composed of the Secretary of Commerce and Communications as
chairman, the Secretary of Finance, and the Insular Auditor, as
members: Provided, however, That no toll charges shall be collected from pedestrians.

* * * * * * *

“SEC.
4. When the total cost of a bridge, plus interest of four per centum
per annum, is fully recovered, the board created in section one of this
Act shall so certify to the Governor-General who, by means of an
Executive Order, shall turn over the bridge to the provincial board
concerned and order the collection of tolls to be discontinued. The
cost of maintaining bridges financed under the provisions hereof shall
be charged to the road and bridge fund of the province in which said
bridges are situated.”

On March 4, 1952,
Narciso G. Isidro filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of
Rizal against the petitioners herein, the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications, the Secretary of Finance and the Executive Secretary,
and the Provincial Treasurer and the District Engineer of Rizal,
alleging, among other things, that he is an operator of several buses
with proper certificates of public convenience which pass over said
bridge in their trips from Manila to Marikina and vice versa,
and that the defendants (petitioners herein), have been collecting
tolls for the use of said bridge; that the period of fifteen years had
passed since the construction of said bridge and that the cost of the
same plus 4 per cent interest per annum had been fully recovered from
the tolls collected up to the filing of the complaint, and praying that
a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining the defendants
from continuing the collection of tolls, and that an order be issued
requiring the defendants to certify to the President of the Philippines
that the cost of the construction of said bridge had been fully
recovered from the tolls collected. The Provincial Board of Rizal as an
interested party filed a complaint in intervention, making
substantially the same allegations and the same prayer as Narciso G.
Isidro.

The Secretary of Public Works and Communications,
the Secretary of Finance and the Executive Secretary filed an answer in
the Court of First Instance alleging in substance that the money
borrowed from the Agricultural and Industrial Bank for the construction
of said bridge had not yet been fully paid.

The respondent
Court of First Instance issued the writ of preliminary injunction
prayed for in the complaint of Isidro, restraining the defendants,
their representatives etc., from continuing the collection of tolls on
said bridge, upon the filing by the plaintiff of a bond in the sum of
P2,000. The defendants (petitioners herein), have filed a petition in
this Court for a writ of certiorari, praying that a preliminary
injunction be issued prohibiting the enforcement of the preliminary
injunction issued by the Court of First Instance and that after hearing
said injunction be declared null and void.

It should be
borne in mind that the lower court has not yet tried the case on the
merits and has not yet rendered a final judgment, the only question
before us being whether the court acted in excess of its jurisdiction
or with abuse of its discretion in issuing said writ of preliminary
injunction. In this connection, it should be considered that the
Provincial Board of Rizal alleges that the total cost of the bridge
plus 4 per cent interest per annum had been recovered with excess from
the tolls already collected and that the period of fifteen years from
the opening of the bridge had elapsed since the year 1945. However, the
petitioners raise the technical point that it is not within the
authority of the defendant officers to order the discontinuance of the
collection of tolls but only to certify to the (Governor-General)
President of the Philippines that the cost of the bridge plus 4 per
cent interest had already been recovered.

In the first
place, more than fifteen years had elapsed since the opening of the
bridge and this fact does not require any certification. In the second
place, the above-mentioned board has failed to comply with its
ministerial duty to certify to the President the fact that the cost of
the bridge plus 4 per cent interest per annum has been recovered with
excess, a fact which is asserted by the Provincial Board of Rizal and
not seriously denied by any party. The allegation of the defendants
(petitioners herein), in their answer that the money borrowed from the
Agricultural and Industrial Bank to construct the bridge, has not been
fully paid, if true, is immaterial, for it would not be the fault of
the plaintiff Isidro that the toll collections had not been turned over
to the said bank or its successor, in payment of the alleged debt. It
would appear, therefore, from the allegations in the pleadings that the
respondent judge did not exceed his jurisdiction or abuse his
discretion in issuing the writ of injunction above-mentioned.

Without prejudice to the holding of the trial on the merits in the
court below and the rendition of final judgment by it, the petition for
the writ of certiorari is hereby denied without costs. It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, and Labrador, JJ., concur.