ANACLETO TRINIDAD AND DIONISIO BARROGA, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JOSE L. MOYA AND MUNICIPALITY OF IRIGA, RESPONDENTS.

Petition for certiorari filed by
Anacleto Trinidad and Dionisio Barroga against the
Municipality of Iriga, Cmarines Sur, and the Hon. Jose L.
Moya, Presiding J of the third branch of the Court of
First Instance of marines Sur, to annul the latter’s
order of March 22, in Civil Case No. 4836, “commanding the defendants Anacleto Trinidad, Dionisio Barroga, and their agents to refrain and desist from
collecting the rents, fees, and other benefits from the Iriga Central Market and Sagrada
Market in Iriga, respectively, during the pendency of this action”.

On December 11, 1959, pursuant to
a resolution approved by the Municipal Council of Iriga, Camarines Sur, authorizing the leasing of the Central Public Market
and the Sagrada Public Market of said municipality to
private persons, the Municipal Mayor, Perfecto I. Tanduran, representing said municipality leased the Central
Public Market to petitioner Trinidad and the Sagrada
Public Market to petitioner Barroga, for P24,000.00
and P360.00 yearly, respectively, both payable quarterly in advance within the
first ten days of every quarter, for a period of one year beginning January 1,
1960 extendible to another four years, subject to the approval of the Provincial
Board. The Municipal Council approved said lease agreements on December 29, 1959
in its Resolution No. 70, s. of 1959, and on January 1, I960 the lessees, after
paying the rentals corresponding to the first quarter, took over the operation
and administration of the said markets, collecting rents, market fees and other
benefits therein.

On February
16, 1960
respondent Municipality of Iriga commenced an action in the Court
of First Instance of Camarines Stir against
petitioners and its former mayor, Perfecto Tanduran,
(Civil Case No. 836) to annul the aforementioned lease contracts, with a prayer
for the issuance ex-parte of a writ of preliminary
injunction restraining petitioners from collecting rents, market fees and other
benefits in the leased premises during the pendency of
the action, and damages. The complaint alleged that, prior to the leasing of the
markets to petitioners, respondent Municipality had been earning an average net
income of no less than P35.000.00 annually from the operation thereof; that on
or about the 26 day of December, 1959, Perfecto Tanduran, who was then the municipal mayor of Iriga, Camarines Sur, and who at the time knew that he lost his bid for
reelection in the 1959 elections, in collusion and connivance with Anacleto Trinidad and Dionisio
Barroga, with intent to defraud the municipality in
the approximate sum of P1 1,000.00, Philippine Currency, for their own persona!
gain and benefit, maliciously, irregularly and in deliberate disregard of the
law governing the lease of public markets to private persons, leased in behalf
of the plaintiff the said Iriga Central Market to
defendant Anacleto Trinidad for a period of one year
beginning January 1, 1960 in the patently unreasonable amount of P24.000.00, and
the said Sagrada Market to defendant Dionisio Barroga for a similar
period of one year beginning January lf 1960 in the patently unreasonable amount
of P360.00; that respondent municipality, thru its then mayor and municipal
council, had demanded petitioners to turn over to them the operation and
administration of the premises, which the latter refused; and that to allow
petitioners to continue collecting rents and market fees during the pendency of the action would cause great and irreparable
injury to respondent municipality.

Petitioners’ motion to require
respondent municipality to specify in its complaint the facts and circumstances
constituting the fraud, connivance and collusion alleged therein having been
denied, they filed their answer on March 11, 1960 alleging that the lease
contracts were entered into and executed with all the requirements of the law;
that the municipal council authorized the lease and approved said contracts
because it believed that they were to the advantage of the municipality; and
that the present suit was instigated for political reasons by the incumbent
mayor, vice-mayor and councilors of said municipality who, conspiring together,
immediately upon assuming office passed a resolution annulling the contracts of
lease in question without any authority to do so; that by virtue thereof,
petitioners have suffered damages which they seek to recover from the
above-mentioned municipal officials by means of a third-party complaint filed
against them.

Subsequently, on March 22, I960,
the Court issued an order granting ex-parte the writ
of preliminary injunction prayed for in the complaint for the following reasons:

“It appearing from the facts set
forth in the complaint, verified by the oath of the Provincial Fiscal as
attorney for the plaintiff, that it (Municipality of Iriga) is entitled to the relief it socks, that the
continued collection of the rents and fees from the two markets in question by
the defendants Anaclcto Trinidad and Dionisio Barroga will likely cause
irreparable injury to the plaintiff as the amount of these rentals and fees
depends on the patronage of the public and it will be difficult to determine it
with certainty if they are collected by private individuals, while this is not
so where the collection is done by public officials who are under obligation to
issue receipts for moneys coming into their possession; that although the
complaint prays for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the
defendants did not deny in their answer the facts averred in support thereof;
and that under the circumstances, a writ of preliminary injunction may be
granted ‘ex-parte‘ (Moran, Rules of Court, Vol. I,
500-501), ***.”

Their motion to set aside the
order of preliminary injunction having been denied, petitioners filed the
present action.

It is petitioners’ contention now
that the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing rte
the writ of preliminary injunction mentioned above in denying their motion to
set it aside. We find no merit in this claim.

The general rule it is true is
that a writ of preliminary injunction should be issued in proper cases only
after Notice served upon the party Might to be enjoined, but the Rules of Court
give the court discretion to issue the ex-parte upon a
showing hat the party seeking the injunction will suffer irreparable injury
should the writ not be issued immediately.

In the present case, considering
the allegations made the complaint filed in Ciyil Case
No. 4836 of the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Sur for the annulment of the lease contracts mentioned
heretofore, we do not believe that the respondent judge committed any abuse of
discretion at all in issuing ex-parte the writ
complained of, considering that, had not said writ been issued, the defendants
in said action would have continued administering and operating the public
markets subject of the contracts of lease and would have continued collecting
rents and fees in connection therewith, without any assurance that the
Municipality of Iriga would be able to recover the
amounts thus collected should the lease contracts be finally annulled. At any
rate, on matters where trial courts are given the right to use their discretion
in granting or denying relief to a party in an action pending before them, our
policy is not to interfere with the exercise of said discretion unless it is
clearly shown that it was abused in a serious manner a circumstance not
obtaining in the present case.

WHEREFORE, the writ prayed for is denied,
with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrerra, Paredes, Regain, Makalintal Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.