G.R. No. L-47518. June 18, 1990
MANUEL CALAGUI, AND RODOLFO MAPAGU, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BONIFACIO CACDAC, JR., AS JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAGAYAN, BRANCH V, VIRIATO MOLI…
PADILLA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
decision,[1]
promulgated on 16 September 1977,
in CA-G.R. No. SP-06726-R, entitled “Manuel Calagui,
et al. vs. Hon. Bonifacio Cacdac,
Jr., as Judge CFI of Cagayan, Branch V, et al.”, which dismissed the
petitioners’ petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.
The facts are as follows:
On 2 August 1976, private respondents filed before the Court of
First Instance of Cagayan, Branch V, in Civil Case
No. 2433, an action for injunction with preliminary prohibitory injunction and
damages against petitioners herein, alleging that as owners of the Tuguegarao cockpit in Tuguegarao,
Cagayan, they had been issued a license to operate
said cockpit in 1971 and yearly thereafter up to 1976. They further alleged that when P.D. No. 449,
otherwise known as the “Cockfighting Law of 1974”, was promulgated on 9 May 1974, they were already
operating the Tuguegarao Cockpit. The said law provides that only one (1)
cockpit shall be allowed in a city or municipality where the population is not
more than 100,000.[2]
Tuguegarao, in 1976, had a population of less than
100,000. The same law likewise
authorizes the city and municipal mayors to issue licenses for the operation
and maintenance of cockpits subject to the approval of the Chief of the
Philippine Constabulary or his authorized representative.[3]
Sometime in 1976,
petitioners were able to secure from the P.C. Zone Commander approval of their
request to operate a cockpit (Balzain cockpit) in Balzain, which is in Tuguegarao, and petitioners
announced to the public the holding of cockfights in the Balzain
cockpit on 8 August 1976.
On 14 August 1976, in said Civil Case No. 2433, respondent judge
issued a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners who were, however,
given “for reasons of equity and fair play” in the same order an opportunity to
file an injunctive counterbond, which they did, and
the writ of preliminary injunction was stayed and dissolved until further
orders from the court.
After trial, respondent judge rendered his decision dated 7 May
1977 in Civil Case No. 2433, ordering, among other things, that the preliminary
injunction granted by the court in its Order dated 14 August 1976 be considered
permanent, final and perpetual; the Municipal Mayor of Tuguegarao
to issue a license to the Tuguegarao Cockpit for the
year 1977, if he had not yet done so; the Chief of the Constabulary to approve
the said license; and the defendants (herein petitioners) together with their
bondsman to jointly and severally pay the amount of P4,000.00 to plaintiffs
(private respondents) as damages.
Petitioners appealed from the said decision to the respondent
Court of Appeals. However, believing
that their appeal was not adequate to promptly relieve them from the injurious
effects of the abovementioned decision, on 1 June 1977 petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari,
Prohibition, and Mandamus before respondent Court of Appeals, with
application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against respondent
judge and private respondents. As
earlier stated, the respondent appellate court rendered a decision on 16
September 1977, dismissing the petition, “but without prejudice to the
petitioners herein, presenting for consideration of the Court which shall
resolve the appeal of Civil Case No. 2433, the corresponding motion or petition
for the lifting of the writ of injunction directed against them to operate the Balzain Cockpit in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.”[4]
Their motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioners
have come to this Court raising the following issues in their amended petition:[5]
“1. Is there a legal
impediment for the Court of Appeals to entertain and pass judgment on the
errors raised before it in a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus,
when the injunction case from where the errors raised, emanated, is pending
appeal?
2. In an injunction case seeking to prohibit and restrain the
operation of a cockpit about to operate by virtue of a license granted to the
operator thereof to hold cockfights for the current year, has the trial court
trying the said injunction case, jurisdiction to restrain perpetually
the operation of said cockpit, more so if in the meanwhile that
said case is pending, another license is granted to the operator thereof to
operate for the succeeding year, and the validity of the latter license is not
challenged in the injunction case?
3. Is the writ of
execution issued by the trial court pending appeal with respect to the award of
damages in the injunction case, and which is deemed by the Court of Appeals as
proper subject for the Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus, had
it not been enforced and executed, rendered moot and academic?
4. Is the error of the
trial court ordering the Municipal Mayor to issue a license and ordering the
Chief of the Philippine Constabulary to approve the same, when said public
officers are not parties to the injunction case, merely an error of judgment or
procedure, and not a jurisdictional error?”
Except for the first issue, the issues in the present petition
are the same as those raised by petitioners in their petition for certiorari
before the Court of Appeals.
We have reviewed the facts of this case and we fully agree with
the respondent Court of Appeals that the correctness of the decision rendered
by the lower court in Civil Case No. 2433 should be properly resolved in the
appeal interposed by the petitioners and not by means of a petition for certiorari
to declare as null and void said decision or any part thereof. As correctly found by respondent appellate
court, the real issue raised in the petition for certiorari is the
determination of the legality or illegality of the existence of the respective
cockpits of the petitioners and private respondents. Said issue is within the jurisdiction of the
lower court.
We note that in their petition before respondent appellate
court, petitioners prayed for judgment to declare:
“x x x that the
Respondent Judge acted without, or in excess of, jurisdiction, and/or gravely
abused his discretion, in perpetually restraining the Petitioners from
operating their Balzain Cockpit; in immediately
ordering the execution of the decision despite the appeal taken in Civil Case No. 2433; in compelling
the Municipal Mayor of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, and the Chief of the Philippines Constabulary to
issue and approve the 1977 license of the Private Respondents x x x.”[6]
In effect, petitioners were seeking
a reversal of the lower court’s decision,
which should properly be done in the
appeal, not in a
petition for certiorari.
In one case,[7]
the Court had occasion to distinguish the two (2) approaches; thus:
“An appeal brings up for review errors of judgment committed by a
court with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and the persons of the
parties or any such error committed by the court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than an error of judgment.
On the other hand, the writ of certiorari issues for the
correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.”
By its nature, the
extraordinary writ of certiorari offers a limited form of review, for
its principal function is to keep lower courts within their jurisdiction.[8]
We, therefore, do not find error in the dismissal of the petition
for certiorari by the Court of Appeals.
The present petition cannot prosper for an additional
reason. In a Manifestation filed on 26 January 1983,[9]
private respondents alleged that the Court of Appeals already rendered a
decision affirming in toto the appealed
decision in Civil Case No. 2433 and entry of judgment was made on 17th November 1982.[10]
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, there being no
reversible error in the assailed judgment of the respondent appellate court,
and for being moot and academic. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, (Chairman), Paras, Sarmiento, and Regalado, JJ., concur.
[1]
Penned by Associate Justice Nestor B. Alampay, and
concurred in by Associate
Justices Pacifico P. de Castro and Jose G. Bautista.
[2]
Section 5(b), P.D. No. 449.
[3]
Section 6, ibid.
[4]
Rollo, p. 53
[5]
Ibid., pp. 66-67
[6]
Rollo, p. 37
[7]
Silverio vs. Court of Appeals, L-39861, March
17, 1986, 141 SCRA
527
[8]
Enriquez vs. Rivera, L-48948, June 19,
1979, 90 SCRA 641
[9]
Rollo, p. 201
[10]
Ibid., p. 203