PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS CO., AND LUIS B. REYES, JUDGE, CFI, MANILA, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND PACIFIC COPRA EXPORT CO., INC., RESPONDENTS.

Philippine Products Co., herein
petitioner, filed Civil Case No. 27913 on October 19, 1955, before the Court of First Instance of Manila to recover the sum of P33,009.71 from the Primateria
S.A. Zurich, assertedly an unli­censed foreign corporation doing
business in the Philippines, the
Primateria (Phil.) Inc., Alexander Baylin, and Jose Crame.  Summons was served on Primateria
S.A. Zurich thru the co-defendants as its alleged agents.  For its failure to answer, Primateria S.A. Zurich was declared in
default.

The lower court, on March
26, 1960, rendered judgment holding Primateria
S.A. Zurich liable to petitioner
Philippine Products Co.;
however, the three other defendants were absolved from liability.  Not satisfied with this decision, petitioner, on June 11, 1960, appealed
the case directly to this Court^[1] on purely legal questions.

Subsequently, or on July 29, 1960, petitioner filed a motion before the lower court for execution pending appeal.  The court granted the motion.  On October 4, 1960, petitioner
moved for an order requiring herein respondent Pacific Copra Export Co., to appear before the lower
court and be examined concerning its alleged indebtedness to Primateria S.A. Zurich.^[2] The lower court granted the examination
prayed for in an order dated October 21, 1960, and subse­quently, denied
respondent Export Company’s motion for reconsideration.

On April
21, 1961, respondent
Export Company filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
in­junction with this Court.^[3] The petition was dismissed on May 3, 1961, for lack of merit.

On June 15, 1961, respondent Export Company came back
to Us with an amended petition for certiorari
and prohibition with preliminary injunction.^[4] In support of the peti­tion, respondent
Export Company advanced the following grounds,^[5] to wit:

“A. THE ORDER OF OCTOBER 21, 1960 IS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE THE
JUDGMENT UPON WHICH IT IS BASED IS A PA­TENT NULLITY AS AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
DEBTOR, ‘PRIMATERIA S.A. ZURICH’, SINCE IT APPEARS FROM THE FACE OF THE
JUDGMENT ITSELF THAT THE COURT A QUO DID NOT VA­LIDLY ACQUIRE
JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF SAID JUDGMENT DEBTOR, BY REASON OF THE EXPRESS
FINDING THAT SAID JUDGMENT DEBTOR IS A FOREIGN JURIDICAL ENTITY WHICH DID
NOT TRANSACT BUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES.

“B. THE ORDER OF 21 OCTOBER 1960 IS LIKEWISE NULL AND VOID BECAUSE
THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES PRESCRIBED BY LAW FOR ITS ISSUANCE HAVE NOT BEEN
COMPLIED WITH.

“C. THE RESPONDENT JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DECIDE PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION (ANNEX ‘D’ HEREOF) BEFORE THE DATE SET BY THE
PETITIONER FOR THE HEARING, AND AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, PETITIONER WAS
DEPRIVED OF ITS RIGHT TO BE HEARD CONTRARY TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE
CONSTITUTION.

“D. NO EXECUTION CAN ISSUE UNDER SECTION 1, RULE 39 OF THE RULES OF
COURT UPON THE DISPUTED DECISION, BECAUSE AN APPEAL THEREFROM HAS BEEN
SEASONABLY PER­FECTED BY THE PREVAILING PARTY;
CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE PREVAILING PARTY AUTOMATICALLY OPERATES
TO DIVEST THE COURT A QUO OF ANY FURTHER CONTROL AND JURISDICTION
OVER SAID DECISION – PARTICULARLY IN THE MATTER OF ORDERING THE EXECUTION OF
SAID DECISION.

“E. ASSUMING THAT THE COURT A QUO HAD ACQUIRED JURISDICTION OVER THE
PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT PRIMATERIA S.A. ZURICH, SAID COURT WOULD, NEVERTHELESS,
HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO SENTENCE SAID DEFENDANT AS A CORPORATION OR IN ITS
CORPORATE CAPACITY, BECAUSE THE COURT ITSELF HAD FOUND SAID DEFENDANT TO BE NOT
A CORPORATION.”

On June 21,
1961, We finally denied the petition.  Final judgment in L-18361 was entered on July
22, 1961.

About three months
later, or on October 18, 1961, respondent Export Company filed a petition
for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals^[6] against the same respondents in L-18361, invoking
the same grounds alleged before the Supreme Court in said case, re-arranging
only their order of presentation.^[7]

The Court of Appeals gave
due course to the petition for certiorari and prohibition.  On November 3, 1961, pe­titioner Philippine
Products Co., filed a manifestation calling the attention of that appellate court to
the identity of the petition with those filed in this Court in L-18361 in which
the Supreme Court’s order of dismissal already became final.  Petitioner, on January 13, 1962, followed up with its answer to the petition.

On June 29, 1962, the
Court of Appeals rendered judg­ment
granting the petition for certiorari and prohibition.  When its motion for reconsideration was
denied, petitioner Philippine Products Co., appealed to Us
thru the instant petition for review.

 Petitioner’s
submission that the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the
petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before it is well taken.  By statute^[8] the Court of Appeals may only issue writs of
certiorari and pro­hibition
“in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.” This phrase has been consistently interpreted to mean
that should the main case be appealed and the appeal fall under the exclusive
appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, then only can it act on said
special civil actions concerning a matter incidental to the main case.  Otherwise, i.e., if the main
case is
not properly appealable
to the Court of Appeals, jurisdiction to act on the special civil actions would
devolve on the Supreme Court exclusively.^[9]

The main case here, Civil
Case No. 27913, had been actually
appealed to this Court on June 11, 1960. 
When the petition for certiorari and prohibition was filed on October
18, 1961, with the Court of Appeals, the main case was still pending
determination by the Supreme Court.  The
petition concerned an incidental
matter that arose from the main case. 
Clearly, the Court of
Appeals had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.  If said Court can not issue the writs of
certiorari and prohibition when the main case is only appealable to
the Supreme Court, with more reason
can it not do so when the main
case is actually pending appeal in this Court already.  And it should be evident that jurisdiction
over the main case necessarily embraces all incidental matters arising therefrom and connected therewith.

Furthermore, a mere reading of the petitions in L-18361 and in CA-G.R.
No. 30047-R will immediately show that both are identical in all respects.  Even the grounds relied upon are the same.  As stated, the
only difference is one of pure form – the re-arrangement of the order
in which the grounds were alleged. 
Considering that the petition in L-18361 had been
finally dismissed by the Supreme Court, the highest court of the
land, for lack of merit, the filing of the very same petition
before the Court of Appeals, a court of inferior stature, was actually an
appeal from the former to the latter court. 
Unquestionably, this procedure taken by respondent’s counsel
is against the orderly set-up of judicial proceedings.

Lastly, respondent
confuses the “merits” in the certiorari case and the “merits” in the main case.  While the dismissal of the certiorari petition did not affect the merits of
the main case, such dismissal, grounded on lack of merit, is necessarily binding
on the merits of the certiorari petition itself such that an identical
petition can no longer be entertained.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted. 
The decision of the Court of Appeals appealed from is annulled and set
aside in toto.  With double costs against
respondent Pacific Copra Export Co., one-half of which to be paid by its
counsel.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Sanchez, J., did not take part.

^[1]
Philippine Products Co. v. Primateria Societe Anonyme Pour Le Commerce Exterieur, L-17160. 
The decision here, affirming the decision of the lower court, was
promulgated on November 29, 1965.

^[2]
This is pursuant to sec. 39, Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court.

^[3]
Pacific Copra Export
Co., Inc. v. Hon. Reyes and Philippine Products Co., L-18361.

^[4]
The title and docket number were identical to the petition filed on April 21,
1961.

^[5]
See: Annex “F” of petition; Rollo,
pp. 51-73.

^[6]
Pacific Copra Export Co., Inc. v. Hon. Reyes and
Philippine Products Co., CA-G. R. No. 30047-R.

^[7]
See: Annex “A” of petition; Rollo,
pp. 22-44.

^[8]
Section 30, Republic Act 296 (The Judiciary Act).

^[9]
Miailhe v. Halili,
103 Phil. 639; Albar v. Carangdang,
L-18003, Sept. 29, 1962; PNB v. C.A., L-18728, May 31, 1963; Tuason v. Jaramillo, L-18932-34, etc., Sept. 30, 1963.