AGO TIMBER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JESUS S. RUIZ, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF AGUSAN, EXCELLENT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, SHERIFF OF AGUSAN AND SHERIFF OF MANILA, RESPOND…

Petition styled as one
for injunction with preliminary injunction.

The petitioner Ago Timber Corporation and the respondent
Excellent Management Corporation entered into a contract on 1 August 1963 for
the latter to manage the logging operations of the former as set forth in their
Memorandum Agreement (Annex “A”); and on the following day the former
executed in favor of the latter a contract of management and general power of
attorney constituting the latter as the former ‘s general manager in the said industry
and providing that the contract is irrevocable for 5 years and is one coupled
with a valuable consideration (Annex “B”).

On 30 September 1963,
however, the petitioner Ago Timber Corporation informed the respondent
Excellent Management Corporation that for its failure to perform its part of
the contract, the petitioner Ago Timber was taking over the management of its
logging operations.

One year thereafter, or on 28 October 1964, the petitioner filed in the Court of
First Instance of Manila an action for rescission of the aforesaid contract and
revocation of the general power of attorney, with damages.  The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 58827. 
Summons was served on the defendant Excellent Management Corporation on 3
November 1964.

On a date which is in dispute (and discussed later), the
respondent filed action in the Court of First Instance of Agusan
against the petitioner Ago Timber Corporation and Pastor Ago, for injunction
with preliminary injunction, attachment and garnishment, and for damages,
praying for the enforcement of the same contract that the petitioner was
seeking to rescind in the Court of First Instance of Manila.  The case filed in Agusan
was docketed therein as Special Civil Case No.
182.  On 6 November 1964, the Agusan Court, thru Butuan City Judge Jesus S. Ruiz, for and in the essence of
the District Judge, issued ex parte a writ of preliminary injunction and
another writ of attachment and garnishment.

The writ of preliminary injunction restrains and prohibits the
respondents (herein petitioner Ago Timber Corporation and Pastor Ago) from —

“x x x disturbing, molesting, harassing or interfering
with petitioner’s possession of the area described in paragraph 4 of the
petition in the above-entitled case; restraining and prohibiting the
respondents, x x x from threatening, coercing or intimidating
the employees, officials and representatives of petitioners; restraining and
prohibiting respondents x x x
from cutting and hauling logs
from the area described in paragraph 4 of the petition, without previous
authority, consent or permission of petitioner x x x; restraining
and prohibiting respondent corporation from selling or exporting its logs or
transferring the letter of credit in the name of another person without the
knowledge and consent of petitioner, commanding and ordering the respondents to
comply and respect the terms, conditions and stipulations in the document
Annexes A and B of said petition; order­ing the Philippine Constabulary
officers of Agusan and Butuan
City to enforce whatever writs of injunction or attachment this Court may issue
in this case against the respondents, with area is situated at Los Arcos, Prosperidad, Agusan and likewise
you are also directed to serve copy each of the order of the Court xxxxx.”

The petitioner moved to dismiss Special Civil Case 182 and to
dissolve the writs issued thereunder on the ground of
pendency of another suit between the same parties,^[1]
but since action thereon was not forthcoming, the petitioner resorted to this
Court.

This Court, by resolution on 7 December 1964, issued a writ of
preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the writs issued by the Agusan court, restraining the respondents from entering
into, and taking possession of the petitioner’s logging area, from seizing or
taking the management of the logging operation, from cutting and hauling logs
in the area and from preventing or stopping the sale, exportation or shipment
of logs by petitioner.

The petitioner alleges that the order of the respondent judge in Special Civil Case No. 182 of
Agusan, issuing its writ of preliminary injunction,
is null and void because the filing of the petition by Excellent Management
Corporation, as well as the
injunction bond, were antedated to make it appear that the petition was filed ahead
of Civil Case 58827 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, done through
connivance of the respondent judge and court personnel in Agusan,
aside from the fact that the preliminary injunction was granted without notice
or hearing.

On this point, we observe that on the upper right-hand corner of
the first page of the petition in Special Civil Case 182, Court of First
Instance of Agusan, a rubber receiving stamp mark of
the court was impressed, bearing “Nov 19” as its date of receipt; but
on this supposed date of receipt was superimposed
the handwritten date “Oct 24 64”.  (Annex “N-1”, p.
168, Rec.).^[2]
The order of the court granting the preliminary injunction was dated 6 November 1964 (Annex “1“) but the bond was dated one day
before, on 5 November 1964 (Annex
“G”, Rec. p. 56).  The official
receipt evidencing payment of the filing fee was dated 6 November 1964 (Annex “D”, Rec. p.
34).  Godofredo
G. Enriquez, deputy clerk of court, and Orlando Polon,
one of the clerks in the office of the clerk of court, justified the foregoing
discrepancies with the explana­tion that they received the petition and
immediately entered it on the docket book on 24 October 1964; that Atty. Tranquilino Calo, Jr., counsel
for the petitioner therein, did not have sufficient cash to pay the filing fee
but left the petition and promised to return; that he returned and paid the
filing fee on 6 November 1964. (Annexes 1-3 on pages
93-95 of the Record).  For his
part, Judge Ruiz, in an affidavit, denied his alleged connivance but stated
that he ordered the issuance of
the writs “after reading the contents of the petition x x x and was convinced that there
was an urgent need for the immediate granting of the relief prayed for x x x.” (Annex “7”, p.
99, Rollo). 
Respondent judge offered, however, no explanation why the bond was
prepared earlier than his orders granting the writs.

We perceive that, whether by design or plain imprudence, an
irregularity involving the integrity of a court record has been committed.  Be that as it may, the date that should be
reckoned as the filing of the petition in Special Civil Case 182 of the Agusan Court is when the
filing fee was paid, 6 November 1964,
and not when the petition was received on 24 October 1964. 
(See Sec. 1, Rule 13 and Sec. 1, Rule 141, Rules of Court.)

Since the case in Manila
was filed earlier than the case in Agusan and the
parties, in their respective motions to dismiss had pleaded pendency
of another action between the same parties for the same cause, allegations that
they are now estopped from denying or varying, it was
incumbent upon the Agusan court to grant the
petitioner’s motion to dismiss Special Civil Case No. 182, not only as a matter
of comity with a coordinate and co-equal court (Laureta
& Nolledo, Commentaries & Jurisprudence on
Injunction, p. 79, citing Harrison v. Littlefield, 57 Tex. Div. A. 617, 619,
124 SW
212) but also to prevent
confusion that might seriously hinder the administration of justice.  (Cabigao, et al.
vs. Del Rosario, et al., 44 Phil. 182)

The respondents, as defendants in Civil Case 58827 (Manila)
received the summons on 3 November
1964, yet, they filed their petition in Special Civil Case 182 in Agusan only on 6
November 1964.  It is,
therefore, plain that they resorted to the Agusan
court with unclean hands and wangled therefrom, under
dubious circumstances, an ex parte preliminary
injunction.

The petition in this although captioned as for injunction with
preliminary injunction^[3]
is, in substance, one for certiorari and
should be considered as such. 
While it is true that the respondent court of Agusan
had jurisdiction in Special Civil Case 182, the acts complained of by the
petitioner constitute grave abuse of discretion and injudiciousness on the part
of the respondent court, combined with trickery on the part of the private
respondent.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ of certiorari is hereby
granted, and the writs of preliminary injunction and attachment and garnishment
issued by the respondent court are hereby set aside and declared null and
void.  The respondent Court of First
Instance of Agusan is hereby directed to dismiss its
Special Civil Case No. 182.  The
preliminary injunction heretofore issued by this Court is hereby made
permanent.  Costs
against the respondent Excellent Management Corporation.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Honorable
Secretary of Justice for his information and for whatever action may be proper
on the alteration of court records herein described.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Fernando, J., did no take part.

^[1]
The respondent in turn filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case 58827 of the Court
of First Instance of Manila on the same ground of pendency
of another action.  The motion was dated 10 November 1964 and denied by the
Court on 8 December 1964. (Annexes “P” & “O”, pages 184-186 and
180-183 of the Record).

^[2]
It will be recalled that petitioner’s action in Manila
was filed on 28 October 1964.

^[3]
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction in an original action for injunction.
(Watson v. Enriquez, 1 Phil. 480; Gavieres v.
Robinson, et al., 8 Phil. 322; Madarang v. Santamaria, 37 Phil. 304)