PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY, INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO ENRIQUEZ, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

This
is an appeal taken by the defendant Fernando Enriquez from the decision
of the Court of First instance of Manila, the dispositive part of which
reads:

“Wherefore, this court holds that
the defendant is guilty of contempt for violating the terms of the
permanent injunction, the said, violation consisting in having filed an
application before the Public Service Commission to pick up and drop
passengers in the territory occupied by the Pampanga Bus Co., by virtue
of which this court orders the defendant, within ten days from the date
he receives copy of this decision, to withdraw the application filed in
case No. 48802 of the Public Service Commission, or to ask for the
revocation of any authority which may have been granted to him under
the said application. Otherwise, it is ordered that the defendant be
arrested and imprisoned until he complies with the conditions of this
decision. (B. E., pp. 42, 43.)”

On November
15, 1934, in civil case No. 45149 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila between the same parties in this case, a decision was rendered
containing the following dispositive part:

“Therefore, let judgment be entered:

“(1)
Declaring the preliminary injunction issued in this case, permanent,
and restraining the defendant Fernando Enriquez from picking up or
dropping passengers at point where he is not authorized to pick and
drop passengers by his certificate of public convenience;

“(2) Enjoining the plaintiff from carrying passengers from Masantol and
Macabebe to the City, of Manila, and from carrying passengers or making
local service between Sta. Lucia and Calumpit; and

“(3)
Requiring the parties to this case to comply with the terms of the
agreement contained in Exhibit 1 dated November 9, 1929; without
awarding to either party any damages and without any finding as to
costs. So ordered.”

The agreement referred
to in the aforesaid decision, which was signed by the attorneys for the
Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. and by Fernando Enriquez, respectively, is
of the following tenor:

“Comes now the undersigned attorney and to this Honorable Commission respectfully states:

“1. That Fernando Enriquez withdraws the three motions presented in the above-entitled cases.

“2. That Fernando Enriquez withdraws his application to operate in all
points served by the Pampanga Bus Company and agrees not to present any
application In the territory now occupied by the Pampanga Bus Company.

“3.
That the Pampanga Bus Company agrees to withdraw its opposition to the
application of Fernando Enriquez from additional hours from Masantol to
Manila with the right to pick up passengers in Macabebe and Apalit.

“4. That the Pampanga Bus Company agrees to permit Fernando Enriquez to
carry passengers between Masantol and Macabebe and Calumpit on his
regular trips on Tuesdays only.

“5. That the Pampanga Bus
Company agrees not to establish a direct service between Masantol and
Manila or Masantol and Calumpit on Tuesdays.

“6. That Fernando Enriquez agrees not to acquire any competing line of the Pampanga Bus Company.

“Manila, November 9, 1929.”

For violation by Fernando Enriquez of the conditions of said agreement,
the Pampanga Bus Company filed a complaint in civil case No. 45159 of
the Court of First Instance of Manila, with a prayer for a writ of
injunction against Fernando Enriquez, who filed a counter-complaint
with a counter-petition for a writ of injunction. Both petitions were
granted, a writ of preliminary injunction having been issued against
each of the said parties.

On April 6, 1937, Fernando
Enriquez filed before the Public Service Commission, in case No. 48802,
an application wherein he asked for the lifting of the restrictions
imposed in his certificates of public need and convenience issued in
cases Nos. 20450 and 22476. The Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. objected to said
application alleging that the filing thereof is in violation of the
agreement of November 9, 1929, above-quoted, and asked for the
dismissal of the said application.

The commission not having
acted on the said petition for dismissal, the Pampanga Bus Company,
Inc. filed in civil case No. 51550 of the Court of First Instance of
Manila, a complaint with a prayer for injunctive relief wherein It was
asked:

“Wherefore, it is respectfully
prayed that the defendant, his attorneys, agents and other
representatives, be restrained and enjoined from prosecuting his
application to remove restrictions presented to the Public Service
Commission in case No. 48802 find that he be required to withdraw and
retire the said application;

“And, further, that during the
pendency of this case a preliminary injunction be issued prohibiting
the defendant, his attorneys, agents and representatives from
prosecuting the said application before the Public Service Commission.

“Manila, P. I., July 12, 1937.”

The Court of First Instance of Manila denied the said petition for a
writ of injunction. Whereupon, the Pampanga Bus Company, Inc., tiled in
the same court, in civil case No. 45159, a complaint against Enriquez
wherein it was asked:

“Wherefore, it is
respectfully prayed that after proper hearing, the defendant b3
adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and be committed to prison until
he withdraws the application, or asks for the cancellation and
revocation of any authority that might be granted him in case No. 48802
of the Public Service Commission.

“Manila, P. I., August 12, 1937.”

After the hearing on the complaint and the presentations of the
evidence, the Court of First Instance of Manila, on November 27, 1937,
rendered a decision the dispositive part of which is above-quoted.

The principal question to decide in the present appeal is whether or
not the trial court erred in finding the defendant-appellant Fernando
Enriquez guilty of contempt for having violated the permanent writ of
injunction which had been issued against him whereby he was ordered to
comply with the conditions of the agreement Exhibit 1 of November 9,
1929, in the sense that he would not proceed with the application to
lift the restrictions imposed on his certificates.

In the decision rendered in the case of Pampanga Bus Company vs.
Enriquez (G. R. No. 46040), promulgated at the same time as this one,
we have said that “An agreement, entered into by the operator of &
public land transportation service with a rival in the same business,
whereby the former binds himself not to apply for the lifting of the
restrictions imposed on his certificates of public need and
convenience, is illegal and void, because it constitutes a waiver
against public interest of a right granted by law, and does not bind
the Public Service Commission.”

In view of the nullity,
because of illegality, of the agreement whose terms the Court of First
Instance of Manila would compel Fernando Enriquez to respect, and which
the latter did not respect, finding him guilty of contempt for
disobeying the injunction prohibiting him from proceeding with his
application to lift the aforesaid restrictions upon his aforesaid
certificates, both the said writ of injunction as well as the judgment
finding the herein defendant-appellant Fernando Enriquez guilty of
contempt for having violated the said writ, are erroneous and void
because they have for their purpose the enforcement of an illegal and,
therefore, void agreement.

In view of the foregoing
considerations, we are of the opinion and so hold that a decision
finding an operator of a land transportation company guilty of
contempt, for violating a permanent writ of injunction that is illegal
and void, is also illegal and void.

Wherefore, the appealed
decision is reversed, with the costs to the plaintiff and appellee
Pampanga Bus Company, Inc. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.