PEDRO HERMOGENES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. AUGUSTO M. AMORES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, AMOR RAMOS AND CIELO PUBLICO, RESPONDENTS.

The Court grants the petition for certiorari and prohibition and
therefore annuls respondent judge’s Orders of July 2, 1981 and September
17, 1981 which set aside his previous Order of April 10, 1981
dismissing as moot and academic the petition for certiorari filed with
his court^[1] by respondents
who were questioning an interlocutory order for judgment on the
pleadings issued by the City Court of Manila in the detainer cases filed
by petitioner against them and in effect revived the said case of
certiorari notwithstanding its already having become moot with the
subsequent judgment for their ejectment rendered by the city court, now
long final and executory due to respondents’ failure to appeal
therefrom.

The court of first instance case for certiorari had been filed on
November 24, 1980 by herein private respondents Amor Ramos and Cielo
Publico as petitioners in respondent judge’s court against herein
petitioner Pedro Hermogenes and City Judge of Manila Bienvenido
Salamanca as respondents therein,^[2]
seeking to set aside the order issued on January 8, 1980 by City Judge
Salamanca in the unlawful detainer cases filed on September 17, 1979 by
herein petitioner as plaintiff against private respondents as
defendants^[3] which granted
herein petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings therein on the
ground that respondents’ answers therein did not tender any issues of
fact.

After the parties had filed their respective pleadings with respondent
judge, the latter per his Order of March 4, 1981 denied herein
petitioner’s motion as respondent to dismiss the certiorari petition for
lack of basis and cause of action and ordered the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction restraining Judge Salamanca from deciding the
detainer cases and from any further proceedings therein upon the filing
of an injunction bond in the amount of P3,000.00 each by the two
respondents. Said respondents, however, never put up the required bonds
and the writ of preliminary injunction was never issued.

In the intervening period, Judge Salamanca of the City Court released
his decision of January 20, 1981 in the detainer cases, granting
petitioner’s complaint and ordering respondents-defendants therein to
vacate the premises and pay their rentals in arrears. This judgment in
the detainer cases became final and executory as respondents-defendants
took no appeal therefrom and on June 9, 1981, Judge Salamanca of the
City Court issued the corresponding writ of execution which has not been
enforced, however, due to respondent judge’s aforesaid Orders of July
2, 1981 and September 17, 1981 herein challenged.

Petitioner herein, after the issuance of the city court’s judgment for
ejectment of respondents-defendants, filed a motion for reconsideration
with respondent judge, asserting that with the city court’s judgment of
ejectment, the certiorari case with respondent judge had become moot and
academic since the action sought to be enjoined (the rendition of
judgment) had already been done and that respondents’ proper and
adequate remedy was a timely appeal from the judgment of ejectment (with
a supersedeas bond to cover the rentals in arrears and monthly deposits
of the current rentals). Respondent judge in his Order of April 10,
1981 sustained petitioner’s contention and accordingly reconsidered his
previous Order of March 4, 1981 and ordered the dismissal of the
petition before him, ruling correctly as follows:

“This has reference to respondents’ ‘Motion for Reconsideration’
dated March 18, 1981, which is based, among others, on the ground that
this case has become moot and academic, since on January 20, 1981, long
before this Court issued its Order of March 4, 1981, respondent judge
had already rendered a decision in Civil Cases Nos. 048362-63 CV,
entitled ‘Pedro Hermogenes, plaintiff, vs. Amor Ramos, defendant and
Cielo Publico, defendant.’

“Petitioners did not oppose the aforesaid motion for
reconsideration despite the fact that before the hearing thereof on
April 10, 1981, their counsel was furnished a copy thereof.

“After a careful consideration of the arguments advanced by
respondents, the Court finds the motion for reconsideration to be
meritorious. As shown by Annex I of said motion, the respondent court,
after issuing its disputed order dated January 8, 1980 granting the
motion for judgment on the pleadings, proceeded to decide said two cases
and on January 30, 1981 rendered a decision therein ordering herein
petitioners to vacate their respective leased premises and to pay
rentals in arrears.

“The present action for certiorari with preliminary injunction
seeks to annul the order of January 8, 1980 issued by the respondent
court and, pending the resolution of the petition, to restrain the
respondents from rendering a decision in said two cases. But the
reliefs here involved necessarily operate upon unperformed and
unexecuted acts. The act complained of has already been consummated.
It cannot be undone. Status quo ante cannot be restored. Injunction
may no longer be availed of (Remonte vs. Banto, 16 SCRA 257; DBP
Employees Union-Natu vs. Perez, 45 SCRA 180).

“Furthermore, said Civil Cases Nos. 048362-63 have already been
decided by respondent court. The present case wherein petitioners seek
to annul the order of respondent court granting the motion for judgment
on the pleadings thus becomes moot and academic. A court will not
determine moot questions or abstract propositions, nor express an
opinion in a case where no practical relief can be granted (Meralco
Workers Union vs. Yatco, 19 SCRA 177; Arsenio Luz vs. Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al., G. R. No. L-20585, September 30, 1963; Pan American
World Airways vs. PAA Employees’ Assn. and CIR, G.R. No. L-18345,
January 30, 1964).

“In consequence, the Court need not pass upon the validity of the
Order dated January 8, 1980. The same issue may be ventilated in an
appeal from the decision rendered in the two cases.

“WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated
March 18, 1981 filed by the respondents is hereby granted, and the Order
of this Court dated March 4, 1981 is set aside, and another order
issued dismissing the petition filed in the present case.

“SO ORDERED.”^[4]

On a counter-motion for reconsideration of said order of dismissal filed
by respondents, however, respondent judge in his Order of July 2, 1981
“flip-flopped” to his original Order of March 4, 1981 denying the
dismissal of the case before him erroneously finding merit in
respondents’ bare contention that respondent judge had in his original
Order of March 4, 1981 sustained their cause that their answers to the
detainer cases tendered issues of fact and should annul all the
proceedings therein “including the decision rendered by (Judge
Salamanca) which was a continuation of the act complained of.”

Hence, the present action after respondent judge’s denial on September
17, 1981 of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of his latest order
reinstating the case. After receipt of respondents’ comments, the Court
has dispensed with the filing of memoranda and renders this decision
finding merit in the petition.

The grounds for dismissal of the certiorari case questioning City Judge
Salamanca’s order for judgment on the pleadings as stated in respondent
judge’s above-quoted Order of April 10, 1981 are manifestly well-taken.
In the face of these cogent grounds, respondent judge’s reversal of his
order of dismissal of the case must necessarily be set aside. Judgment
for ejectment having been rendered by the City Court, the certiorari
case had clearly become moot, no injunction having been issued against
the rendition of the judgment due to respondents’ own fault and failure
to put up the required injunction bonds and the status quo ante could no
longer be restored as pointed out by respondent judge himself in his
said order. Assuming arguendo that City Judge Salamanca had erred in
issuing his order for judgment on the pleadings, this was but an error
of judgment, not of jurisdiction, and, therefore, not correctible by
certiorari. There is no question that the city court’s judgment was
duly rendered within its jurisdiction. Respondents’ proper and adequate
recourse after the rendition of the judgment of ejectment was a timely
appeal therefrom. They cannot substitute their lost appeal with the
action of certiorari that they had filed before judgment, seeking to
enjoin the rendition or issuance of any judgment, when their case had
failed and become moot due to their own failure to put up the required
injunction bonds.

Respondents do not deny petitioner’s plaint that “as of the end of
October, 1981, respondent Amor Ramos has back rentals of P4,200.00 and
respondent Cielo Publico in the amount of P5,000.00 at the rate of
P200.00 a month each.” The judgment of ejectment having long become
final and executory due to respondents’ failure to appeal therefrom,
respondent judge has no jurisdiction to review, alter or set aside the
same and to impede enforcement thereof, by virtue of his questioned
orders reviving the moot certiorari case in his court.

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered setting aside
respondent judge’s Orders of April 10, 1981 and September 17, 1981 in
Civil Case No. 136330 of his court and the temporary restraining order
issued by this Court on November 9, 1981 enjoining respondent judge from
further proceeding with the said case (except to dismiss the same) is
hereby made permanent. With costs against private respondents.

Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera, and Plana, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Docketed as Civil Case
No. 136330 of Branch XXIV of the CFI of Manila, entitled “Amor Ramos, et
al. vs. Hon. Bienvenido Salamanca as Judge of the City Court of Manila,
et al.”

^[2] Presiding Judge of Branch XIV of the City Court of Manila.

^[3] Docketed as Civil Cases
Nos. 048362 and 048363 entitled “Pedro Hermogenes vs. Amor Ramos” and
“Pedro Hermogenes vs. Cielo Publico,” respectively.

^[4] Rollo, page 52; emphasis supplied.