FEDERICO DECANO, petitioner-appellee,

vs.
ROMEO F. EDU, as Acting Commissioner of Land Transportation and CIPRIANO POSADAS, as
Acting Registrar, Land Transportation Commission, Dagupan City Agency, respondents

Facts: On September 12, 1962, the then Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications issued to
Federico Decano a temporary appointment to the position of janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office, Dagupan
City Agency, with compensation at the rate of P1,440.00 per annum. The appointment having been
approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, the said appointee assumed office served for almost four
years, or until Cipriano Posadas, as Acting Registrar of Land Transportation Commission (LTC), received a
telegram from Romeo F. Edu, in his then capacity as Acting Commissioner LTC, terminating Decano's
services effective as of the close of business on that day.

Petitioner filed at CFI a petition for "Mandamus and Injunction" claiming that the officials of the LTC acted
without power and in excess of authority in removing him from the service, and therefore praying of the
court to declare as null and void the order for his removal, to declare him entitled to the position, to
compel payment of his salary, and to enjoin respondents from ousting him from his position as janitor. A
writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the trial court.

While agreeing with respondent Edu that petitioner's appointment as janitor was temporary and therefore
the he could be ousted from his position at any time with or without cause, the lower court nevertheless
held that petitioner's removal was null and void upon the ground that under the law, the Commissioner
of Land Transportation was not the appointing authority insofar as the position of petitioner and an
other minor positions in his office were concerned; and thus lacking the power of appointment, said
respondent had neither the power of removal.

There is no question that petitioner could be removed from office at any time, for the acceptance of a
temporary appointment divests an appointee of the right to security of tenure against removal without
cause. He could therefore be removed at the pleasure of the appointing official.

But this is not to say that petitioner could be removed by the respondent since the latter was not the
official who appointed him but the Undersecretary acting for the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications nor had said respondent been granted by law the power of removal.

Per section 79(d) of the Revised Administrative Code, it is the department head, upon the
recommendation of the chief of the bureau or office concerned, who has the power to "appoint all
subordinate officers and employees whose appointment is not expressly vested by the law in the President
of the Philippines; and it is also the department head who may remove or punish such employees, except
as especially provided otherwise in the Civil Service Law." It appears that this provision has been precisely
applied in the appointment of petitioner, for upon the recommendation of the then Administrator of the
defunct Motor Vehicles Office, it was signed and issued by the Undersecretary of Public Works and
Communications.

It should be further noted that after petitioner's aforementioned appointment as janitor, RA No. 4136
known as the Transportation and Traffic Code created the Land Transportation Commission from which law
respondent Edu is supposed to have derived his powers as Commissioner. Perusal of this law however
shows nothing that vests in the said commissioner any power to appoint or to remove
employees in that new office. On the contrary, the placement of said commission under the
Department of Public Works and Communications is specifically provided.Hence, the power to appoint, and
the corollary power to remove, employees in the LTC thus remained with the Secretary of Public Works and
Communications. As generally the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, it follows that the
termination of petitioner's services by respondent Edu, who then had no power to appoint, was without
authority and therefore null and void.

Respondents arguedthe fact that the petition for mandamus with injunction was filed in the CFI of
Pangasinan while respondent Edu holds office in Quezon City which, they claim, is beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the said court.Acosta vs Alvendia:Sec. 44 (h) of the Judiciary Act, jointly or
alternatively with sec. 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and/or section 2 of Rule 58, ruled that a
court of first instance has no jurisdiction to require or control the execution of an act committed beyond
the limits of its territorial jurisdiction. The Acosta ruling of non-jurisdiction does not apply, however, to the
facts and circumstances at bar.

Here, petitioner seeks primarily the annulment of his dismissal, mandamus and injunction being then
merely coronary remedies to the main relief sought, and what is prayed to be enjoined, as in fact the trial
court did enjoin by preliminary injunction, is the implementation of the termination order against the
petitioner. It is true that the order of dismissal was issued by respondent Edu, but it was to be
implemented in Dagupan City by his subordinate officer. The order terminating the services of respondent
was a fait accompli and this he had done without authority. The injunction must be taken only to restrain
the implementation of respondent Edu's order by his co-respondent whose official station at Dagupan City
is within the territorial boundaries of the trial court's jurisdictional district.

In the case of Gonzales vs. Secretary of Public Workswherein the only question raised was whether the CFI
of Davao had jurisdiction to entertain a case the main purpose of which was to prevent the enforcement of
a decision of the Secretary of Public Works who was in Manila this Court held that, inasmuch as the acts
sought to be restrained were to be performed within the territorial boundaries of the province
of Davao, the CFI of Davao had jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and to issue the
necessary injunction order.

The national official stationed at Quezon City was impleaded as respondent in the Pangasinan court.Mr.
Edu was joined as respondent not for injunction purposes but mainly for testing the legality of
his dismissal order and his transmittal thereof to his co-respondent registrar at Dagupan City
to implement the same and terminate the services of the petitioner in Dagupan City.

As held by the Court in the 1965 case of Gayacao,where the issue is the correctness of a national official's
decision, the provincial courts have equal jurisdiction with the Manila courts to review decisions of national
officials, as otherwise litigants of ted means would practically be denied access to the courts of the
localities where they reside and where the questioned acts are sought to be enforced.

Justice J.B.L. Reyes stressed on behalf of the Court that: It is easy to see that if the contested ruling of the
court below is sustained, the same would result not only in hardship to litigants of limited means,

practically amounting to denial of access to the courts, but would also unnecessarily encumber the Manila
courts whose dockets are already over burdened.Actually, the power of provincial courts of first instance
to review administrative decisions of national officials has been consistently recognized.

As we have held time and again, imperfections of form and technicalities of procedure are to be
disregarded except where substantial rights would otherwise be prejudiced.

DAGUPAN ELECTRIC CORPORATION, ISABELITA L. LLAMES, PRIMO C. NARVAEZ and JOSE T.

APIGO,petitioners,
vs.
THE HONORABLE ERNANI CRUZ PANO, DISTRICT JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF
RIZAL, BRANCH XVIII and MC ADORE FINANCE AND INVESTMENT INCORPORATED, respondents.

Facts: MC Adore is a customer of the DECORP; That for failure on the part of private respondent MC Adore
to pay its September and October 1978 bills, the petitioner served a Notice of Disconnection on November
25, 1978 that unless payment is made within the usual period of 48 hours, the disconnection of service will
be made, hence on November 27, 1978 at 1: 15 p.m., after the expiration of the 48-hour period and no
payment was made, the petitioner corporation disconnected the electrical services to the former; That on
December 6, 1978, MC Adore filed a complaint for damages with writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
against the petitioner; That on the same date, the judge, issued ex parte Order for a preliminary
mandatory injunction, commanding the petitioner corporation as well as its agents in Dagupan City
to "restore immediately not later than 5-M p.m., December 7, 1978, the electrical power of the
MC Adore International Palace Hotel and resume the electrical supply of an the electrical services and
facilities to said hotel to enable plaintiff to operate it fully, under pain of contempt for violation thereof"
and in the same Order, the respondent judge set the application for preliminary mandatory injunction for
head on December 11, 1978 at 9:00 o'clock in the morning.

That for failure of the petitioner and its agents in Dagupan City to comply with the aforesaid preliminary
mandatory injunction, MC Adore filed a petition to declare defendant in contempt of court.

14. That on December 11, 1978, the date for hearing of the petitioner for preliminary
mandatory injunction, as set in the Order of December 6, 1978, the petitioner corporation
appeared and moved for the reconsideration of the Orders of December 6, 1978 and
December 8, 1978, Annexes "B' and "E", for want of jurisdiction, excess of jurisdiction or
grave abuse of discretion. A copy of the Motion for Reconsideration is hereto attached and
marked as Annex "F";
15. That the respondent judge in an order dated December 19, 1978, denied the petitioner's
motion for reconsideration, and further ordered the enforcement of the preliminary
mandatory injunction, specifically its order of December 6, 1978, Annex "B". A certified
xerox copy of said order is hereto attached and marked as Annex "G";
16. That the private respondent MC Adore, even before the Order of December 19, 1978,
was served upon the petitioner, has already mobilized the police authorities to arrest the
petitioners, and to enforce the preliminary mandatory injunction, which in effect constitutes
final judgment in the case even before the petitioners have answered the complaint in the
civil case before the respondent judge;
17. That in the light of the earlier actuations of the respondent judge, more particularly the
issuance of the Order of December 8, 1978, there is imminent danger that the petitioners
may be unlawfully deprived of their liberty, as well as their property, without due process of
law, to which there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law, as in fact, the respondent court has just issued the two other orders today
which are hereto attached and marked as Annexes 'h' and 'i' respectively.
18. That there is no appeal from the orders of December 6, 8, and 19, 1978, and there is no
other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
19. That pending the resolution of this petition only a writ of preliminary injunction issuing
from the Honorable Supreme Court can stop the enforcement of the void Orders complained
of thru subsequent orders of the respondent court designed to implement the void orders
complained of: ... " 1
In a resolution dated January 3, 1979, this Court, without giving due course to the petition, required the
respondents to comment thereon. 2
The private respondent, MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc., in its comment filed on March 7, 1979,
alleged:
Respondent MC ADORE is the owner and operator of the MC Adore International Palace Hotel
located at Dagupan City Philippines, which is a five-star hotel costing P75M in which the
government through the Development Bank of the Philippines has a 75% equity. In a
relatively short span of tune. the hotel has earned an excellent reputation in the tourism
industry, particularly in Dagupan City and its environs. On the other hand, respondent
(should be petitioner) DECORP is engaged in the business of supplying electricity in
Dagupan City BUT its principal office and executive address is at Suite 201 Delta Building
West Avenue, Quezon City. Its modus operandi or system of business operation is to buy
electric power from the National Power Corporation and retails this, in turn, to its customers
in Dagupan City, such as MC ADORE.
On or about October 29, 1977, respondent MC ADORE engaged the services of petitioner
DECORP to supply electric power to the aforementioned MC ADORE HOTEL by depositing
with petitioner DECORP the amount of P35,000.00 for consumption and the amount of
P25,000.00 for the extension line of 313.8 KV; that, however, the Polyphase meter a, the
said hotel and the transmission line from DECORP to the hotel were installed and paid for by
MC ADORE by its own expenses although the same were the obligation and duty of
petitioner DECORP; that, actually, it was only sometime in March, 1978, that plaintiff utilized
or consumed electric power during the process of testing the centralized air-conditioning
system of the hotel building until the end of April, 1978.

The electric bills for the months of March and April, 1978 in the amount of P7,221.00 and
P65,822.47, respectively, were duly and fully paid for by respondent MC ADORE to petitioner
DECORP.
Pursuant to MC ADORE's energy conservation program in line with governmental policy to
this effect, and because the testing period of the centralized air-conditioning system had
been successfully terminated, the electric consumption of MC ADORE for May, 1978
significantly lowered and its electric bill for said period amounted to only P35,707.85 which
MC ADORE likewise diligently and fully paid to the petitioners.
Sometime on or about July 10, 1978, petitioners sent its (sic) electric bills to respondent MC
ADORE in the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY & 70/100
(P25,380.70) PESOS covering the electrical consumption of the hotel for the period May 31
to June 30, 1978. Immediately after having sent to MC ADORE the said electric bill,
petitioners, by means of fraud and deceit, retrived said Bill and summarily wrote on the face
of the bill the word "ERRONEOUS"
To complicate matters and aggravate the injury to MC ADORE, petitioners on or about July
12, 1978, without the knowledge and consent of MC ADORE, surreptitiously removed the
electric meter of the hotel and made some adjustments and reinstalled the same.
MC ADORE strongly protested against petitioners' abovedescribed unlawful and malicious
acts but petitioners sent instead to respondent MC ADORE on July 26, 1978 an electric bill
unilaterally prepared by petitioners for the period May 31 to June 30, 1978 in the amount of
EIGHTY THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FORTY THREE & 62/100 (P80,243.62) PESOS thereby
changing without justifiable basis the original bill for P25,380.70.
In due course, MC ADORE filed with the Board of Power and Waterworks a complaint against
the petitioners dated August 12, 1978 and subsequently amended on August 21, 1978,
demanding redress from petitioners' illegal and highhanded acts, as a result of which the
Board of Power and Waterworks issued an Order dated August 18, 1978 directing petitioners
to "refrain from disconnecting electric service of MC ADORE International Palace,
Dagupan, pending resolution of Letter-Complaint dated August 12, 1978."
Instead of complying with the Restraining Order of the Board of Power and Waterworks,
petitioners sent to MC ADORE on November 25, 1978, a Saturday, at about 1:00 o'clock p.m.
when banking facilities were already closed, a notice of disconnection, and, two (2) days
later, or on November 27, 1978, petitioners disconnected electrical power to the
respondent's MC Adore Hotel, without any legal or factual basis and justification, thereby
causing to the respondent MC ADORE tremendous actual damages and losses in an amount
of not less than Five Million (P5,000,000.00) Pesos and such other sum representing moral,
exemplary and other damages that shall be proved at the trial, as duly claimed in the
Amended Complaint (Annex "A-1", Petition).
After the illegal and unlawful disconnection of the electrical powers of the hotel made by
petitioners as alleged hereinabove, the Board of Power and Waterworks required petitioners,
particularly petitioner Isabelita Llames, in a letter dated December 1, 1978, duly received on
the same date by petitioner DECORP, to re-connect immediately electric powers and service
to the hotel, but petitioners likewise did not obey this, and by said unwarranted
disobedience and open defiance rendered the Board of Power and waterworks helpless and
impotent to protect the rights of the respondents MC ADORE; hence, with all the more
reason, the present action before the lower court is respondent's effective remedy.
As a matter of fact, respondent MC ADORE had already invited foreign guests and local
patrons to the hotel's commitment to Penthouse 7 scheduled and to be televised on
December 9, 1978 for which respondent MC ADORE had already paid Penthouse 7 and that
several tickets had already been sold, and that several guests had already checked in to the
hotel but due to the complete power breakdown of the hotel brought about by petitioners'
abovedescribed malicious, unlawful and malevolent acts, the said guests had to transfer to
other hotels and/or residences and other expected guests and patrons were likewise forced

not to check-in to the hotel, thereby also causing additional tremendous losses and damages
to MC ADORE.
Respondent MC ADORE (Plaintiff in the court below), was thus constrained to file before the
court a quo a complaint for damages with writ of preliminary mandatory injunction docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-26502 (Annex A of Petition) which was later on amended so as to include
petitioner DECORP's executive officers Isabelita Llames, Primo Narvaez and Jose T. Apigo
(who are also petitioners in this case). per Amended Complaint filed with the lower court on
December 14, 1978, Annex A-I Petition. While the petitioners make reference to the orders of
December 6 and 8, 1978, Annexes B and E of the petition. petitioners however have
completely omitted the fact that on December 11, 1978, the lower court issued the following
order which we reproduce hereunder:
Considering the manifestation of the parties, and it appearing that defendant
corporation as well as its corporate officers strongly disputes the factual
allegations of the petition as it is claimed that petitioner is in arrears in the
payment of its electric bill in the amount of almost half a million pesos: and it
appearing further that this matter is also pending before the Board of Power,
the Court in the interest of justice suspends the enforcement of the warrant of
arrest issued on December 6, 1978, as well as its mandatory injunction
pending a full hearing on the facts leading to the disconnection of the
electrical facilities of petitioners. The Court orders the parties to submit
memoranda with supporting affidavits in support of their respective claims.
Let this, case be reset to December 15, 1978, at 10:00 o'clock in the morning.
SO ORDERED.
The above-quoted Order shows that the injunction incident was fully discussed and
ventilated before the lower court and that the parties submitted exhaustive memoranda and
affidavits in support of their respective claims, after which full hearing the lower court issued
its order of December 19, 1978, Annex G Petition. Emphasis is made on the Order of
December 11, 1978 to highlight the fact that the subsequent order of December 19, 1978,
now sought to be reviewed by the petitioners, was issued by the lower court after fun
hearing on the controversy. 3
This Court issued a resolution dated March 14, 1979 which reads:
L-49520 (Dagupan Electric Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Ernani Cruz-Patio, et al.).
Considering the allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction as well as private respondents' comment thereon, the
Court Resolved: (a) TO GIVE DUE COURSE to the petition; and (b) to REQUIRE (1) the
petitioners to deposit P80.40 for costs and clerk's commission within five (5) days from
notice hereof; and (2) both parties submit simultaneous memoranda within thirty (30) days
from notice hereof. As prayed for, let a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER issue restraining
respondents from enforcing or continuing to enforce the orders of December 6, 1978 and
December 12, 1978 all issued in Civil Case No. Q-26502, entitled "MC Adore Finance &
Investment, Inc., Plaintiff, versus, Dagupan Electric Corp., Defendant' of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII at Quezon City, unless within five (5) days from notice,
respondent (1) files a counter bond of P225,000.00 to cover payment of its account in
arrears with petitioner, stated by petitioner to be in the sum of P466,099.15; (2) shows that
it has made regular payment to petitioner and continues to make regular monthly payments
of its monthly electrical consumption after reconnection as per the monthly bills presented
by petitioner." 4
On March 21, 1979 the private respondent manifested that it had filed a counterbond of P225,000.00 and
that since the reconnection of electrical power was effected on December 22, 1978 it had depositing with
the lower court the sum of P35,000.00 beginning January 1979 in compliance with the order of said court
of December 19, 1979. 5

In a motion filed on April 10, 1979 by the petitioner, it is alleged that on March 29, 1979 the Dagupan
Electric Corporation sent a letter to the private respondent requesting payment of its monthly bills from
December 22, 1978 up to February 1979; that the said letter was received by the private respondent on
March 26, 1979; and that despite the lapse of 12 days since the private respondent had received the
billings of the Dagupan Electric Corporation, no payment had been made; and prayed that its Court
"declare its temporary restraining order effective" so that the petitioner may act accordingly. 6
The private respondent MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. opposed the motion of the petitioners
dated April 10, 1979 and asked that the temporary restraining order of March 14, 1979, in so far as it
orders MC Adore to make regular monthly payments to the petitioners of the monthly electrical
consumption after reconnection "as per the monthly bills presented by petitioners" be lifted and/or set
aside inasmuch as the meter had not yet been tested and sealed by the Board of Power. 7
On May 12, 1979, the petitioners filed an urgent supplemental motion reiterating their prayer that they be
allowed to redisconnect the electric power from the hotel of the respondent MC Adore Finance and
Investment, Inc. on the ground that said respondent had failed and refused to pay its electric power
consumption based on the actual meter readings as directed by this Court. 8
This Court issued on May 18, 197 9 the following resolution:
L-49520 (Dagupan Electric Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Ernani Cruz Patio, etc., et al.) Upon
consideration of petitioners' manifestation and motion with prayer that the Court's
temporary restraining order of March 14, 1979 be declared effective, and respondent
McAdore Finance and Investment, Inc.'s opposition thereto as well as petitioners'
manifestation and urgent supplemental motion praying that they be allowed to redisconnect
electric power from the premises of said respondent in implementation of said restraining
order, the Court Resolved to GRANT petitioners' prayer declaring effective the Temporary
Restraining Order of March 14, 1979 and allowing petitioners to disconnect the electric
power at the premises of respondent if within ten (10) days from notice hereof, the total
amount due from said respondent to petitioner corporation by way of payment of
respondent's electric consumption after reconnection (on December 22, 1978) as per the
monthly bills presented by petitioner is not fully paid.
The Court expressly laid down two (2) conditions for the suspension of the effectivity of the
temporary restraining order under its resolution of March 14, 1979, namely: (a) the filing of a
counterbond of P225,000.00 to cover payment of respondent's account in with petitioner.,
stated by petitioner to be in the sum of P466,099.15; and (b) that respondent show that 'it
has made regular payment to petitioner and continues to make regular monthly payments of
its monthly electric consumption after reconnection as per the monthly bills presented by
petitioner.' And it in behooves respondent after availing of said conditions for suspension of
the restraining order to now renege on making such monthly payments and belatedly ask for
the setting aside of such condition.
The urgent motions of petitioners for first and second extensions totalling thirty (30) days
from April 22, 1979 within which to file memorandum, are GRANTED.
The letter dated April 22, 1979 of Ms. Modesta R. Sabeniano, President and Chairlady of the
Board of McAdore International Palace, addressed to Acting Chief Justice Enrique M.
Fernando, in amplification of her telegrams requesting among others, for the early
disposition of this case, and said respondent McAdore International Palace's memorandum in
this case, are NOTED. 9
The private respondent, MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc., filed on May 24, 1979 an urgent motion to
hold in abeyance compliance with the second portion of the resolution dated March 16, 1979 in relation to
the resolution dated May 21, 1979 (should be May 18, 1979) on the ground that the current monthly bills
being presented by the petitioner, Dagupan Electric Corporation, to private respondent are the result of
readings taken from the electric meter which was tampered and asked that it be allowed to continue
depositing the regular payment in the amount of P35,000.00 per month with the respondent court until
such time that the issue on the tampered meter and questionable bins shall have been finally resolved. 10

On May 28, 1979, this Court issued the following resolution:

L-49520 (Dagupan Electric Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Ernani Cruz-Patio, et al.) The
motion of Attys. Teves, Campos, Hernandez, and Lim for leave to withdraw as counsel for
respondent McAdore Finance and Investment, Incorporated, and the urgent motion of
petitioner for an extension of ten (10) days from May 22, 1979 within which to file
memorandum and reply, are GRANTED. Considering respondent's urgent motion to hold in
abeyance compliance with the second portion of the resolution of March 16, 1979 in relation
to the resolution of May 21, 1979, the Court Resolve to REQUIRE petitioner (a) to COMMENT
thereon; and (b) to SUBMIT to this Court, a month by month itemization of the accrued
electric bills of respondent from December 22, 1978 (date of reconnection) to April 1979
stated by petitioner to total P378,669.49 in its manifestation and urgent supplemental
motion of May 11, 1979 and whether such bills were based on the electric meter readings or
some other mode of computation, both within five (5) days from notice hereof.
Pending receipt of such comment and until further orders of this Court, implementation of
the May 18, 1979 resolution allowing petitioner to disconnect the electric power in
respondent's premises if the aforesaid accrued monthly bills since reconnection are not fully
paid, shall be HELD in abeyance. Meanwhile, in order to avoid future disputes as to the
monthly readings taken from the allegedly tampered meter, the Court DIRECTS both parties
or either of them to forthwith make representations with the Board of Power and Waterworks
(1) to immediately REPLACE the electric meter presently installed in respondent's premises
with a new sealed one at respondent's expense; and (2) to CONDUCT with prior notice to
and in the presence of both parties and/or their duly authorized representatives, a check-up
and verification of the present electric meter upon its removal and replacement with a new
meter as to whether or not it has been tampered with, and to REPORT to this Court the
action taken hereon and the results within five (5) days from notice. 11
The private respondent, MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc., manifested on June 5, 1979 that on June I
and 2, 1979, a thorough check-up and investigation of the then existing power meter was conducted after
which a new sealed meter was installed in replacement of the old one by a group composed of duly
authorized representatives of the petitioner, Dagupan Electric Corporation, and the private respondent,
together with the authorized representatives of the Board of Power.
Pursuant to this Court's resolution of May 28, 1979, the Acting Executive Director and the Office-In-Charge
of the Board of Power and Waterworks submitted on June 8, 1979 its report containing the following
remarks:
1. The terminal covers of the potential and current transformers were sealed by the
engineers of the Dagupan Electric Corporation after the wiring connections from the
secondary terminals of the potential and current transformers to the terminals of the
existing meter were traced and checked.
2. The meter which was placed, after it was tested and sealed by the Board of Power
Technician, was placed in a carton box and sealed with masking tape. Signatures of
representatives of both parties and the Board were made and appears on the masking tape.
The said meter is in the custody of MC Adore International Palace.
3. After the newly installed meter was checked for the correct rotation of the meter disc, the
representatives of the Dagupan Electric Corporation sealed the meter terminal cover and KW
demand resetting lever and padlocked the meter box. This was done in the presence of the
engineer of the MC Adore International Palace and representatives of the Board.
4. The connection of the NEW meter is in accordance with the G.E guide except for the
consideration of line 1 (L1) and line 3 (L3) in diagram were interchanged. By redrawing and
analyzing the circuit, the results conforms with the G.E. guide for installing watthour meters.
On June 13, 1979, the petitioners filed the following manifestation:

1. The petitioners have secured a copy of the Report and Findings of the Committee
constituted by the Board of Power BOP composed of the BOP Chief Utilities Regulation
Engineer Domingo C. Villanueva, BOP Electrical Engineer Margarito C. Gatbonton, and BOP
Supervising Precision Instrument Technician Romeo R. Pulanco in accordance with the
Resolution dated 28 May 1979 of this Honorable Tribunal and submit the said attached copy
of the Report and Findings in compliance with the said Resolution
2. From the said Report and Findings, it can be seen that the meter then installed (before
replacement) was "within the limits of tolerance of plus or minus 3% allowed by the Board"
(paragraph 2, page 2 of Report and Findings), meaning the meter then installed, upon which
the electric billings sent by petitioner DECORP to private respondent was based, reflected
the actual and true electric power consumption of the Hotel.
3. It should be noted also that the new wiring connection of the meter now presently
installed. which is in accordance with the Guide for Installing General Electric watthour
Meters (a wiring con. section which is also correct and acceptable like the wiring connection
"as found") was upon the instance of the Electric Engineer of private respondent, Engr.
Roque A. Barrientos (paragraph 4, page 2, of Report and Findings), so that private
respondent would really not have any reason whatsoever for refusing to pay the future
electric bills that will be sent by petitioner DECORP.
This Court issued on June 22, 1979 the following resolution:
In L-49520 (Dagupan Electric Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Ernani Cruz-Pano, etc. et al.), the
Court Resolved: (a) to NOTE (1) petitioners' (1-a) comment on respondents' urgent motion
and amended urgent resolution of March 16, 1979; (2-a) manifestation and compliance with
the resolution of May 28, 1979; (3-a) manifestation and motion stating that they have made
representations with the Board of Power and Waterworks in connection with the resolution of
May 28, 1979; and (4-a) manifestation stating that they have already secured a copy of the
report and findings of the committee constituted by the said Board of Power and
Waterworks; (2) private respondent MC Adore Finance & Investment, Inc.'s manifestation
and motion alleging compliance with the resolution of May 28, 1979; (3) the compliance by
the Officer-in-charge of the Board of Power and waterworks with the resolution of May 28,
1979; and (4) the appearance of Atty. Teodoro P. Regino as counsel for private respondent
McAdore Finance & Investment, Inc.; and (b) both petitioners and respondents having filed
their respective memoranda, to declare this case SUBMITTED for decision.
The petitioners filed a motion on June 20, 1979 to cite Modesta Sabeniano for contempt for having signed
the manifestation and motion dated June 4, 1979 for MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. when she is
not a member of the bar and having unlawfully assumed to be a lawyer, thereby committing an act
constituting contempt of court and reiterating that the petitioners be allowed to enforce the temporary
restraining order.
The private respondent, MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc., in turn, filed on June 25, 1979 a petition to
cite for contempt DECORP General Manager Jose T. Apigo for having instituted a criminal complaint for
theft in the Office of the City Fiscal of Dagupan City against Modesto R. Sabeniano for allegedly and
unlawfully tampering with the MC Adore hotel's electric meter by interchanging the positions of the current
leads at the terminal in the transformers thereby registering less electric current used by the hotel than
actually consumed therein.
The petitioners filed on June 25, 1979 a manifestation of compliance and urgent motion stating that they
had earlier registered their comment to the Amended Urgent Motion to Hold in Abeyance Compliance with
the Second Portion of the Resolution dated March 16, 1979 by way of their comment on the private
respondent's urgent motion dated May 31, 1979 and praying that the amended urgent motion filed by the
private respondent be denied and that the petitioners be allowed to enforce the temporary restraining
order contained in the resolution dated March 16, 1979.
This Court issued a resolution dated July 6, 1979 which reads:

In L-49520 (Dagupan Electric Corporation, et al. vs. Hon. Ernani Cruz-Pano, etc., et al.), the
Court Resolved to DEFER action on petitioners' counter-manifestation and motion to strike
out private respondent's manifestation and motion to cite Modesto Sabeniano for contempt
and their manifestation of compliance with urgent motion, and respondent MC Adore Finance
& Investment, Inc.'s petition for contempt and opposition to petitioners' aforesaid motion to
strike out and to cite Ms. Sabeniano for contempt, until decision on the merit of this case.
On July 19, 1979, the petitioners filed a manifestation and supplemental motion to implement the
temporary restraining order alleging that on July 3, 1979, the petitioner Dagupan Electric Corporation sent
a billing letter to McAdore Finance and Investment, Inc. transmitting therewith the electric bill for private
respondent's power consumption during the month of June 1979 in the amount of P90,269.26; that the
said billing for June 1979 was based on a reading of the new electric meter which was installed at private
respondent's hotel on June 2, 1979 by the Board of Power and Waterworks in the presence of the
representatives of the parties in compliance with the resolution of this Court dated May 28, 1979; that
notwithstanding the installation of the new meter and the rewiring of the connections in the meter system
in private respondent's hotel which erased all doubts as to the correctness of the billings of DECORP
against, the private respondent in accordance with the said resolution of this Court dated May 28, 1979,
the private respondent has continuously refused to pay its bills and prayed that the temporary restraining
order dated May 14, 1979 be ordered implemented so that the petitioners may proceed to disconnect the
electric power from private respondent's hotel.
The private respondent, MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc., opposed the manifestation and
supplemental motion to implement temporary restraining order on the ground that to grant at this stage
the petitioners' several motions to implement the temporary restraining order so as to snow them to
disconnect the electric power from the private respondent's hotel "would amount not only to a judgment
but also to an order of execution thereof before the rights between the parties are finally and irrevocably
determined."
Stripped of verbiage unwarranted conclusions and irrelevant matters, the pertinent facts are that the
petitioner, Dagupan Electric Corporation DECORP is a domestic corporation with principal office address at
Delta Building, West Avenue, Quezon City; that pursuant to its business, it was granted the requisite
franchise to operate and maintain electric services in the City of Dagupan and other towns in Pangasinan;
that it has its principal office in Quezon City although its generating plant is located in Barrio San Miguel,
Calasiao, Pangasinan; that the private respondent, MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc., is also a
domestic corporation with office at 148 N. Domingo, Cubao, Quezon City; that said private respondent
owns and operates the MC Adore International Palace Hotel at Dagupan City; that on February 2, 1978, the
private respondent, MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc., executed a contract for power service with the
petitioner DECORP; that the petitioner DECORP rendered full power service upon the premises of the hotel
in March 19, 1978; that acting in the belief that the June 1978 bill in the amount of 1'25,380.70 was
erroneous, the petitioner DECORP recalled the same and a corrected bill in the amount of P80,243.62 was
sent to the private respondent; that the private respondent failed and refused to pay the aforesaid bill;
that this prompted DECORP to issue on August 18, 1978 the usual 18-hours notice of disconnection in
accordance with the terms of the contract executed between the parties; that thereafter, the private
respondent complained with the Board of Power and Waterworks that the DECORP tampered with its
electric meters; that upon its own representation, the private respondent was able to secure a telegram
order issued by the Board of Power and Waterworks restraining DECORP from disconnecting power services
from the premises of the hotel pending resolution of the complaint; that the parties allegedly negotiated a
settlement and both arrived at an agreement before the Board wherein the private respondent undertook
to pay the accrued bills of June and July in the amount of P76,058.38 and P77,609.70, respectively, and to
pay the subsequent bills as they fall due; that the private respondent allegedly refused to pay the accrued
bills; that in view thereof, the petitioner DECORP was constrained anew to serve the private respondent
the 48-hour notice of disconnection for its refusal to pay the accrued bills; that consequently, on November
27, 1978 after forty-eight hours from notice had lapsed, the DECORP disconnected the power from the
premises of the hotel; that the private respondent filed a complaint with a prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction on December 6, 1978 before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Quezon City; that
on the same day, December 6, 1978, the presiding judge, Hon. Ernani Cruz-Pano, issued an order granting
the issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction commanding the petitioner DECORP and its agents to
"restore immediately not later than 5:00 P.M., December 7, 1978, the electrical power of the McAdore
International Palace Hotel and resume the electrical supplies of all the electrical services and facilities to
said hotel to enable the plaintiff to operate it fully, under pain of contempt for violation thereof that on

December 8, 1978, the private respondent filed a petition to declare the petitioners in contempt of court;
that on December 8, 1978, the respondent judge issued an order, the pertinent portion of which reads:
In today's hearing nobody appeared for defendant Dagupan Electric Corporation, the Court
finds that pursuant to Sec. 3, Rules of Court and without finally resolving whether
defendant's corporate officers may be adjudged in contempt, the Court finds that their
corporate officers, except Atty. Leonardo Baro may be held in custody until the order is
complied, as the Court finds no valid justification for this contumacious disobedience.
Defendant Corporation has its head offices in Dagupan City, the plant can only act upon
orders of the Quezon City head office. The Court pursuant to Sec. 3, Rule 71, Rules of Court
orders the arrest and confinement of Isabelita Llames. president of defendant corporation,
Primo Narvaez, General Manager of defendant corporation, and Jose Apigo if by 12:00
o'clock midnight, December 8, 1978 the mandatory injunction is not complied with, and for
detention to continue until the order is complied with. The Commanding General of the
Philippine Constabulary and the Provincial Commander of the Philippine Constabulary in
Pangasinan are ordered to enforce this order if by midnight December 8, 1978 the
mandatory injunction is not complied with. This order to arrest is deemed cancelled if the
restoration is made within the aforesaid period, without prejudice to the Court considering
whether the respondent may be adjudged guilty of contempt correspondingly punished.
that on December 11, 1978, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the questioned orders
dated December 6, 1978 and December 8, 1978 on jurisdictional ground; that on December 19, 1978, the
respondent judge issued an order denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration and ordering the
enforcement of the questioned order dated December 6, 1978; and that, however, electric power on the
premises of the hotel was not restored until December 22, 1978.
The main issue is whether or not the Court of First Instance of Rizal. Branch XVIII at Quezon City, has
jurisdiction over Civil Case No. Q-26502 entitled "MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. vs. Dagupan
Electric Corporation, et al." and, as a corollary issue, whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering the Dagupan Electric
Corporation. to restore the connection of the electric power to the hotel in Dagupan City owned and
operated by MC Adore Finance and Investment Corporation.
The pertinent provision of the Judiciary Act of 1948 reads:
Sec. 44. Original jurisdiction. Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
(h) Said court and their judges, or any of them, shall have the power to issue writ of
injunction,mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto and habeas corpus in their
respective provinces and districts, in the manner provided in the Rules of Court.
The petitioners contend that the Court of First Instance of Rizal at Quezon City has no jurisdiction over the
case because the act of disconnecting the power to the hotel of the MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc.
took place in Dagupan City, outside the Province of Rizal and Quezon City.
The respondents submit that the act of disconnection was the result of an order issued by the Dagupan
Electric Corporation from its business office in Quezon City.
The Court of First Instance of Rizal at Quezon City has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. Q-26502.
The Dagupan Electric Corporation has its principal office in Quezon City where the business of the
corporation is managed by the Board of Directors. Decisions of the said corporation are made in Quezon
City. The employees of the Dagupan Electric Corporation in Dagupan City merely carry out the orders
issued by the officials of said corporation in Quezon City. Hence the acts sought to be restrained are being
committed in Quezon City.

The respondent judge did not commit a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the questioned order directing
the Dagupan Electric Corporation to restore the connection of the electric power to the hotel owned by MC
Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. The record shows that the respondent judge conducted hearings and
gave the parties full opportunity to present their evidence before issuing the orders sought to be set aside.
The questioned order dated December 19, 1978 which is self-explanatory reads:
This case involves the disconnection of the electrical power of plaintiff's MC Adore
International Palace Hotel in Dagupan by Defendant Dagupan Electric Corporation on
November 27, 1978. Upon filing of the Complaint on December 6, 1978 and in view of the
representation of plaintiff that it had commitments to foreign and local patrons, and that it is
unable to operate the hotel, this Court issued mandatory injunction on December 6, 1978
and set the case for hearing on December 11, 1978 at 9:00 o'clock.
The mandatory injunction was not enforced as executive officials of Dagupan Electric Co.
could not located. At the hearing of December I 1, i 978, in view of defendant's
representation that plaintiff was in arrears in electric bills for almost half a million pesos, this
Court suspended enforcement of the writ pending a fun hearing. The hearing was reset for
December 15, 1978 on which date the Court (received) the evidence and (heard the)
arguments of the parties.
From the evidence and arguments adduced by parties, it is undisputed that the controversy
between the parties arose from the act of defendant in changing the billing of plaintiff for
June 1978 from P25,380.70 to P80,243.62. Dagupan sent the original bill for P25,380.70 on
July 10, 1978; recalled the bill and changed the billing to P80,243.62, after Dagupan
personnel found a reversal of the polarity of the wiring of MC Adore. The new billing was
based on the average consumption of the hotel from July 12 to July 17, 1978.
It is not contested that the electric meter installed on the premises was intact and no
tampering thereon was made. The unpaid bills as of November is only P138,000.00, and not
half a million, as earlier manifested.
Dagupan's action in disconnecting electric service is apparently premised at its finding that
the electric meter did not faithfully reflect the power consumption for June 1978; on the
other hand, plaintiff suspects that adjustments were made by Dagupan which resulted in an
increased consumption reading. It is the stance of plaintiff that its power consumption was
reduced because of an energy conservation program; that the reading for the first month of
operation was quite high because of the testing made on its central airconditioning system.
There is clearly a dispute as to the correct power consumption of plaintiff and it does not
appear to be fair that defendant should by unilateral action terminate its services to plaintiff
in the absence of any clear and definite finding that a reversal of the polarity of the hotel
wirings had caused an abnormal drop in meter reading. Defendant appears to rely heavily on
the report of Margarito Gatbonton, Utilities Regulation Engineer of the Board of Power, dated
September 4, 1978. This report however has not yet been approved by the Board of Power.
It would also be prejudicial to the public interest that operation of plaintiff's hotel worth 75
million pesos, in which the Development Bank of the Philippines has an exposure of almost
57 million (75%) should be paralyzed because of this dispute.
On the question of jurisdiction, both parties are residents of Quezon City, as they have their
principal offices in Quezon City. The disconnection order was initiated and had its life and
source in Quezon City. The mandatory injunction is addressed to the corporation in Quezon
City. The Dagupan plant acts only upon order of its officers in Quezon City.
The cases cited by defendant are in opposite In Tan (64 SCRA 364) the injunctive order was
addressed to officials with official residence outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of
First Instance of Pampanga. Moreover, in the cases where the Supreme Court ruled that the
district court has improperly issued the writ (Palanan 22 SCRA 1186; Ruiz, 38 SCRA 559,
Cudiamat 22 SCRA 695, and Tan, 64 SCRA 364) no private right of ownership was involved.

Rather they involved licenses or privileges granted by government agencies with offices
located beyond the district court's territorial jurisdiction. Where private rights are involved
the Supreme Court had upheld the issuance of the writ. In Gonzales vs. Secretary of Public
Works and Communications, (18 SCRA 297) the injunction against the Secretary of Public
Works who had his office in Manila, issued by the Court of First Instance of Davao, was
upheld. This involved the demolition of a dam in Davao.
Here we have a case of the interference of plaintiff's property rights, with situs in Quezon
City by a corporation situs with situs in Quezon City. The exercise of will by defendant had its
origin in Quezon City.
This Court can grant relief when that exercise of will causes irreparable prejudice as in the
instant case.
The Court therefore finds the Motion for Reconsideration to without merit and denies the
same.
The writ of mandatory injunction issued by this Court on December 6, 1978 is reinstated and
its immediate enforcement is ordered.
The plaintiff is however ordered to deposit with the Court the sum of P100,000.00
representing more or less one-half of the unpaid billings as of November 1978, and
thereafter to deposit monthly beginning January 1979 P35,000.00 for delivery to defendant.
It is likewise ordered to post additional bond of P150,000.00. Compliance by plaintiff must be
made not later than Friday, December 22, 1978.
Let copies of this Order be served upon the parties and their respective counsel by the
Sheriffs of Quezon City and Dagupan City.
SO ORDERED.

12

It is clear from the foregoing order that the respondent judge did not act capriciously or whimsically in
ordering the Dagupan Electric Corporation to restore the connection of the electric power to the hotel in
Dagupan City of the MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc..
The various incidents regarding the correctness of the monthly bill presented by the Dagupan Electric
Corporation to the MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. can be better heard and resolved by the
respondent judge. Meanwhile, it appearing that a tested meter has been installed on June 2, 1979 by the
Board of Power and Waterworks in the premises of the hotel the MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. is
directed anew to pay the monthly bills presented by the Dagupan Electric Corporation beginning June
1979. If the MC Adore finance and Investment, Inc. fails to do so within ten (10) days from notice of this
decision, the Dagupan Electric Corporation s authorized to disconnect the electric power from the hotel
The correct amounts due prior to June 1979 shall be resolved by the respondent judge after hearing the
parties.
The motion for contempt against Modesto Sabeniano and the motion for contempt against Jose T. Apigo
are both denied for lack of merit.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is are by dismissed but the MC Adore Finance and
Investment. Inc. is directed to pay the monthly bills as presented by the Dagupan Electric Corporation from
June 1979. If the said MC Adore Finance and Investment, Inc. fails to do so within ten (10) days from notice
hereof, the Dagupan Electric Corporation may disconnect the electric owner from the MC Adore
International Palace Hotel at Dagupan City. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. (COCLAI), Macabalan, Cagayan
de Oro City, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and the NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY
(NHA), respondents.
Facts:
This is a petition to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, dated February 28, 1991, in C.A.
G.R. SP No. 23080, which reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court ofCagayan de Oro City,
Branch 25, dated November 17, 1988.
The antecedent facts as found by the Court of Appeals are as follows:
The land subject of the dispute is Lot No. 1982 of Cad. 237 consisting of about 12.82 hectares located
at Cagayan de Oro City. Said parcel of land was formerly a timberland identified as Block No. F, L.C. Project
No. 8 of the Bureau of Forestry. On September 4, 1956, the Bureau of Forestry released the said land as
alienable and disposable public land.
Subsequently, on January 29, 1964, the Bureau of Lands issued Survey Authority No. 16-64 granting
authority to the COCLAI to survey the land in question for purposes of subdivision into residential lots. By
virtue of said authority, the COCLAI engaged the services of a geodetic engineer to prepare the subdivision
survey which was submitted to the Bureau of Lands. OnMarch 31, 1964, the Bureau of Lands, after
conducting an ocular survey, required the COCLAI, in behalf of its members, to file a miscellaneous Sales
Application over the land in question which the latter did on August 13, 1970. The said sales application
was however held in abeyance by the Bureau of Lands pending the final outcome of the civil case filed by
the Republic of the Philippines and the City of Cagayan de Oro against Benedicta Macabebe Salcedo, et al.
for the annulment of Original Certificate of Title No. 0-257 covering the land in question then pending
before the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. L-41115. In said case, the COCLAI was a party-intervenor.
Meanwhile, on August 22, 1979, the NHA filed an expropriation proceeding before the former Court of
First Instance of Misamis Oriental at Cagayan de Oro City docketed as Civil Case No. 6806 to acquire
Cadastral Lot No. 1982, including the land involved in this case, located at Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City
with an area of 224,554 square meters which was then covered by OCT No. 0-257. In said case, the COCLAI
intervened claiming that instead of being paid the amount of P300,000.00, they prefer to acquire
residential lots in any housing area of NHA. Upon learning of the pending suit before the Supreme Court
(G.R. No. L-41115) involving the annulment of the title over the same land, the NHA sought the suspension
of the expropriation proceedings.
On September 11, 1982, the Supreme Court finally resolved G.R. No. L-41115 annulling OCT No. 0-257
and declaring the land covered thereby as public land.
On October 8, 1982, the Solicitor General furnished the Bureau of Lands, Manila, with a copy of the
Supreme Court decision prompting the Director of the Bureau of Lands to order the District Land Officer in
Cagayan de Oro City to take appropriate action for inventory of each and every portion of Cadastral Lot No.
1982. In response thereto, the Regional Land Director of Region 10 informed the Director of Lands that the
members of COCLAI were occupying portions of the said lot by virtue of the Survey Authority issued
on March 19, 1964 and the COCLAIs subdivision survey had already been submitted to the Central Office
for verification and approval but was held in abeyance.
On May 10, 1983, the President of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. 2292 reserving the entire
area of Cadastral Lot No. 1982 for the Slum Improvement and Resettlement (SIR) Project to be
implemented by the NHA. Under the said proclamation, the NHA was granted the authority to develop,
administer and dispose of Lot No. 1982 located at Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, in accordance with the
guidelines of the Slum Improvement and Resettlement Program and the approved development plan of the
area.
On May 19, 1983, the Bureau of Lands, through its Regional Director, issued an order rejecting the
subdivision survey previously submitted by the COCLAI.
Sometime in November, 1986, the NHA, through its agents, Virgilio Dacalos and Engr. Vicente
Generalao, the area manager and project engineer, respectively with the help of the policemen and
claiming authority under P.D. 1472, demolished the structures erected by the COCLAI members. This action
prompted the COCLAI to file a forcible entry and damages case against the NHA employees and police
officers with the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Cagayan de Oro City docketed as Civil Case No.
11204.
After due hearing, the MTCC on November 17, 1988 rendered judgment ordering the defendants in
Civil Case No. 11204 to restore the COCLAI members to their respective actual possession of the portions
of Lot No. 1982 but the court dismissed plaintiffs claim for damages. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court in
Cagayan de Oro City affirmed the decision of the lower court. Thereafter, the prevailing party, the COCLAI
members, moved for the issuance of a writ of execution before the MTCC on July 23,1990.
While Civil Case No. 11204 was pending before the courts, the President of the Philippines issued on
July 1, 1988 Special Patent No. 3551 covering the entire area of Cadastral Lot No. 1982, and by virtue

thereof, the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City issued on January 3, 1990 an Original Certificate of
Title No. P-3324 in the name of NHA.
Thus, on July 24, 1990, a day after the COCLAI moved for the execution of the judgment in Civil Case
No. 11204, the NHA filed a complaint for Quieting of Title with Application for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction against the COCLAI and its president, Pablo Solomon, as well as the City Sheriff, which was
docketed as Civil Case No. 90-337. Said case was assigned to Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court in
Cagayan de Oro City, presided over by Hon. Noli T. Catli. In its complaint, plaintiff NHA alleged:
4) That defendant landless association laid claim of a portion of Lot No. 1982 aforestated alleging that they
are entitled to possession thereof and, in fact, filed a complaint for Forcible Entry against certain Virgilio
Decalos, Vicente Generalao, and four (4) others, plaintiff herein not being made a party thereto, which
case is docketed as Civil Case No. 11204 assigned to Branch 3 of the Municipal Trial Court of Cagayan de
Oro City;
5) That on November 18, 1988 defendant landless association obtained a favorable decision from MTCC
Branch 3;
6) That pursuant to the ruling of the Supreme Court in City of Bacolod et al. vs. Hon. Enriquez et al., G.R.
No L-9773, May 29, 1957 the said decision could not be enforced against plaintiff herein as it was not a
party to the said case;
7) That the claim of defendant landless association for possession of a portion of said Lot No. 1982,
subject-matter hereof, is predicated or anchored upon the fact that said lot was declared a public land;
8) That on January 3, 1990, however, plaintiff National Housing Authority became the absolute owner of
said Lot No. 1982, now the site of the Slum Improvement and Resettlement Project, by virtue of Special
Patent No. 3551 issued by Her Excellency, the President of the Philippines, for which Original Certificate of
Title No. P-3324 was issued in its name; x x x
9) That the claim of defendant landless association has created a cloud on plaintiffs title to Lot No. 1982
aforementioned, which claim is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective
and unenforceable and prejudicial to plaintiffs title, the land, subject-matter hereof, having ceased to be a
public land;
10) That defendants Solomon, et al. threatened or are about to enforce the decision in said Civil Case No.
11204 in violation of plaintiffs rights respecting the subject of the action, and tending to render the
judgment herein ineffectual, unless restrained or enjoined by this Honorable Court;
11) That the plaintiff is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in
restraining the commission of the act herein complained of;
12) That the commission of the act herein complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice
to the plaintiff;
13) That the plaintiff is willing and ready to file a bond executed to the defendants in an amount to be fixed
by this Honorable Court, to the effect that the plaintiff will pay to said defendants all damages which they
may sustain by reason of the injunction if the Court should finally decide that the plaintiff was not entitled
thereto.
Acting on the plaintiffs prayer for the issuance of a restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, the
Regional Trial Court issued an Order on July 24, 1990 stating thus:
x x x let a RESTRAINING ORDER be issued to Defendants Pablo Salomon and Cagayan de Oro Landless
Association, Inc. and the City Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of MTCC, Branch 3, or anybody acting in their behalf
or acting as their agent or representative. And until further orders from this court, they are enjoined to
refrain or desist from enforcing the decision of Civil Case No. 11204 until this court resolves this complaint.
Subsequently, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint stating, among others, as a ground therefor
that the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment in another case. (Apparently, the NHA has filed an
action for Injunction with Damages against COCLAI and its President before the Regional Trial Court, Branch
17, Cagayan de Oro City docketed as Civil Case No. 89-399 to prevent the MTCC from executing its
decision in Civil Case No. 11204, but this was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court in its Order dated July
19, 1990 on the ground that the decision of the MTCC in Civil Case No. 11204, had been upheld by the
Supreme Court when it denied NHAs petition for certiorari. The RTC, Branch 17, further stated that x x x (I)f
plaintiff believes that it is the owner of the property subject of that civil case (No. 11204), then it should
ventilate its claim in some other case but not in a simple case of injunction.)
On August 10, 1990, the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 90-337 issued an Order denying the motion
to dismiss as well as plaintiff NHAs prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction to restrain the
enforcement of the decision in Civil Case No. 11204. The motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiff NHA
was likewise denied by the Regional Trial Court in its Order dated August 17, 1990.[1]
Aggrieved by the decision of the Regional Trial Court, the NHA appealed to the Court of Appeals which
reversed the decision of the lower court. The decretal portion of the said decision, reads:

WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari is GRANTED the questioned Orders of respondent judge are
hereby declared null and void and respondent judge is ordered to issue a writ of preliminary injunction to
respect the possession of the petitioner over the land subject of the dispute x x x [2]
Hence, this petition.
The issues raised by petitioner are: whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling (a) that the
National Housing Authority (NHA) is entitled to the injunction prayed for; and (b) that NHA has a better
right to the possession of Lot No. 1982, as a necessary consequence of ownership.
As an extraordinary remedy, injunction is calculated to preserve or maintain the status quo of things
and is generally availed of to prevent actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be heard.
[3]
As such, injunction is accepted as the strong arm of equity or a transcendent remedy to be used
cautiously, as it affects the respective rights of the parties, and only upon full conviction on the part of the
court of its extreme necessity. [4] Its issuance rests entirely within the discretion of the court taking
cognizance of the case and is generally not interfered with except in cases of manifest abuse. [5] Moreover,
it may only be resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests and for
no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. [6]
Before an injunction can be issued, it is essential that the following requisites be present: 1) there
must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be protected; and 2) the act against which the
injunction is to be directed is a violation of such right. [7] Hence, it should only be granted if the party asking
for it is clearly entitled thereto.[8]
In the case at bench, the Court of Appeals was justified in ruling that NHA was entitled to the writ of
injunction. The reason is that, while Civil Case No. 11204 for forcible entry was pending on appeal before
the Regional Trial Court, Special Patent No. 3551 was issued by then President Corazon Aquino which
covered the lot subject of the dispute and by virtue thereof, an Original Certificate of Title in the name of
NHA was issued by the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro City on January 3, 1990. So, when petitioner
moved for the issuance of a writ of execution before the MTCC on July 23, 1990, a certificate of title had
already been issued to NHA. In view of this intervening development, NHA filed a complaint for quieting of
title before theRegional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City. Thus, it was only proper for the Court of Appeals
to direct the Regional Trial Court, [9] where Civil Case No. 90-337 was pending, to grant the writ of
preliminary injunction to restrain the enforcement of the decision of the MTCC in Civil Case No. 11204 as
there was a material change in the status of the parties with regard to the said land. Clearly, the
government, through the NHA will be prejudiced by the impending enforcement of the decision in Civil
Case No. 11204 which directs the said agency to restore the members of petitioner to their respective
possession on portions of Lot No. 1982.
Petitioner claims that Special Patent No. 3351 issued by then President Corazon Aquino on July 1, 1988
and the corresponding issuance by the Register of Deeds of Original Certificate of Title No P-3324 in the
name of NHA had entrusted only the administration of the disputed lot to the said agency but not the
ownership thereof It also alleges that, by virtue of Proclamation No. 2290, issued on May 10, 1985,
declaring the land situated at Barrio Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, as Slum Improvement Settlement
(SIR) area, it is illegal for NHA to claim ownership over the said land. Furthermore, petitioner also claims
that respondent Court overlooked the fact that the issues on ownership and possession are subjudice before RTC, Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City in Civil Case ;No. 90-337 x x x [10] Hence, it concludes
that the appellate court cannot pass upon these issues as there is still no final judgment on said civil case.
Petitioners contentions are bereft of merit.
The Original Certificate of Title (No. P-3324) issued to respondent NHA serves as a concrete and
conclusive evidence of an indefeasible title to the property. Accordingly, once a decree of registration is
issued under the Torrens systems and the one year period from the issuance of the decree of registration
has lapsed, without said decree being controverted by any adverse party, the title becomes perfect and
cannot later on be questioned.[11]
Furthermore, in the case at bench, the original certificate of title was issued by the Register of Deeds,
under an administrative proceeding pursuant to Special Patent No. 3551. Thus, it is as indefeasible as a
certificate of title issued under a judicial registration proceeding as the land covered by said certificate is a
disposable public land within the contemplation of the Public Land Law. [12] Moreover, the said certificate of
title was not controverted by petitioner in a proper proceeding nor did it show that the issuance of the
Original Certificate of Title by the register of deeds to NHA was tainted with bad faith or fraud. Hence, said
certificate of title enjoys the presumption of having been issued by the register of deeds in the regular
performance of its official duty.[13]
Also, OCT No. P-3324 issued in the name of respondent NHA, clearly states:
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said parcel of land with all the appurtenances thereunto of right of belonging
unto the NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY and to its successors-in-interest or assigns forever, subject to
private rights, if any there be.[14]

Clearly the certificate of title vested not only ownership over the lot but also the right of possession as
a necessary consequence of the right of ownership.
Respondent is not merely the administrator of the said lot. It cannot be denied that Proclamation No.
2290 gave authority to the NHA to dispose of Lot No. 1982. In the said Proclamation the President of
the Philippines granted to NHA the authority to develop, administer and dispose of Lot No. 1982, located at
Macabalan, Cagayan de Oro City, in accordance with the guidelines of the Slum Improvement and
Resettlement Program and the approved development plan of the area.
On the other hand, petitioners only basis for claiming the disputed lot is lawful entry and possession
for an extended period of time and, as a matter of fact, there is a final judgment in its favor in the case for
forcible entry before the MTCC. As to this, settled is the rule that, in an action for forcible entry, the only
issue involved is mere physical possession (possession de facto)and not juridical possession (possession
de jure) nor ownership[15] As the case filed before the lower court is only one for forcible entry, it is
indicative that the legal title over the said property is not disputed by the petitioner. There has been no
assertion of ownership over the land, only that of prior possession. At any rate, the judgment rendered in
the ejectment case is effective only with respect to possession and in no wise bind the title or affect the
ownership of the land.[16]
Indeed, petitioner has no legal leg to stand as regards ownership because its Miscellaneous Sales
Application was not acted upon nor favorably considered by the Bureau of Lands. The Bureau, through its
Regional Director, rejected the subdivision survey previously submitted by COCLAI, in an Order, dated May
19, 1983.
In effect, petitioners occupation of the land in question, after the denial of its application for
Miscellaneous Sales Patent, became subsequently illegal. Petitioners members have, as a consequence,
become squatters whose continuous possession of the land may now be considered to be in bad faith. This
is unfortunate because squatters acquire no legal right over the land they are occupying. [17]
Although as a general rule, a court should not, by means of a preliminary injunction, transfer property
in litigation from the possession of one party to another, this rule admits of some exceptions. For example,
when there is a clear finding of ownership and possession of the land or unless the subject property is
covered by a torrens title pointing to one of the parties as the undisputed owner. [18] In the case at bench,
the land subject of the suit is covered by a torrens title under the name of NHA.
A writ of injunction should issue so as not to render moot and academic any decision which the
Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 90-337 will render and in order to prevent any irreparable injury which
respondent may sustain by virtue of the enforcement of the decision of the MTCC.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No.
23080 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.