Li Kim Tho v. Sanchez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Li Kim Tho, a lessee, sublet a portion of a building to respondent Go Siu Kao. After liberation from the Japanese occupation, petitioner needed the entire building and demanded that respondent vacate. Respondent refused. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an ejectment suit in the Municipal Court, winning a judgment. Respondent appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) and lost, then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) and lost. His petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Upon remand to the CFI for execution, respondent filed a new action claiming to be the direct lessee of the premises by virtue of an alleged contract with the owner, Fernandez Hermanos, Inc., seeking a preliminary injunction to suspend his ouster. The CFI initially granted the injunction but later lifted it. However, upon a motion for reconsideration, a different judge issued a writ of mandatory injunction restoring respondent to possession, which is the subject of the present certiorari petition. The Petition: Petitioner Li Kim Tho filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging that the respondent judge of the CFI exceeded his jurisdiction and committed a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of mandatory injunction to stay the execution of a final judgment. Petitioner argued that the new action filed by respondent Go Siu Kao was a mere scheme to delay or frustrate the execution of the final judgment, as the issue of his alleged direct lease with Fernandez Hermanos had already been passed upon by the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in issuing a writ of mandatory injunction to stay the execution of a final and executory judgment. Whether a new action can be used to suspend the execution of a final judgment when the issues raised therein have already been passed upon and decided by higher courts.
Ruling
The Supreme Court revoked the order complained of and made the preliminary injunction permanent, with costs against the respondent Go Siu Kao. The Court held that the respondent judge was not justified in issuing the writ of mandatory injunction, as it would set at naught a final verdict and make a mockery of the administration of justice. The issuing of the writ constituted an abuse of discretion correctable by certiorari.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction in issuing a writ of mandatory injunction to stay the execution of a final and executory judgment: The Court held that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion. It is a settled principle that litigation must end and that once a judgment has become final, the winning party should not be deprived of the fruits of the verdict through mere subterfuge. Courts must guard against schemes calculated to prolong litigation and frustrate the execution of final judgments. While the stay of execution of a final judgment may be authorized when necessary to accomplish the ends of justice, such as where there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable, this was not the case here. The filing of a new action by respondent Go Siu Kao to litigate his right to continue in possession, as a basis for suspending the execution of a final judgment denying him such right, savors of a mere scheme to delay or frustrate the execution of the judgment. On Whether a new action can be used to suspend the execution of a final judgment when the issues raised therein have already been passed upon and decided by higher courts: The Court ruled in the negative. The issue raised in the new case, concerning an alleged contract of lease between respondent Go Siu Kao and Fernandez Hermanos, Inc., had already been passed upon by the Court of Appeals in connection with the denial of respondent's motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals had held that as long as the lease to the petitioner subsisted, he had control over the sublease, and any action by Fernandez Hermanos, Inc., on the continuation of the sublease had no bearing on the result of the case. Therefore, the respondent judge was not justified in issuing the writ of mandatory injunction, which would effectively set at naught a final verdict rendered by the courts and make a mockery of the administration of justice. Such an act constitutes an abuse of discretion correctable by certiorari.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that litigation must eventually terminate and that once a judgment becomes final, the winning party should not be deprived of its fruits through mere subterfuge. While a stay of execution may be authorized to accomplish the ends of justice, particularly when there has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable, this does not apply when a new action is filed merely to relitigate issues already passed upon and decided, as such an action is considered a scheme to delay or frustrate the execution of the judgment.