Macatangay v. Municipality of San Juan de Bocboc
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 28, 1907, the plaintiff, Mariano Macatangay, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari and an injunction against the Municipality of San Juan de Bocboc. An injunction was issued upon the plaintiff furnishing a bond of P1,500. Procedural History: On June 21, 1907, the defendant municipality, through the Attorney-General, moved for the dissolution of the injunction and for recovery of damages under the bond. On June 27, 1907, the injunction was dissolved. On the same day, the defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint. On September 30, 1907, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the case. The defendant then moved that the case be referred to the Court of First Instance of Batangas to ascertain damages sustained due to the injunction before dismissal. The Petition: The plaintiff sought a writ of certiorari and an injunction. Subsequently, the plaintiff moved for the dismissal of his own action.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Batangas should be ordered to ascertain the damages sustained by the defendant due to the injunction. Whether the Supreme Court, as the court where the action was pending, should ascertain the damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the action. However, it denied the defendant's motion to refer the ascertainment of damages to the Court of First Instance of Batangas. Instead, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant to file, within ten days, specifications in the nature of a complaint in the Supreme Court, setting forth the grounds for recovering damages against the plaintiff and his bondsmen, and to serve a copy thereof upon them.
Ratio Decidendi
On the ascertainment of damages: The Court held that under section 170 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, damages sustained by reason of the granting of an injunction shall be ascertained by the court in which the action is pending. Since the original action for certiorari and injunction was filed in the Supreme Court, it is the Supreme Court that has the jurisdiction to ascertain these damages. The Court explicitly stated that the defendant is entitled to have the amount of his damages ascertained and included in the final judgment. However, the procedure for such ascertainment must be in accordance with the law, which mandates that the court where the action is pending conducts the inquiry. Therefore, referring the matter to a lower court would contravene this statutory provision. The Court cited its ruling in Somes vs. Crossfield, et al. as authority for allowing the defendant to present specifications for damages before final judgment dismissing the cause. On the dismissal of the action: The Court granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the action. This dismissal, however, was without prejudice to the defendant's right to pursue its claim for damages against the plaintiff and his bondsmen. The Court's order for the defendant to file specifications for damages within ten days in the Supreme Court ensures that the defendant's right to recover is preserved, even as the main action is terminated.
Main Doctrine
Damages sustained by reason of the granting of an injunction shall be ascertained by the court in which the action is pending, and included in the final judgment.