Herrera v. Barretto
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A decision was rendered dismissing an application for a writ of certiorari. The respondents in that application sought an assessment of damages occasioned by an injunction previously issued by a member of the Supreme Court, which restrained the respondent from operating his cockpit until the final disposition of the certiorari application. Procedural History: The Supreme Court dismissed the application for a writ of certiorari and dissolved the injunction. The Petition: The respondents in the certiorari proceeding sought to have the Supreme Court assess damages resulting from the injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court, in a proceeding for certiorari, can assess damages occasioned by a preliminary injunction issued during the pendency of the certiorari proceedings. Whether certiorari is an "action" within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure provisions relating to injunctions and the assessment of damages.
Ruling
The motion to assess damages is denied. The parties are remanded to the Court of First Instance for the vindication of their rights, if any they have, in that particular.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Supreme Court can assess damages in a certiorari proceeding: The Court held that it cannot assess damages occasioned by an injunction in a certiorari proceeding. Certiorari is a special remedy limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and does not delve into the merits of the underlying case. The Code of Civil Procedure provides that damages for an injunction are to be ascertained by the court trying the action upon final trial. Since certiorari does not try the merits, it is not the "court trying the action" for the purpose of assessing such damages. The Court reasoned that assessing damages in certiorari would lead to potential embarrassment and conflicting judgments if the Court of First Instance later ruled on the merits and found no basis for the original action. On whether certiorari is an "action" within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure provisions on injunctions: The Court clarified that while certiorari may share some procedural similarities with an ordinary action, it is not an "action" in the sense contemplated by the sections of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to injunctions and damages. The Court cited previous decisions, such as Blanco v. Ambler and Beech v. Crossfield, to illustrate that certiorari, while initiated by a complaint and potentially answered, fundamentally differs from an ordinary action because it does not touch the merits of the cause. It deals primarily with questions of law based on the record. Therefore, the procedural rules for assessing damages in ordinary actions do not apply to certiorari proceedings.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court, in a proceeding for certiorari, cannot assess damages occasioned by the issuance of an injunction, as certiorari is limited to jurisdictional defects and does not ventilate the merits of the cause. Damages must be ascertained in the court trying the action on its merits.