Gonzalez v. Moir
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 8, 1912, two judgments were rendered against Jose M. Gonzalez. One was a preferred credit in a mortgage suit in favor of Ezequiel Ruiz, which was appealed. The other was an action for debt in favor of Cecilio Imaz, which became final. Execution was issued on the Imaz judgment on April 19, 1913. Under this execution, the realty in question was sold at sheriff's sale, subject to Ruiz's mortgage credit, and purchased by Imaz. Procedural History: On July 8, 1913, on Imaz's petition, the respondent judge appointed a receiver for the property and issued a preliminary injunction restraining Gonzalez from entering thereon. Both orders were made ex parte, without giving Gonzalez an opportunity to be heard. The Petition: Gonzalez commenced an action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to vacate these orders, without first seeking their annulment or modification in the court that issued them, despite the respondent judge being available.
Issue(s)
Whether a petition for certiorari may be entertained to annul orders issued ex parte when the petitioner has not first sought the dissolution or modification of said orders from the court that issued them.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is dismissed. Judgment is entered dismissing this petition, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed because the petitioner failed to first seek relief from the trial court. The Court emphasized that it is the "better practice" for an applicant, before coming to the Supreme Court, to make a proper application to the Court of First Instance for a dissolution or modification of an injunction or order. This procedure allows the trial court, after hearing full argument and citations of authorities, to pass upon the question of its own power and jurisdiction, as well as the correctness of its actions. Citing Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin, the Court noted that questions which trial courts are required by law to decide should not be summarily taken from them without giving them an opportunity to deliberately pass on such questions themselves. The Court reasoned that the most natural and proper response to an erroneously issued order is to call the attention of the issuing court to the error for correction. Strong reasons of policy and courtesy require this procedure, and the Supreme Court expressly discourages attempts to bypass lower courts in this manner, particularly in cases where the court acted ex parte.
Main Doctrine
A party seeking to have ex parte orders annulled or modified should first present the matter to the court that issued the orders before seeking remedy from the Supreme Court, as a matter of better practice and courtesy.