Campos y Cia. v. Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute originated from a forcible entry and detainer action initiated by Cayetano Tuason against Salvador Campos y Cia. The justice of the peace court ruled in favor of Tuason, ordering Campos y Cia. to surrender possession of the property and pay P200 monthly. Campos y Cia. appealed this decision. 2. Procedural History: Following the justice of the peace court's judgment, Salvador Campos y Cia. appealed to the Court of First Instance. During the pendency of this appeal, Campos y Cia. continued to deposit the required P200 monthly rent with the court. Cayetano Tuason then moved for the release of these deposited funds to him. Despite opposition, the respondent judge granted this motion, ordering the clerk to pay the deposited money to Tuason. 3. The Petition: Salvador Campos y Cia. filed an original action in the Supreme Court seeking a writ of certiorari. They argued that the order directing the clerk to release the deposited funds to Tuason was made without legal authority and in excess of the court's jurisdiction, violating mandatory provisions of Act No. 2588, which stipulated that such deposits should be held in the Insular Treasury until the appeal's final disposition. The petitioner sought to have this order annulled.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction and authority in ordering the release of the deposited monthly rents to the plaintiff-appellee during the pendency of the appeal. Whether certiorari is the proper remedy to annul the order of the respondent judge.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari, annulled the order of the respondent judge directing the clerk to deliver the deposited money to the respondent, and declared the order of no effect. The motion for reconsideration regarding costs was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent judge's authority to release deposited rents: The Court held that the respondent judge acted in excess of his jurisdiction and did not regularly pursue the authority granted to him by law. Act No. 2588, amending Act No. 190, mandates that during the pendency of an appeal in a forcible entry and detainer case where a stay of execution has been allowed, the defendant must pay the rent due either to the plaintiff or into the Court of First Instance, at the defendant's option. Crucially, the law specifies that all money so paid into the Court of First Instance in the city of Manila "shall be deposited... in the Insular Treasury, there to be held until the final disposition of the appeal." This provision is mandatory, and the judge has no right, authority, or discretion to disobey its terms. The order to release the deposited funds to the plaintiff-appellee before the final disposition of the appeal directly contravened this positive provision of law. Therefore, the judge's action was an irregular exercise of power, even though the court had jurisdiction over the main appeal itself. On the propriety of the writ of certiorari: The Court affirmed that certiorari is the proper remedy in this situation. Section 220 of Act No. 190 provides that in certiorari proceedings, the court shall determine whether the inferior tribunal has "regularly pursued its authority." If it finds that the authority has not been regularly pursued, the court shall annul or modify the proceedings as the law requires. The doctrine has been established that even if a court possesses unquestioned jurisdiction over the principal cause of action, it may still act irregularly or in excess of its jurisdiction when granting an auxiliary remedy. In such instances, the aggrieved party may resort to a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. The respondent's demurrer, which alleged that the facts stated did not justify the remedy prayed for, was overruled.
Main Doctrine
A court, while having jurisdiction over the principal cause of action, may act irregularly or in excess of its jurisdiction in granting an auxiliary remedy, making certiorari a proper remedy for the aggrieved party. The mandatory provisions of law regarding the deposit of rent during an appeal in forcible entry cases must be strictly followed, and a judge has no authority to order the premature release of such deposits contrary to the law.