Hubahib v. Insular Drug
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Civil Case No. 8246 was filed by Insular Drug Co., Inc. against Silvestre Mabutas for the recovery of P1,192.01 plus interest and attorney's fees. A writ of preliminary attachment was issued against Mabutas' properties. Mabutas posted a bond for P2,500 to dissolve the attachment, with Ismael Hubahib and Emilio A. Bastinen as sureties. Bastinen withdrew, and a new bond was executed in November 1930, with Mabutas as principal obligor, Ismael Hubahib as surety, and Pedro Villasis as the new surety, also for P2,500. Procedural History: Judgment was rendered against Mabutas on December 1, 1932, ordering him to pay P1,192.01 with interest and attorney's fees. Upon Mabutas' insolvency, Insular Drug Co., Inc. filed an ex parte petition, and on May 13, 1933, the court issued a writ of execution against the sureties' bond. Hubahib was informed of this writ and filed a motion on December 29, 1933, praying for the annulment of the writ and the bond, alleging no attachment was levied, no inventory made, and his liability was undetermined. The court, through the judge of Branch III, denied this motion on September 25, 1934. The Petition: Ismael Hubahib filed the present case in Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking the annulment of the writ of execution issued against him as surety. He also obtained a preliminary injunction against the sheriff. The lower court dismissed his complaint, leading to this appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of execution issued against the sureties was void for being issued ex parte and without prior notice. Whether Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Cebu had jurisdiction to annul or enjoin the execution order issued by Branch III of the same court.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is affirmed. The motion for reconsideration is denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that while the initial order of May 13, 1933, was issued ex parte, any defect resulting from the lack of notice was 'cured' when Hubahib voluntarily appeared before the judge of Branch III on December 29, 1933. By filing a motion to reconsider and set aside the order, Hubahib was afforded the opportunity to be heard. Because Hubahib failed to appeal the order of September 25, 1934, which denied his motion for reconsideration, that order became final and executory. Consequently, the matter has the authority and effect of res judicata. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a case, and the existence of this authority does not depend on the 'more or less regular or correct exercise thereof,' as established in Herrera v. Barretto and Joaquin. Therefore, the trial court had the power to issue the execution regardless of the initial procedural lapse. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the various branches of a Court of First Instance are of coordinate and concurrent jurisdiction and are prohibited from interfering with each other's cases or judgments through injunction. The institution of the annulment action in Branch II was 'improper' and 'absolutely unjustified' because the appellant's correct remedy was to seek relief from Branch III itself under Section 113 of Act No. 190 or to appeal the adverse orders directly. Citing Cabigao and Izquierdo v. Del Rosario and Lim, the Court reiterated that public interest requires that final judgments remain unaltered to ensure the termination of litigation. Different branches of the same court must respect each other's jurisdiction to maintain the orderly administration of justice; otherwise, a party could perpetually stall execution by hopping between branches.
Main Doctrine
An order of the Court of First Instance, if appealable, becomes final and executory if not appealed within the reglementary period, and may no longer be altered or set aside by the same court or through another proceeding, absent any question on the jurisdiction of the court that issued it. Furthermore, different branches of the Court of First Instance, exercising concurrent and coordinate jurisdiction, cannot interfere with each other's cases or orders.