Coronel v. Tan
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved multiple ejectment cases where the defendants, the petitioners herein, agreed to vacate the plaintiff's property by December 31, 1947, without owing rent until that date. Following this agreement, a demolition order was issued for their houses. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners first sought a preliminary injunction from the Court of First Instance (CFI) to prevent the demolition, but their petition was denied on March 17, 1948, and again on March 19, 1948. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied on April 13, 1948. The municipal court then issued another demolition order on April 8, 1948. The CFI subsequently dismissed the injunction and certiorari case on April 30, 1948, noting that the demolition order had already been executed. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed an original action for prohibition and certiorari with the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the demolition orders. They also requested a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo. Despite the Supreme Court ordering the issuance of a preliminary injunction upon posting a bond, the petitioners failed to file the required bond. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, deeming the issues moot due to the execution of the orders and the finality of the CFI's dismissal order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Supreme Court can grant a writ of prohibition and certiorari to prevent the execution of an order that has already been executed. Whether the petitioners, by their inaction and failure to post the required bond, lost their right to seek injunctive relief.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed with costs. The Supreme Court held that it cannot impede the execution of an order that has already been carried out, and that the petitioners, by their own desidiousness and abandonment, lost their right to seek injunctive relief.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that it cannot grant a writ of prohibition and certiorari to prevent the execution of an order that has already been executed. The Court reasoned that the order of demolition dated April 8, 1948, had already been carried out by the sheriff. Furthermore, the dismissal order of the Court of First Instance dated April 30, 1948, which declared the demolition order executed, had become final. Therefore, the question of preventing the execution of the order was rendered moot and academic. The Court stated, "How can one impede the execution of an order already executed?" On Issue 2: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners, by their own desidiousness and abandonment, lost their right to seek injunctive relief. The Court noted that although a preliminary injunction was ordered upon the posting of a bond, the petitioners failed to post the bond within the prescribed period. This inaction, coupled with their failure to pursue available legal remedies promptly, led to the execution of the demolition order and the finality of the dismissal of their certiorari case in the Court of First Instance. The Court concluded that by their own fault, the petitioners forfeited any right they might have had to seek a prohibitory order.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that once an order has been executed and the period for availing legal remedies has lapsed due to the petitioner's own desidiousness or abandonment, the petition for prohibition and certiorari will be dismissed. The Court emphasized that it cannot impede the execution of an order that has already been carried out, rendering the issue moot and academic. The failure to act promptly and utilize available legal remedies results in the loss of the right to seek such relief.