[ G.R. No. L-1032. November 23, 1946 ] 77 Phil. 653
[ G.R. No. L-1032. November 23, 1946 ]
AMANDA IÑIGO, PETITIONER, VS. GUILLERMO CABRERA, JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF MANILA, AND LUISA DE LA FUENTE, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
BENGZON, J.:
The petitioner Amanda Inigo is the defendant in an ejectment suit in the Manila municipal court (civil case No. 1954), wherein respondent Luisa de la Fuente demands the return of the premises known as No. 138-B Guipit, Sampaloc, leased to the former by the previous owner, Felixberto Iral. The new proprietress desires to occupy that apartment. After hearing the parties, the respondent judge rendered on August 27, 1946, a judgment ordering defendant (petitioner herein) to vacate, and to pay the plaintiff “the sum of P22, which is the reasonable value of rent of said premises for the period of June 9 to 30, 1946, and the further sum of P100 monthly, by way of damages, beginning July 1, 1946 until the defendant vacates and surrenders to the plaintiff the premises in question, plus the costs of suit.” (Appendix D.)
In a motion for reconsideration, Amanda Inigo vigorously objected, among other things, to the award of 100-peso monthly damages; but the respondent judge declined to reconsider. Consequently, she announced and perfected her appeal to the Court of First Instance.
Foreseeing the probability that during the pendency of the litigation in the appellate court she could not make monthly one-hundred-peso deposits, and believing that the order of ejectment would then be inevitably carried out, petitioner instituted this special civil action for certiorari to annul that judicial order, alleging and arguing that it is in excess of jurisdiction or constitutes a grave abuse of discretion.
The respondents made answer sustaining the validity of the disputed directive. They assert, furthermore, that certiorari does not lie, because petitioner has a plain remedy by appeal.
In the light of our controlling decisions,[1] it might be contended that the award for damages in the illegal detainer case was improper and erroneous. However, specific pronouncement on the point becomes unnecessary, because of the pendency of the ejectment proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Manila, wherein any mistake on the matter could be expeditiously corrected.
On the other hand, it is fundamental in this jurisdiction that, generally, the writ of certiorari will not jssue whenever there is a remedy by appeal.[2] And this principle appears to be decisive against the herein petitioner.
As to the contention that such appeal is insufficient to protect her rights because the ejectment order might “at any time be executed for her failure monthly to pay the 100-peso damages, it is enough to indicate that, under the Rules of Court,[3] she is not required periodically to make such deposit, for the reason that the pleadings and decision in the municipal court show, and respondents’ attorney admits, that the amount does not represent a finding by the court on the reasonable rentals or compensation for the use of the premises. Furthermore, the same attorney said at the hearing of this petition, that knowing such amount to be real damages—not rentals—he had no intention to ask for execution of the removal order should petitioner fail periodically to make one-hundred-peso payments.
In view of the foregoing considerations, the petition for certiorari is denied. No costs.
Moran, C. J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Hilado, Briones, Padilla, and Tuason, JJ., concur.