Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ten days after the making of the order modifying the injunction, Rubert & Guamis, the plaintiff
partnership in the case below, commenced this action of prohibition in this court. The defendant
judge has answered and the case is before us for determination upon the complaint and answer,
there being no dispute as to the facts. No final judgment has been entered in the case of Rubert &
Guamis v. Lo Shui and the sheriff, and it stands, so far as the record shows, where it did when
the order modifying the preliminary injunction was made.
The court below had jurisdiction of the subject-matter of that suit and of the parties thereto. It
had power by law to grant an injunction in the case and power to dissolve it or modify it. There
can be no doubt of the correctness of these propositions, but it is claimed by the plaintiff in this
suit that the stipulation made between the parties to the suit below to the effect that the sheriff
should hold the money until the final judgment in that case, deprived the court of jurisdiction to
make the order modifying the injunction and requiring the sheriff to pay the money to the
defendant Lo Shui upon his furnishing a proper bond.
When section 516 of the Code of Civil Procedure speaks of a tribunal exercising functions which
are without or in excess of its jurisdiction, it covers those cases only in which such tribunal acts
in excess of jurisdiction which the parties may have attempted by stipulation to confer upon it, or
in excess of a jurisdiction to which the parties may by stipulation have attempted to limit the
court. The fact that the judge may have committed an error in disregarding the stipulation of the
parties has nothing to do with the question of the jurisdiction which by law the judge was
authorized to exercise. If there was such an error in the action of the court below, it was an error
that must be corrected by appeal. An action of prohibition can not be maintained in such cases.
(Ivancich v. Odlin, 1. Phil. Rep., 284; Dy Chuan Leng v. Ambler, 1 Phil. Rep., 535; In re
Prautch, 1 Phil. Rep., 132; Felizardo v. Justice of the Peace of Imus, 2 Off. Gaz., 529.) There is
nothing in the case of Yangco v. Rohde (1 Phil. Rep., 404), relied upon by the plaintiff, in
conflict with this rule. As was stated in the case of Dy Chuan Leng v. Ambler above cited, the
writ of prohibition was there granted upon the ground that in no case where the fact of marriage
was denied did the Court of First Instance have any jurisdiction to grant temporary alimony.
Final judgment will be entered in this case in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff,
with the costs against the plaintiff.
Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.