CALAGUI V CA (CACDAC, CFI Judge) 186 SCRA 564 PADILLA; June 18, 1990

NATURE Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petitioners; petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, FACTS - Aug. 2, 1976: private respondents filed before CFI an action for injunction with preliminary prohibitory injunction and damages against Calagui (petitioners), alleging that as owners of the Tuguegarao cockpit they had been issued a license to operate said cockpit in 1971 and yearly thereafter up to 1976. - When the Cockfighting Law of 1974 was promulgated on 9 May 1974, respondents were already operating the Tuguegarao Cockpit. The law provides that only one cockpit shall be allowed in a city or municipality where population is not more than 100K. In 1976 Tuguegarao had a population of less than 100K. The law authorizes the city and municipal mayors to issue licenses for the operation and maintenance of cockpits subject to the approval of the Chief of the Phil. Contsabulary (PC). - In 1976 the Calagui was able to secure from the PC Zone Commander approval of their request to operate a cockpit in Balzain, Tuguegarao (Balzain Cockpit). Calagui then announced to the public the holding of cockfights in Balzain on August 8, 1976. - 14 Aug 1976: in said Civil Case respondent court issued a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioners. Petitioners were given an opportunity to file an injunctive counterbond for reasons of equity and fair play. The writ of preliminary injunction was stayed and dissolved until further orders from the court. - After trial respondent CFI Judge ordered that the preliminary injunction granted by the court in its Aug. 14 be considered permanent, final and perpetual (and that the Mayor of Tuguegarao to issue a license to the Tuguegarao cockpit for the year 1977, the PC to approve the license, Calagui [herein plaintiff] to pay 4K as damages). - Calagui appealed from the said decision to the CA (public respondent). Believing that their appeal was not adequate to promptly relieve them from the injurious effects of the decision, Calagui file on June 1, 1977 a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus before respondent CA, with application for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against respondents. - 16 Sept 1977: CA rendered a decision dismissing the petition, but without prejudice to Calagui, presenting for consideration of the Court which shall resolve the appeal, the corresponding motion or petition for the lifting of the writ of injunction directed against them to operate the Balzain Cockpit in Tuguegarao. ISSUE(S) 1. WON there is a legal impediment for CA to entertain and pass judgment on the errors raised before it in a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus, when the injunction case from

2.

where the errors raised, emanated, is pending appeal? AS TO THE MERITS: WON the existence of the respective cockpits was legal.

HELD 1. NO. Ratio The correctness of the decision rendered by the lower court should be properly resolved in the appeal interposed by the petitioners and not by means of a petition for certiorari to declare as null and void said decision or any part thereof. Reasoning - Calagui prayed in their petition before the CA to declare that the CFI judge acted without, or in excess of jurisdiction, and/or gravely abused his discretion, in perpetually restraining the Petitioners from operating their Balzain Cockpit in immediately ordering the execution of the decision despite the appeal taken in the Civil Case; in compelling the Municipal Mayor of Tuguegarao, and the Chief of the PC to issue and approve the 1977 license of the respondents. - The petitioners were in effect seeking a reversal of the lower courts decision, which should properly be done in the appeal, not in a petition for certiorari. - Silverio vs CA: An appeal brings up for review errors of judgment committed by a court with jurisdiction over the subject of the suit and the persons of the parties or any such error committed by the court in the exercise of its jurisdiction amounting to nothing more than an error of judgment. On the other hand, the writ of certiorari issues for the correction of errors of jurisdiction only or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. - The extraordinary writ of certiorari offers a limited form of review, for its principal function is to keep lower courts within their jurisdiction. - Another reason is that In a Manifestation file in January 1983, private respondents alleged that the CA already rendered a decision affirming in toto the appealed decision in the civil case and entry of judgment was made on Nov 17 1982. DISPOSITION Petition is denied, there being no reversible error in the assailed judgment of the CA, and for being moot and academic.