Herrera vs. Barretto and Joaquin

Certiorari is not an "action" within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure provisions relating to injunctions, and therefore the SC cannot assess damages for a wrongful injunction issued during certiorari proceedings; such damages must be pursued in a separate action in the lower court.

A dispute arose over the issuance of a cockpit license. When the lower court allowed the cockpit to operate pending a mandamus case, the municipal president sought certiorari in the SC and obtained a preliminary injunction stopping cockpit operations. After the SC dismissed the certiorari, the cockpit owner sought damages for the period he was wrongfully enjoined from operating.

• Original Filing: Action for Mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Rizal
• Lower Court Decision: CFI granted a mandatory injunction compelling the issuance of a cockpit license pending the mandamus case
• Appeal: Petition for Certiorari filed directly in the SC
• SC Action: An SC Justice issued a preliminary injunction; the SC En Banc subsequently dismissed the certiorari petition and dissolved the injunction; Respondent Joaquin then filed a motion in the SC to assess damages

• The Mandamus Action: Constancio Joaquin filed a mandamus case in the CFI against the Municipal President of Caloocan (Herrera) to compel the issuance of a cockpit license.
• The Mandatory Injunction: The CFI granted a mandatory injunction allowing Joaquin to operate the cockpit pending the resolution of the mandamus case.
• The Certiorari Proceeding: Herrera filed a certiorari petition in the SC. A member of the SC issued a preliminary injunction restraining Joaquin from operating the cockpit until the SC finally resolved the petition.
• Dismissal of Certiorari: The SC dismissed the certiorari application and dissolved the preliminary injunction against Joaquin.
• Motion for Damages: Joaquin filed a motion in the SC asking for an assessment of P33,000 in damages sustained due to the preliminary injunction, relying on the undertaking/surety bond posted by the petitioner.

• Certiorari is not an "action" within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure sections relating to injunctions.
• Assessing damages in the SC at this stage would create embarrassment; if the SC awards damages now, but the CFI later rules on the merits that Joaquin was never entitled to a cockpit license, the damages awarded would be baseless.
• The SC in certiorari only touches questions of law and never adjudicates the merits of the underlying cause.

• Certiorari is an action under Section 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure because it prosecutes another party for the enforcement or protection of a right.
• Section 217 of the Code requires a complaint to initiate certiorari, and the SC's own rules require procedure akin to ordinary actions.
• The SC has previously assessed damages in certiorari proceedings in Somes v. Crossfield and Macatangay v. Municipality of San Juan de Bocboc.
• Forcing a separate action defeats the purpose of the injunction bond and Section 170 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates that damages be included in the final judgment of the action.
• Joaquin's right to operate the cockpit under the mandatory injunction was a present, substantive property right; its interruption caused actual damage regardless of the ultimate outcome of the mandamus case.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the SC can take cognizance of a proceeding to assess damages for a wrongful injunction within a certiorari proceeding.
• Substantive Issues: Whether certiorari is an "action" within the meaning of the Code of Civil Procedure provisions relating to injunctions and the assessment of damages.

• Procedural: The SC denied the motion to assess damages and remanded the parties to the CFI. The SC held it is not the "court trying the action" with cognizance of the "final trial" as contemplated by the Code.
• Substantive: Certiorari is not an "action" under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of assessing injunction damages. Certiorari is limited to jurisdictional defects and never touches the merits of the cause. A proceeding that does not touch the merits cannot be called an action in all senses. Before damages can be intelligently determined, the merits of the underlying cause must be adjudicated. If the SC assessed damages now, it could conflict with a future CFI ruling on the merits that might declare the enjoined party had no right to the license and suffered no legal damage. The SC only resolves questions of law in certiorari, making it impossible to properly assess damages based on the merits.

• Nature of Certiorari — Certiorari is limited to cases involving jurisdictional defects; it is not a proceeding where the merits of a cause are ventilated. Because it deals exclusively with questions of law based on the record and does not touch the merits, it lacks essential features of an ordinary action.
• Assessment of Damages for Wrongful Injunction — Damages for a wrongful injunction cannot be assessed in a certiorari proceeding because the court must have the merits of the underlying cause before it to intelligently determine if the enjoined party actually suffered legal damage.

• Section 170, Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190) — Requires the court trying the action to ascertain damages upon final trial and include them in the final judgment against the plaintiff and sureties. The SC held this does not apply to certiorari because the SC is not "the court trying the action" and certiorari involves no "final trial" on the merits.
• Section 1, Code of Civil Procedure — Defines an "action" as an ordinary suit for the enforcement or protection of a right. The dissent argued certiorari fits this definition; the majority implied it lacks the essential features of an action because it does not touch the merits.
• Section 217, Code of Civil Procedure — Requires the initial pleading in certiorari to be a complaint. The majority held that despite this procedural requirement, certiorari still lacks the substantive attributes of an action.

• Trent, J. (Dissenting) — Argued that certiorari is an action under the Code of Civil Procedure, initiated by complaint and subject to ordinary rules of procedure. The dissent heavily criticized the majority for directly reversing the SC's own precedent in Somes and Macatangay, which explicitly allowed the assessment of damages in certiorari. Trent argued that forcing the aggrieved party to file a separate action in the CFI defeats the purpose of the injunction bond and Section 170. Furthermore, he argued that Joaquin's right to operate the cockpit under the mandatory injunction was a present property right; interference with it caused damage regardless of the ultimate outcome of the mandamus case, making the SC's fear of a conflicting future CFI judgment irrelevant to the present right to damages.