G.R. No. L-21122




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-21122 June 23, 1966 CELESTINO E. ESUERTE, MARIA BITOY, HONORATO LUCERO, and ANATOLIO BARCENA, petitioners, vs. HON. MACAPANTON ABBAS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Sala II, Court of First Instance of Davao, HON. SALVADOR R. MARIÑO, DELFIN JAMPAYAS, ET AL., respondents. Apostadera and Palabrica for petitioners. Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General A.G. Ibarra and Solicitor B.P. Pardo for respondents. BARRERA, J.: This is an original petition for certiorari to question the correctness of the order of the Court of First Instance of Davao, denying petitioners' motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in Special Case No. 3950 of said court. Following the designation by President Macapagal, on January 25, 1963, of Delfin Jampayas, as Acting Mayor, Eulogio Viajedor, as Acting Vice-mayor, Antonio Macadangdang, Demetrio B. Hechanova, Ricardo Bitoy, and Francisco Esquerdo as Acting Councilors of the Municipality of Mawab, province of Davao, Celestino Esuerte, Maria Bitoy, Honorato Lucero, and Anatolio Barcena, who were extended ad interim appointments by President Garcia on December 29, 1961,¹ instituted prohibition and quo warranto proceedings in the Court of First Instance of Davao (Sp. Civ. Case No. 3950) to declare them (petitioners) lawfully entitled to the positions. As the court denied their prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, to restrain respondents from entering the discharge of the functions of the offices, petitioners filed the instant action. It is here claimed that as rightful occupants of the disputed positions, they are entitled not only to the salaries attached thereto, but also to the peaceful continuous, and uninterrupted exercise of the regular duties and functions of the office.1äwphï1.ñët This petition was given due course in this Court, but no writ of preliminary injunction was issued. Thus, the trial of the main case (Sp. Civ. Case No. 3950) continued and on November 26, 1963, the court a quo rendered a decision dismissing the petition. Therein petitioners brought the case on appeal to this Court (G.R. No. L-23301). In our decision of February 28, 1966 (in G.R. No. L-23301, Esuerte, et al. vs. Jampayas, et al.) the ad interim appointments of petitioners Esuerte, et al., extended by President Garcia on December 29, 1961 were declared part of the "midnight" appointments covered by the ruling laid down in the Aytona vs. Castillo² case. In effect, therefore, the designations by President Macapagal of respondents Jampayas, et al., to the disputed positions were upheld. In view of our resolution of the controversy in the main case, the issue in the present action, which is merely an incident in the main case, has become moot and; academic. Wherefore, this petition is hereby dismissed, without costs. So ordered. Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur. Dizon, J., on leave, took no part. Footnotes ¹Esuerte as Mayor, Bitoy as Vice-mayor, and Lucero and Barcena as Councilors of the same municipality. ²G.R. No. L-19313, Jan. 19, 1962. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation