Back

Phil. Ports Authority vs. Rafael L. Mendoza, et al.

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY, petitioners, vs. HON. RAFAEL L. MENDOZA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, PERNITO ARRASTRE SERVICES, INC., APOLONIO BACALLA, doing business under the style "Bacalla Arrastre Services", ARISTON AGUILAR, doing business under the style "Aguilar Arrastre Services", EOMEO CABRAS, doing business under the style "Cabras Arrastre Services", GUERRERO DAJAO, doing business under the style "Dajao Arrastre Services, "NI?O TAMARRA, doing business under the style "Tamarra Arrastre Services", JESUS GARCIA, doing business under the style "Garcia Arrastre Services", FRANCISCO AGUIRRE, doing business under the style "Sto. Rosario Arrastre Services", TEOFILO ESTOCE, doing business under the style "E & C Arrastre Services", RAMON P. TECSON, doing business under the style "Tecson Arrastre Services", MARCELO A. CANSANCIO, doing business under the style "Tabunoc Arrastre Service", SIMEON M. PACA, SR., doing business under the style, "A.O. Paca Arrastres Services", ANDRES ROMARIZ, doing business under the style "F. Figueroa Arrastre Service," NILO SERVILA, doing business under the style "Servila Arrastre Services", RHODA F. BANGOY, doing business under the style "Tan Arrastre Services", FILOMENO PEPITO, doing business under the style "F. Pepito & Villacruses Arrastre Service", VICTORINO SY, doing business under the style "E. V. Sy Arrastre Services", and ROMEO GADIANO, doing business under the style "Cadiano Arrastre Service", respondents.

G.R. No. L-48304 | 1985-09-11

D E C I S I O N


ALAMPAY, J:

This case relates to a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) directed principally against the public respondent herein as presiding judge of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Cebu, Branch VI and naming as private respondents eighteen (18) arrastre groups led by Pernito Arrastre Services, Inc. (hereunder referred to as Pernito, et al.).

Petitioner avers that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it issued in Civil Case No. R-16289, a writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting...