G.R. No.

180988 August 28, 2009

Julie’s et. al., v. Dancel et. al.,

Facts:

The respondent Dancel, entered into franchise agreements with petitioner corporation for three bakeshop
outlets. After renewing the franchise agreements and paying renewal fees, issues arose when the
business partnership between Dancel and his partner Uy dissolved. Petitioner corporation then informed
Dancel of the termination of the franchise agreements. Respondent Dancel filed a complaint for Specific
Performance, and the Court of Appeals granted a Temporary Restraining Order, directing the trial court to
issue a Writ of Preliminary Injunction. The Court of Appeals justified its decision by stating that the trial
court had jurisdiction, as the acts being restrained would take place within its jurisdiction. Petitioner
corporation filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, and further attempts to appeal were
unsuccessful. The trial court eventually issued a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction,
instructing petitioner corporation to refrain from terminating the franchise agreements, deliver necessary
supplies, and allow the use of the trade name. Petitioner corporation subsequently filed motions to
dissolve or lift the preliminary injunction, and the trial court denied them. There were also motions for
reconsideration and requests for the judge's inhibition, which were likewise denied. In addition, petitioners
faced indirect contempt charges filed by respondent Dancel. On December 28, 2007, petitioners filed a
petition for certiorari, presumably seeking relief from the decisions and orders issued by the trial court.

Issue/s:

1. WHETHER THE HONORABLE JUDGE RUIZ ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN ISSUING THE ASSAILED
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION TO ENJOIN ACTS COMMITTED OR ABOUT TO BE COMMITTED
OUTSIDE THE TRIAL COURT’S TERRITORIAL BOUNDARIES;

2. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT JUDGE RUIZ COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION IN EXTENDING THE EXPIRED FRANCHISE CONTRACTS BY GRANTING THE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;

3. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT JUDGE RUIZ COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION IN GRANTING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WOULD
CONSTITUTE PREJUDGMENT OF THE CASE;

4. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT JUDGE RUIZ COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION IN NOT VOLUNTARILY INHIBITING AS A RESULT OF PREJUDGMENT OF THE CASE;

5. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT JUDGE RUIZ COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION IN NOT DISMISSING THE CASE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON JUDICIAL
ADMISSIONS AND FOR LACK OF CAUSE OF ACTION;

6. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT JUDGE RUIZ COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION IN GRANTING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF A RIGHT

7. WHETHER THE RESPONDENT JUDGE RUIZ COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN NOT
GRANTING A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF JFC TO PROTECT ITS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS AS A REGISTERED COMPANY WITH THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE; WHETHER THE
INDIRECT CONTEMPT CHARGE CAN BE ENJOINED; AND

8. WHETHER PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED TO A RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION ENJOINING THE TWO DIPOLOG CITY COURTS FROM ENFORCING THE ASSAILED WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DURING THE PENDENCY OF THIS PETITION. 1
Rulings: We find the petition without merit.

The first, second, third, and sixth issues raised by petitioners question the issuance of the Writ of
Preliminary Injunction. We find no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of the trial court, which merely issued the questioned Writ of Preliminary
Injunction in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeals which has already attained
finality. The propriety of the issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was already ruled upon by the
Court of Appeals in its Decision dated 14 August 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 00740. Such decision has
become final and executory after petitioner corporation’s appeal to this Court was denied for being filed
beyond the reglementary period.

Except to correct clerical errors,14 a judgment which has acquired finality can no longer be modified in any
respect even if the modification is meant to correct a perceived erroneous conclusion of fact or
law.15 There would be no end to litigation if parties are allowed to relitigate issues which were already
resolved with finality.

As regards the fifth16 and seventh17 issues, although petitioners allege grave abuse of discretion,
such issues involve errors of judgment which are not reviewable in a certiorari proceeding. In the
fifth issue, petitioners claim that the case can be dismissed on summary judgment for lack of
cause of action while in the seventh issue, they assert that the trial court should have granted a
preliminary injunction in favor of petitioner corporation to protect its intellectual property rights.
The Court notes that the arguments raised by petitioners are not errors involving jurisdiction but one of
judgment, which is beyond the ambit of a certiorari proceeding. A certiorari proceeding is an extraordinary
remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.18 As such, a
petition for certiorari must aver only jurisdictional matters or raise questions of jurisdiction. Thus, if the
facts alleged do not raise any genuine jurisdictional issue, the petition for certiorari would be devoid of
merit.19 As held in People v. Court of Appeals:20

In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the court is narrow in scope. It is limited to resolving only
errors of jurisdiction.1awphi1 It is not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues beyond its
competence such as errors of judgment. Errors of judgment of the trial court are to be resolved by the
appellate court in the appeal by and of error or via a petition for review on certiorari in this Court under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction. It is not a remedy to
correct errors of judgment. An error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of
its jurisdiction, and which error is reversible only by an appeal. Error of jurisdiction is one where the act
complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible
only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors by the trial court in its
appreciation of the evidence of the parties, and its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its
conclusions of law. As long as the court acts within its jurisdiction, any alleged errors committed in the
exercise of its discretion will amount to nothing more than mere errors of judgment, correctible by an
appeal or a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.21

The eighth issue22 raised by petitioners involves a separate case of indirect contempt filed in
another branch – Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 9. Petitioners allege that
respondent Judge Bautista of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 9, should desist
from taking cognizance of the indirect contempt charge. It is not proper to include in this petition
for certiorari an issue involving a separate case from a different branch of the trial court. Hence,
we will refrain from resolving issue number 8, which should have been the subject of a separate
petition for prohibition23 and not certiorari.