G.R. No. L-3378 - NOVEMBER 1906 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-3378November 30, 1906 Jose Castaño vs. Charles S. Lobingier, et al. G.R. No. L-2683November 30, 1906 Agatona Tuason, et al. vs. Ignacia Uson G.R. No. L-2914November 28, 1906 United States vs. Antonio Gavira G.R. No. L-2498November 28, 1906 Marcelo Tiglao vs. Insular Government, et al. G.R. No. L-2835November 27, 1906 Felciano Alfonso, et al. vs. Ramon Lagdameo G.R. No. L-2697November 27, 1906 Justiano Mendiola vs. Claudia Mendiola G.R. No. L-2842November 24, 1906 Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Leonardo Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-2832November 24, 1906 Rev. Jorge Barlin vs. P. Vicente Ramirez G.R. No. L-2644November 24, 1906 Dennis J. Dougherty vs. Jose Evangelista G.R. No. L-2408November 24, 1906 United States vs. Joseph J. Capurro, et al. G.R. No. L-2017November 24, 1906 Municipality of Oas vs. Bartolome Roa G.R. No. L-3393November 23, 1906 Clemente Gochuico vs. Manuel Ocampo, et al. G.R. No. L-3025November 23, 1906 Si-Boco vs. Yap Teng G.R. No. L-2958November 23, 1906 United States vs. Braulio Tupular G.R. No. L-2897November 23, 1906 Pedro Maguyon vs. Marcelino Agra, et al. G.R. No. L-2563November 23, 1906 Ricardo Nolan vs. Antonio Salas G.R. No. L-3388November 22, 1906 Tatsusaburo Yegawa vs. George Green, et al. G.R. No. L-3387November 22, 1906 T. Sugo, et al. vs. George Green, et al. G.R. No. L-3106November 22, 1906 United States vs. Jose Paua G.R. No. L-2394November 22, 1906 Ker & Company vs. A. R. Cauden G.R. No. L-2834November 21, 1906 Juan Azarraga vs. Andrea Cortes et al. G.R. No. L-2892November 16, 1906 United States vs. Felix Ortega G.R. No. L-2101November 15, 1906 Eleanor Erica Strong, et al. vs. Francisco Guttierez Repide G.R. No. L-3182November 13, 1906 United States vs. Jose Solis G.R. No. L-2095November 13, 1906 Maria Adela vs. Judge of the Court of the First Instance of Ilocos Sur G.R. No. L-3270November 12, 1906 Luisa Ramos vs. Carlos Varanda, et al. G.R. No. L-3309November 10, 1906 International Banking Corporation vs. A. A. Montagne G.R. No. L-2968November 10, 1906 United States vs. Angelo Vinco G.R. No. L-2556November 10, 1906 United States vs. Sofio Opinion G.R. No. L-1326November 10, 1906 Felix Fanlo Aznar vs. Rafael Rodriguez G.R. No. L-2903November 9, 1906 Estefania Villar vs. City of Manila G.R. No. L-2384November 9, 1906 In Re: Dominador Gomez G.R. No. L-3082November 8, 1906 Ramona Tarrosa vs. P. A. Pearson G.R. No. L-2686November 8, 1906 C. Heinszen & Co. vs. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland G.R. No. L-3294November 6, 1906 United States vs. Buenaventura Serrano, et al. G.R. No. L-2783November 6, 1906 United States vs. Atanasio Parcon G.R. No. L-2731November 6, 1906 United States vs. Chauncey McGovern G.R. No. L-1935November 6, 1906 Clara Alfonso Buenaventura vs. Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines G.R. No. L-1794November 6, 1906 Faustino Lichauco vs. Francisco Martinez G.R. No. L-2791November 5, 1906 Catalino Nicolas, et al. vs. Maria Jose, et al. G.R. No. L-2189November 3, 1906 United States vs. Francisco Bautista, et al. G.R. No. L-2970November 1, 1906 United States vs. Jose Crame G.R. No. L-2146November 1, 1906 Manuel Testagorda Figueras vs. Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines G.R. No. L-2127November 1, 1906 Inchausti & Company vs. Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Jose Castaño vs. Charles S. Lobingier, et al. Agatona Tuason, et al. vs. Ignacia Uson United States vs. Antonio Gavira Marcelo Tiglao vs. Insular Government, et al. Felciano Alfonso, et al. vs. Ramon Lagdameo Justiano Mendiola vs. Claudia Mendiola Roman Catholic Apostolic Church, et al. vs. Leonardo Santos, et al. Rev. Jorge Barlin vs. P. Vicente Ramirez Dennis J. Dougherty vs. Jose Evangelista United States vs. Joseph J. Capurro, et al. Municipality of Oas vs. Bartolome Roa Clemente Gochuico vs. Manuel Ocampo, et al. Si-Boco vs. Yap Teng United States vs. Braulio Tupular Pedro Maguyon vs. Marcelino Agra, et al. Ricardo Nolan vs. Antonio Salas Tatsusaburo Yegawa vs. George Green, et al. T. Sugo, et al. vs. George Green, et al. United States vs. Jose Paua Ker & Company vs. A. R. Cauden Juan Azarraga vs. Andrea Cortes et al. United States vs. Felix Ortega Eleanor Erica Strong, et al. vs. Francisco Guttierez Repide United States vs. Jose Solis Maria Adela vs. Judge of the Court of the First Instance of Ilocos Sur Luisa Ramos vs. Carlos Varanda, et al. International Banking Corporation vs. A. A. Montagne United States vs. Angelo Vinco United States vs. Sofio Opinion Felix Fanlo Aznar vs. Rafael Rodriguez Estefania Villar vs. City of Manila In Re: Dominador Gomez Ramona Tarrosa vs. P. A. Pearson C. Heinszen & Co. vs. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland United States vs. Buenaventura Serrano, et al. United States vs. Atanasio Parcon United States vs. Chauncey McGovern Clara Alfonso Buenaventura vs. Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines Faustino Lichauco vs. Francisco Martinez Catalino Nicolas, et al. vs. Maria Jose, et al. United States vs. Francisco Bautista, et al. United States vs. Jose Crame Manuel Testagorda Figueras vs. Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines Inchausti & Company vs. Commanding General of the Division of the Philippines The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-3378 November 30, 1906
JOSE CASTAÑO, attorney in fact of Jose Fernandez,petitioner,
vs.
CHARLES S. LOBINGIER, judge of First Instance of the Twelfth Judicial District, AND MANUEL ARAUJO,respondents.
Jose Castaño in his own behalf.
Ramon Fernandez for respondents.
TORRES,J.:
This is an action for prohibition under section 226 of the Code of Civil Procedure, brought by the plaintiff, Jose Castaño, as attorney in fact of Jose Fernandez, against Charles S. Lobingier, judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Leyte, and Manuel Araujo. It is alleged in the petition that the defendant judge issued, on the 14th of April of the present year, a preliminary injunction upon the motion of the defendant, Araujo, against the justice of the peace of the city of Manila, the sheriff of the Province of Leyte, and the plaintiff, Jose Castaño, requiring them to desist and abstain from performing any act leading to the execution of the judgment rendered by the said justice of the peace on the 3d of March previous, against the defendant Manuel Araujo; and on the 16th of April of the said year the said judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte summoned the defendants, requiring them to answer within the time prescribed by the rules a certain petition forcertiorarifiled in this court under section 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
We will not here discuss the question as to whether the justice of the peace of Manila could have taken cognizance of the case against the person residing in the province of Leyte for the reason that such a question is not now before us.
The concrete questions raised by the parties to these proceedings are (1) whether or not the judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte had power to issue an injunction against the justice of the peace of Manila in an action pending in this court, and (2) whether the judge of the said Court of First Instance of Leyte could entertain a petition for a writ ofcertiorariagainst the said justice of the peace of the city of Manila.
Paragraph 7, section 56, Act No. 136 provides:
Said courts and their judges, or any of them, shall have power to issue writs of injunction,mandamuscertiorari, prohibition,quo warranto, andhabeas corpusin their respective provinces and districts, in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure."
Section 163 of The Code of Civil Procedure provides:
A preliminary injunction may be granted by any judge of the Supreme Court in any action pending in the Supreme Court or in a Court of First Instance of any province in the Islands. It may be granted by a judge of a Court of First Instance in an action pending in the district in which he has original jurisdiction.1âwphil.net
The provisions of section 56, paragraph 7, of Act No. 136, and section 163 of the Code of Civil Procedure above quoted are very plain, and it must therefore be admitted that the judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte had no power to issue the preliminary injunction in question and to entertain the petition for a writ ofcertiorarifiled in his court.
The power to administer justice conferred upon the judge of the Courts of First Instance can only be exercised by them within the limits of their respective districts, outside of which they have no jurisdiction whatsoever. The judicial power of a judge of a Court of First Instance can not be as ample as that which the law confers upon the Supreme Court, and therefore such judge can not grant any of the extraordinary remedies provided by law against a justice of the peace not in his province or district.
The judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte had no jurisdiction over the justice of the peace of the city of Manila, and were a judge of the Court of First Instance permitted to grant such extraordinary remedies against a justice of the peace in a district or province other than his own, it would be a serious interference with the proper administration of justice, and a procedure relating to appeals from and other remedies against the judgments of inferior courts would be subverted. It should be borne in mind that the enforcement of the laws of procedure, and more particularly those relating to the jurisdiction of the various courts, concerns the interests of the community at large.
The judge of the Court of First Instance of Leyte had no power to take cognizance, on appeal, of a case of originally tried in the justice court of the city of Manila, nor has he the power to take cognizance of cases that should ordinarily be tried in the Court of First Instance of Manila, unless by virtue of a special commission. Nor has he the power to issue writs of injunction in connection with other special and extraordinary remedies sought from the decisions of the said justice of the peace.
For the reasons hereinbefore set out we are of the opinion that the demurrer to the petition should be overruled, consequently the petition should stand. So ordered.
Arellano, C.J., Mapa and Carson, JJ., concur.
Johnson, Willard and Tracey, JJ., dissent.