People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido Tan, et al.
Supreme Court
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-16509 April 29, 1961
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HON. BIENVENIDO TAN, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch III, FRANCISCO T. KOH, VICENTE VILLANUEVA, SANTOS LLORCA, ELOY T. KOH, DOLORES SIY HAI PIN, JOSE Uy ENG KUIaliasJOSE VILLANUEVA UY, PROCOPIO ELEAZAR and VICENTE ALUNAN,respondents.
CONCEPCION,J.:
R E S O L U T I O N
On January 19, 1960, the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 36042 of the Court of First Instance of Manila, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Villanueva, Francisco T. Koh, Santos Llorca, Eloy T. Koh, Dolores Siy Hai Pin, Jose Uy Eng Kui alias Jose Villanueva Uy, Procopio Eleazar and Vicente Alunan", for violation of section 16 of Republic Act No. 85, filed with this Court the present petition for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin respondent, Hon. Bienvenido A. Tan, as, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, to desist from trying said criminal case — despite the motion, therein filed by said prosecution and denied by respondent Judge, praying that he inhibit himself from taking cognizance thereof — upon the ground that, in view of the decision rendered by him in Civil Case No. 24248 of the same court, entitled "Rehabilitation Finance Corporation vs. Villanueva Steamship Co., Inc., Francisco T. Koh, Vicente Villanueva, Eloy T. Koh, Santos Llorca, Jose Uy Villanueva, alias Jose Uy Eng Hui, alias Uy Eng Kui,aliasHwang Nien Shun, Dolores Siy Hai Pin,aliasSy Ai Chu, Lino J. Castillejo, Procopio Eleazar and Vicente Alunan", involving the same transactions which are the subject matter of the aforementioned criminal case — which decision is pending review before this Court, in G.R. No. L-15512 — respondent Judge had already formed an opinion on the merits of said criminal case and should, therefore, abstain from hearing the same. Shortly after the filing of the present case, this Court issued the writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by petitioner herein.
It appearing that respondent Judge has already retired from the Bench, the issue before us has become moot, and, hence, this case is hereby dismissed, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Labrador, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ.,concur.
Related decisions
Decisions on similar questions that neither cites the other: they rely on the same precedents, are cited together, or apply the same law.
- L-21693 April 30 v. Auditor General Enrique O. Chan for…1966both apply Act 85, RA 85
- L-19568 March 31 v. Jose L. Chupeco Office of the…1964both apply Act 85, RA 85
- L-52016 May 13 v. Review1981both apply Act 85, RA 85
- Central Bank of the Philippines and… v. CA1989both apply Act 85, RA 85
- L-20674 December 29 v. Central Bank of the Philippines…1964both apply Act 85, RA 85
- L-67496 July 7 v. Court1986both apply Act 85, RA 85
- L-62699 August 30 v. Cfi-Rizal1988both apply Act 85, RA 85
- L-4712 July 11 v. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation…1952both apply Act 85, RA 85
Laws it applies
Links and connections are read from the text by pattern matching, not checked by a person. A guide, not a finding.