September 1933 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1933 > September 1933 Decisions >
G.R. No. 40368 September 23, 1933 - ANACLETO PIIT v. VICENTE B. DE LARA
058 Phil 457:
058 Phil 457:
EN BANC
[G.R. No. 40368. September 23, 1933.]
ANACLETO PIIT, ET AL., Petitioners, v. VICENTE B. DE LARA, Justice of the Peace of Cagayan, Oriental Misamis, and CLEOFE VELEZ, administratrix of the intestate estate of Ramon Neri San Jose, Respondents. ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Certiorari.
Francisco Capistrano, for Petitioners.
No appearance for the respondents.
SYLLABUS
1. CERTIORARI; JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ISSUE WRIT. — There are many reasons why all errors committed by justices of the peace should be corrected by the Courts of First Instance, under whose supervision such inferior courts function. As the writ of certiorari is not one of right but lies within the court’s judicial discretion, applications like the present will not be entertained unless the case is shown to be exceptional and the Supreme Court’s action in the first instance necessary in the furtherance of justice.
D E C I S I O N
HULL, J.:
This is an original action for a writ of certiorari, praying that the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent justice of the peace against the petitioners be declared null and void, on the ground that the same was issued in excess of his jurisdiction.
Our jurisdiction in this case is concurrent with that of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Misamis, and no showing is made why application for the writ prayed for should not have been submitted to that court. There are many reasons why all errors committed by justices of the peace should be corrected by the Courts of First Instance, under whose supervision such inferior courts function.
As the writ of certiorari is not one of right but lies within our judicial discretion, we will decline to entertain application such as here presented unless the case is shown to be exceptional and our action in the first instance necessary in the furtherance of justice.
Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos and Imperial, JJ., concur.
Our jurisdiction in this case is concurrent with that of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Misamis, and no showing is made why application for the writ prayed for should not have been submitted to that court. There are many reasons why all errors committed by justices of the peace should be corrected by the Courts of First Instance, under whose supervision such inferior courts function.
As the writ of certiorari is not one of right but lies within our judicial discretion, we will decline to entertain application such as here presented unless the case is shown to be exceptional and our action in the first instance necessary in the furtherance of justice.
Malcolm, Villa-Real, Abad Santos and Imperial, JJ., concur.
