ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1958 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. Nos. L-9456 & L-9481 January 6, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. DOMINGO DE LARA

    102 Phil 813

  • G.R. No. L-9692 January 6, 1958 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY

    102 Phil 822

  • G.R. Nos. L-8845-46 January 7, 1958 - BATANGAS TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. MARTIN SOUZA

    102 Phil 835

  • G.R. No. L-10202 January 8, 1958 - IN RE: SY CHHUT alias TAN BING TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 839

  • G.R. No. L-10420 January 10, 1958 - IN RE: LIM KIM So alias FRANCISCO LIM KIM SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 843

  • G.R. Nos. L-10249-60 January 14, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO CRISOSTOMO

    102 Phil 846

  • G.R. No. L-10285 January 14, 1958 - SAMPAGUITA SHOE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    102 Phil 850

  • G.R. No. L-10423 January 21, 1958 - AMADO P. JALANDONI v. ANGELA MARTIR-GUANZON

    102 Phil 859

  • G.R. No. L-11000 January 21, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALICIA RAPIRAP

    102 Phil 863

  • G.R. No. L-11014 January 21, 1958 - VICTORIANA ESPIRITU v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

    102 Phil 866

  • G.R. No. L-10196 January 22, 1958 - SANTOS LUMBER COMPANY v. CITY OF CEBU

    102 Phil 870

  • G.R. No. L-10776 January 23, 1958 - MELITON HERRERA v. THE AUDITOR GENERAL OF THE REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 875

  • G.R. No. L-10922 January 23, 1958 - GREGORIO P. DE GUZMAN v. JOSE B. RAMOSO

    102 Phil 883

  • G.R. No. L-12294 January 23, 1958 - UNITED PEPSI-COLA SALES ORGANIZATION (PAFLU) v. HON. ANTONIO CA‘IZARES

    102 Phil 887

  • G.R. No. L-10234 January 24, 1958 - IN RE: Victoriano Yap Subieng to be admitted a citizen of the Phil.; VICTORIANO YAP SUBIENG v. REP. OF THE PHIL.

    102 Phil 892

  • G.R. No. L-9689 January 27, 1958 - JESUS T. QUIAMBAO v. PEDRO R. PERALTA

    102 Phil 899

  • G.R. No. L-10806 January 27, 1958 - DAVID AZNAR v. ASUNCION SUCILLA

    102 Phil 902

  • G.R. No. L-11093 January 27, 1958 - LEONARDO ENAGE LABAJO v. CIRIACO ENRIQUEZ

    102 Phil 907

  • G.R. No. L-10446 January 28, 1958 - COLLEGE OF ORAL & DENTAL SURGERY v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 912

  • G.R. No. L-10874 January 28, 1958 - RUFINO D. ANDRES v. THE CROWN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

    102 Phil 919

  • G.R. No. L-10702 January 29, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SIXTO CABARLES

    102 Phil 926

  • G.R. No. L-10091 January 29, 1958 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHIL. v. JULIANA V. ARAOS

    102 Phil 1080

  • G.R. No. L-11343 January 29, 1958 - CARLOS LEDESMA v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

    102 Phil 931

  • G.R. No. L-11248 January 30, 1958 - ANACLETA VILLAROMAN v. QUIRINO STA. MARIA

    102 Phil 937

  • Adm. Case No. 195 January 31, 1958 - IN RE: Attorney JESUS T. QUIAMBAO

    102 Phil 940

  • G.R. No. L-8252 January 31, 1958 - JOSE C. ZULUETA v. NICANOR NICOLAS

    102 Phil 944

  • G.R. No. L-9871 January 31, 1958 - ATKINS v. B. CUA HIAN TEK

    102 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. L-9928 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

    102 Phil 953

  • G.R. No. L-10022 January 31, 1958 - NORTHERN MOTORS v. NATIONAL LABOR UNION

    102 Phil 958

  • G.R. No. L-10141 January 31, 1958 - REP. OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIPPINE RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

    102 Phil 960

  • G.R. Nos. L-10236-48 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTACIO DE LUNA

    102 Phil 968

  • G.R. No. L-10370 January 31, 1958 - THE COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MATIAS H. AZNAR

    102 Phil 979

  • G.R. No. L-10547 January 31, 1958 - THE PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. LAURA DINIO

    102 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. L-10691 January 31, 1958 - ERLINDA STERNBERG v. GONZALO SOLOMON

    102 Phil 995

  • G.R. No. L-10747 January 31, 1958 - MARIANO DIAZ v. PASCUAL MACALINAO

    102 Phil 999

  • G.R. No. L-10902 January 31, 1958 - FLORIDA LAGMAY v. EMERENCIANA QUINIT

    102 Phil 1003

  • G.R. No. L-11024 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO ANGELES v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, GREOGORIO STA. INES

    102 Phil 1006

  • G.R. No. L-11186 January 31, 1958 - ALFONSO CABABA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

    102 Phil 1013

  • G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ

    102 Phil 1016

  • G.R. No. L-11647 January 31, 1958 - FLORENTINO NAVARRO v. HON. ELOY BELLO

    102 Phil 1019

  • G.R. No. L-12724 January 31, 1958 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARIDAD CAPISTRANO

    102 Phil 1025

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ<br /><br />102 Phil 1016

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [G.R. No. L-11395. January 31, 1958.]

    SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA, Petitioner, v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ, Judge, Municipal Court of Manila, Branch IV and the CITY FISCAL OF MANILA, Respondents.

    Eugenio M. Millado for Petitioner.

    Assistant Fiscal Arsenio Nañawa for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    COURTS; CONCURRENT JURISDICTION; MUNICIPAL COURT, CITY OF MANILA WITH CFI; GRANT OF JURISDICTION NOT IMPLIED. — Section 41 of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila defines the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of the City both original and concurrent. No implication may be made therefrom of a grant of concurrent jurisdiction to the Court of First Instance. Then the provision from which the grant is sought to be implied defines the jurisdiction of the Municipal court and cannot possibly refer to another court, where jurisdiction is defined in another law (Republic Act No. 296). The Municipal Court should have concurrent jurisdiction over certain specific crimes triable by a Court of First Instance is no basis for the claim that the Court of First Instance conversely has also concurrent jurisdiction over the cases triable by the Municipal Court. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance is a court of general jurisdiction and it is unreasonable to assume that the legislature intended to grant to it, concurrent jurisdiction over minor offenses such as estafa involving such amounts as may be less than P200.


    D E C I S I O N


    LABRADOR, J.:


    Certiorari against an order of dismissal issued by the Court of First Instance of Manila, and prohibition against the Municipal Court of Manila, Hon. Ambrosio M. Geraldez, presiding, to enjoin it from taking cognizance of an information led before it for estafa against the petitioner (Criminal Case No. D-057576).

    On March 14, 1955, Assistant Fiscal Gregorio F. Lim of Manila filed an information for estafa (Criminal Case No. 30750) against petitioner Sotera Dimagiba. The information charges that the accused therein, petitioner in these proceedings, defrauded, misappropriated, misapplied and converted, the sum of P200.00, which should have been delivered to complainant. On November 5, 1955, after the information had been read and the accused entered a plea of not guilty thereto, the court dismissed the information for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, on January 17, 1956, Fiscal Lim presented another information against the accused, this time before the Municipal Court of Manila. The information is a replica of the information filed previously in the Court of First Instance. Upon the filing of this information the accused, petitioner herein, filed a motion to quash, alleging double jeopardy. The motion was denied and upon his failure to obtain a reconsideration of the denial of the motion to quash, the accused instituted the present action in this Court.

    The petitioner claim that the Court of First Instance of Manila had jurisdiction to try the offense charged in the information filed with it under the authority of the Revised Charter of the City of Manila (R. A. No. 409), particularly Section 41, which provides as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 41. Criminal jurisdiction. — The municipal court shall have territorial jurisdiction embracing the entire police jurisdiction of the city, and shall hold a daily session, Sundays and legal holidays alone excepted: Provided, however, That when a legal holiday occurs in two or more successive days or when a Sunday is immediately preceded and/or followed by a holiday, the municipal court may hold night session during said holidays. Said court shall have jurisdiction exclusive of the other courts sitting in the city over all criminal cases arising under the penal laws of the Philippines, where the offense is committed within the police jurisdiction of the city and the maximum punishment is by imprisonment for not more than six months, or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or both.

    "It shall also have concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance over all criminal cases arising under the laws relating to gambling and management of lotteries, to assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial, to larceny, embezzlement and estafa where the amount of money or property stolen, embezzled or otherwise involved does not exceed the sum or value of two hundred pesos, to the sale of intoxicating liquors, to falsely impersonating an officer, to malicious mischief, to trespass on Government or private property, and to threatening to take human life. It may also conduct preliminary examinations for any offense, without regard to the limits of punishment, and may release, or commit and bind ever any person charged with such offense to secure appearance before the proper court.’

    The cases of People v. Palmon, 86 Phil., 350, 47 Off. Gaz. 29, and People v. Colicio, 88 Phil. 196 are cited in support of this contention.

    The information filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila charges misappropriation of the sum of P200.00. The penalty prescribed for this offense is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum period (Art. 315, par. 5, Revised Penal Code). The offense charged, therefore, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of Manila in accordance with Section 41 of its revised charter. But it is argued that the second paragraph of the same section, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "It shall also have concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of First Instance over all criminal cases arising under the laws relating to gambling and management of lotteries, to assaults where the intent to kill is not charged or evident upon the trial, to larceny, embezzlement and estafa where the amount of money or property stolen, embezzled or otherwise involved does not exceed the sum or value of two hundred pesos, to the sale of intoxicating liquors, to falsely impersonating an officer, to malicious mischief, to trespass on Government or private property, and to threatening to take human life. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

    is a grant of concurrent jurisdiction to try the same case to the Court of First Instance. There are various reasons for rejecting this contention. Section 41 is found in "Article IX — The Municipal Court" of the Charter of Manila, and defines the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court of the City, both original and concurrent. No implication may be made therefrom of a grant of concurrent jurisdiction to the Court of First Instance. Grants of jurisdiction cannot be merely implied. Then the provision from which the grant is sought to be implied defines the jurisdiction of the Municipal Court only, and cannot possibly refer to another court, whose jurisdiction is defined in another law (Republic Act No. 296). That the Municipal Court should have concurrent jurisdiction over certain specific crimes triable by a Court of First Instance is no bases for the claim that the Court of First Instance, conversely, has also concurrent jurisdiction over cases triable by the Municipal Court. Lastly, the Court of First Instance is a court of general jurisdiction and it is unreasonable to assume that the Legislature intended to grant to it concurrent jurisdiction over minor offenses such as estafa involving such amounts as may be less than P200.00.

    We have also examined the cases that have been cited by both of the parties to the proceedings and found out that none of them covers the precise question raised and decided in these proceedings.

    The petition is hereby denied, with costs against petitioner.

    Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

    G.R. No. L-11395 January 31, 1958 - SOTERA GARCIA DIMAGIBA v. HON. AMBROSIO M. GERALDEZ<br /><br />102 Phil 1016


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED