Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1913 > December 1913 Decisions > G.R. No. 8991 December 12, 1913 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ALBERTO BARRETTO, ET AL.

026 Phil 272:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 8991. December 12, 1913. ]

CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTO BARRETTO ET AL., Defendants.

Ramon Diokno and Gibbs, McDonough & Blanco, for Plaintiff.

Solicitor-General Harvey, for Defendants.

SYLLABUS


1. VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE; EFFECT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING JUDGE TO PROCEED WITH THE TRIAL. — While an order issued by this court in a mandamus action to compel a judge of the Court of First Instance to proceed with the trial of a cause, it having been found in the action that the judge was not disqualified in law as claimed and held by him. is addressed to that judge alone, such order does not prevent the cause from being heard by some other judge who may have been substituted, either permanently or temporarily, in place of the judge to whom the order was directed, in the province where the action is pending.

2. ID.; ID. — Such an order is always subject to the possibility that the judge to whom it is directed may not be holding court in the province in which the action is pending in which the order was issued at the time when the cause in which the order was issued is triable, and its purpose may be defeated altogether by the removal of the judge from that province and the substitution of another therein either permanently or temporarily.

3. ID.; ID. — Whether or not a judge to whom an order of this court is directed remains a judge of the province in which he was holding court at the time the order was issued is a matter entirely beyond the control of this court and outside of its sphere of activity.

4. ID.; ID.; EFFECT OF SUBSTITUTION OF ANOTHER JUDGE. — The substitution of another judge in place of the one to whom the order in question was directed robs this court of the power to enforce such order.


D E C I S I O N


MORELAND, J. :


This is a motion asking the court to clarify and render unambiguous an order issued in an action of mandamus, directed to Alberto Barretto as judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal, ordering him, as such judge, to go forward with the trial of an action then pending before him.

There is now, and was when said order was made pending in the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal, an action to compel the authorities of one of the municipalities of the Province of Rizal to issue to the plaintiff a license to operate a cockpit. The action duly came on for trial before Judge Barretto, then judge of the Court of First Instance of that province, when, upon the suggestion of the defendants, the judge voluntarily disqualified himself and refused to proceed with the trial of the case. Mandamus was brought in this court by the plaintiff in that action against the judge and others in which the plaintiff asked that the judge be compelled to proceed with the trial of the cause, he not being disqualified upon legal grounds. That action having taken its course in this court, we held that Judge Barretto was not disqualified and that he should proceed with the trial of the case. The final paragraph in our decision contained these words:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"As a consequence, we set aside the order (of disqualification) and require the judge to proceed with the trial . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

An order was issued in pursuance of that decision requiring the judge to go forward with the cause and was duly served upon him.

The judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal at the time of our decision was, as we have said, the Honorable Alberto Barretto. At the time this case was regularly called for trial in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, on November 20, 1913, Judge Barretto had been temporarily relieved from duty in the Province of Rizal and the Honorable Jose C. Abreu had been named by the Secretary of Finance and Justice to hold court in that province in his place, and especially to hold a term of court at Pasig, Rizal, beginning on November 20, 1913. The cause having been regularly brought on for trial at the term presided over by Judge Abreu, the attorneys for the plaintiff made the objection that, under the order of this court issued in the mandamus action, no judge other than Judge Barretto could lawfully hear and determine the cause. It was claimed that the order of this court having been directed to Alberto Barretto, he is the only judge who can hear and determine the cause.

Our action is invoked by a motion to clarify and render unambiguous the dispositive part of our decision and the order which we issued thereon. It is claimed that the ambiguity lies in the inability of the parties to determine whether or not the trial of the cause by any other judge than Alberto Barretto would be a violation of the terms thereof.

We are of the opinion that the motion must be denied. There is no ambiguity in the decision or the order. It was directed to Alberto Barretto as Judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal. While it was not directed to him personally but to him as a judge, its operation was confined entirely to him by reason of the nature of the action in which the order was issued. The issues framed in that action relate solely to the qualifications of Judge Barretto in his relation with the action then pending in his court. The defendants denied the existence of qualifications necessary to make the judge competent to sit, while the plaintiff asserted that the judge was qualified. We held with the plaintiff and ordered the judge to proceed with the trial of the action.

The action of mandamus in the Supreme Court, being one which affected Judge Barretto and him alone, would necessarily be subject to the possibility of having its whole purpose defeated and the decision deprived of force or effect by the permanent removal of Judge Barretto from that province or by the substitution of another judge to perform his duties therein temporarily. The order we issued was the result of an action touching the qualifications of Judge Barretto in a particular action pending before him in the Province of Rizal. The inevitable and necessary condition upon which the action was founded and upon which the order therein was issued by this court was that Judge Barretto should remain judge in that province. If he did not remain judge of that province, the action could produce no effect and any judgment therein would be vain and useless. Whether he did so remain judge in that province or not was entirely beyond the control of this court and involved matters wholly outside its sphere of activity. If, after the issuance of our order, competent authority removed Judge Barretto from that province, whether permanently or temporarily, and substituted another judge in his place, as was actually done, the action to compel him to proceed was in vain, and this court, with all others, was robbed of power to enforce the decree therein entered.

It is a necessary conclusion, therefore, that the action referred to in this motion is cognizable by any judge who sits as judge of the Court of First Instance of the Province of Rizal, whether it be Judge Barretto or another.

While we deny the motion upon the ground that there is no ambiguity in the decision or order and no reason for a verbal modification of either, nevertheless, following the rule adopted in several cases, we have expressed an advisory opinion upon the question presented and argued in order that time may be saved and expense avoided, should the parties see fit to be guided by our conclusions.

The motion is denied.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Carson, and Trent, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





December-1913 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 8238 December 2, 1913 - ANTONIO M. BARRETTO v. JOSE SANTA MARINA

    026 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. 8561 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. E. M. KNIGHT

    026 Phil 216

  • G.R. No. 8658 December 4, 1913 - MANUEL RUPERTO, ET AL. v. MANUEL KOSCA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 8860 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ERIBERTO M. PASCUAL

    026 Phil 234

  • G.R. No. 8969 December 4, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. PAULINO LABADAN

    026 Phil 239

  • G.R. No. 6650 December 5, 1913 - SANTIAGO GALVEZ v. CANUTA GALVEZ

    026 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. 7888 December 6, 1913 - DIONISIO CABUNIAG v. MARCOS MAGUNDAYAO

    026 Phil 248

  • G.R. No. 8126 December 11, 1913 - TAN BEKO v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    026 Phil 254

  • G.R. No. 8973 December 11, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LINO RAMOS CALUBAQUIB

    026 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 9014 December 11, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. CORNELIO FLORES

    026 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 8120 December 12, 1913 - FERMIN DE LA CRUZ v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    026 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. 8991 December 12, 1913 - CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN v. ALBERTO BARRETTO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 272

  • G.R. No. 9022 December 13, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ANDRES HERRERA

    026 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. 8105 December 17, 1913 - ANGEL ORTIZ, ET AL. v. ANGEL ORTIZ

    026 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 9109 December 17, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LEONILO GARCIA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. 7999 December 19, 1913 - ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF NUEVA SEGOVIA v. GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

    026 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. 8946 December 20, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. AH TUNG, ET AL.

    026 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. 7785 December 22, 1913 - FELIPE JUAN, ET AL. v. GO COTAY, ET AL.

    026 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 9041 December 22, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. LIN TIAO

    026 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 7856 December 26, 1913 - IN RE: MARIA CRISTINA G. CALDERON v. LUCAS EUGENIO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 333

  • G.R. No. 7928 December 27, 1913 - PROV. OF TARLAC, ET AL. v. HERBERT D. GALE

    026 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 8214 December 27, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. THOMAS R. NICHOL

    026 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. 8267 December 27, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. APOLINARIO CUNANAN

    026 Phil 376

  • G.R. No. 8376 December 27, 1913 - MANUEL NOVO & CO. v. J. E. AINSWORTH

    026 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 8394 December 27, 1913 - JOSE VACA v. MANUEL KOSCA

    026 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 8574 December 27, 1913 - VICTORIANO SANTOS, ET AL. v. ELIAS ESTEJADA, ET AL.

    026 Phil 398

  • G.R. No. 8638 December 27, 1913 - PEDRO DEL ROSARIO v. TOMAS CELOSIA, ET AT.

    026 Phil 404

  • G.R. No. 7487 December 29, 1913 - CONSTANZA YAÑEZ DE BARNUEVO v. GABRIEL FUSTER

    029 Phil 606

  • G.R. No. 7895 December 29, 1913 - VICTORINO DEL CASTILLO v. PABLO ESCARELLA

    026 Phil 409

  • G.R. No. 8021 December 29, 1913 - PROCESA PELAEZ v. FLAVIANO ABREU

    026 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 8029 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. CARROLL H. LAMB

    026 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 8169 December 29, 1913 - ANTONIO M.A BARRETO v. JOSE SANTA MARINA

    026 Phil 440

  • G.R. No. 8654 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. TE TONG

    026 Phil 453

  • G.R. Nos. 8648 & 8649 December 29, 1913 - JOSE AGREGADO v. VICENTE MUÑOZ, ET AL.

    026 Phil 456

  • G.R. No. 8650 December 29, 1913 - HENRY M. JONES, ET AL. v. H.E. SCHIFFBAUER

    026 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. 8678 December 29, 1913 - MARCIANA MORENO DE WORRICK v. PAULINA GACO, ET AL.

    026 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. 8896 December 29, 1913 - EDUARDO GUTIERREZ REPIDE v. GUTIERREZ HERMANOS

    026 Phil 476

  • G.R. No. 9158 December 29, 1913 - RAMON HONTIVEROS v. JOSE ALTAVAS

    026 Phil 213

  • G.R. No. 9096 December 29, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. ESTEBAN Y. VAZQUEZ

    026 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. 7821 December 31, 1913 - DOMINADOR GOMEZ v. REMEDIOS SALCEDO

    026 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 8190 December 31, 1913 - ISIDORA VENTURA v. AUREA CONSUELO FELIX, ET AL.

    026 Phil 500

  • G.R. No. 8621 December 31, 1913 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DACIR, ET AL.

    026 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 8756 December 31, 1913 - ELEUTERIO CAMPOMANES v. GEORGE BERBARY, ET AL.

    026 Phil 517