Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1964 > December 1964 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23838 December 28, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. LUIS B. REYES:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23838. December 28, 1964.]

COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION and BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, Petitioners, v. HON. LUIS B. REYES, as Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI, MERCEDES TOBIANO CO, SUSANA TOBIANO, JOSE TOBIANO, JUAN TOBIANO, JULIO TOBIANO, JUSTO TOBIANO and PABLO TOBIANO, Respondents.

Solicitor General, for Petitioners.

J.C. Yuseco for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. COURTS; ASSIGNMENT OF CASES TO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; NOT REQUIRED TO BE EXCLUSIVELY BY RAFFLE. — Section 7 of Rule 22 of the Rules of Court does not require that assignment of cases be exclusively through raffle. It provides, merely, that parties be notified in writing, sufficiently in advance to enable them to be present, in the assignment of cases to the different branches of a Court of First Instance. The assignment thereunder may be "by raffle or otherwise."

2. ID.; ID.; NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT; PURPOSE OF DEEMED ACCOMPLISHED HEARING OF MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ASSIGNMENT; CASE AT BAR. — Notice under Section 7 is required to afford the parties a chance to be heard in the assignment of their cases. This has been sufficiently accomplished in the case at bar, because after the cases in question were assigned to branch of the court, herein petitioners filed motions for reconsideration of the assignment; their motions were set for hearing and action on the cases was postponed; the parties were fully heard on the question of the assignment; thereafter, the assignment was affirmed. A "day in court" has thus been given to the parties.

3. ID.; ID.; CHANGE OF POLICY OF MANILA COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE IN ASSIGNING CASE SUSTAINED. — The practice in the Court of First Instance of Manila has been to assign cases by raffle. But, the Judges of said court at a meeting on October 11, 1957 agreed on a policy whereby "in cases involving new and the same fundamental questions, the branch to which was assigned the first case shall be the one to try all cases subsequently filed." Said policy also applies in cases involving different parties but the same fundamental questions.

4. ID.; ID.; COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA HAS ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS OF COURT. — By long-standing provision of law, from Section 167-A of the Revised Administrative Code to Section 61 of the Judiciary Act, the Court of First Instance of Manila has "administrative control of all matters affecting the internal operations of the court." Where no justifiable reason exists, the Supreme Court will not interfere with the internal policy of said lower court in the assignment of cases.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, J.P., J.:


Among the new provisions in the Rules of Court effective January 1, 1964 is Section 7 of Rule 22:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SEC. 7. Assignment of cases. — In the assignment of cases to the different branches of a Court of First Instance, or their transfer from one branch to another whether by raffle or otherwise, the parties or their counsel shall be given written notice sufficiently in advance so that they may be present therein if they so desire."cralaw virtua1aw library

The petition before this Court would invoke the above provision.

On October 10, 1964 a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila. The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 58624. As petitioners it had Mercedes Tobiano Co and six others: Susana, Jose, Juan, Julio, Justo and Pablo, all surnamed Tobiano. The respondents were Martiniano P. Vivo, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration; the Board of Immigration Commissioners; and the Deportation Officer. 1

Petitioners in Civil Case No. 58624 filed at the same time an ex-parte petition to assign the case to Branch VI. The reason stated was: ". . . before the said Branch VI there are now pending two cases, entitled VICENTE CAOILE, Et Al., v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, Et Al., Civil Case No. 57271 and JOSE CAOILE v. MARTINIANO P. VIVO, Et. Al. Civil Case No 57280, the nature and facts of which are identical to those involved in the instant case and where the parties respondents are the same."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the same day the Executive Judge of the court granted this ex- parte petition.

On October 26, 1964 a petition for habeas corpus was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on behalf of Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano by Mercedes Tobiano Co, their mother. This petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 58782. Named as respondents were Martiniano P. Vivo, as Acting Commissioner of Immigration; the Deportation Officer; and "John Doe."

An ex parte petition was also filed by Mercedes Tobiano Co, seeking assignment of Civil Case No. 58782 to Branch VI. On October 27, 1964 said ex parte petition was granted by the Executive Judge. Thereupon the Presiding Judge of Branch VI issued an order commanding that on October 31, 1964 at 8:30 a.m. the persons of Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano be brought before his sala.

The Commissioner of Immigration and the Board of Immigration Commissioners, upon learning that Civil Case Nos. 58624 and 58782 had been assigned to Branch VI, filed ex parte motions for reconsideration dated October 29, and 30 praying that said cases be recalled from Branch VI and assigned by raffle. Furthermore, they filed an "urgent motion for postponement" in the habeas corpus case.

The Executive Judge set the motions for reconsideration for hearing. The Presiding Judge of Branch VI postponed the habeas corpus proceedings "until after resolution of the question of the assignment."cralaw virtua1aw library

After the filing of an opposition to the motions for reconsideration, and a reply thereto, the hearing was held. Thereafter, the Executive Judge issued an order dated November 18, 1964 denying the motions for reconsideration.

On November 19, 1964 the Commissioner of Immigration and the Board of Immigration Commissioners filed the petition at bar for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with preliminary injunction. As prayed for, We ordered preliminary injunction issued without bond to enjoin action on the cases involved.

Petitioners would contend that the assignment of the afore-stated cases to Branch VI without raffle and previous notice ran counter to the mandatory provisions of Section 7, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court and derived them of a day in court.

Section 7 of Rule 22 does not, require that assignment of cases be exclusively through raffle. It provides, merely, that parties be notified in writing, sufficiently in advance to enable them to be present, in the assignment of cases to the different branches of a Court of First Instance. The assignment thereunder may be "by raffle or otherwise."cralaw virtua1aw library

Notice under Section 7, is required to afford the parties a chance to be heard in the assignment of their cases. This has been sufficiently accomplished herein. After the cases were assigned to Branch VI, herein petitioners filed motions for reconsideration of the assignment; their motions were set for hearing and action on the cases was postponed; the parties were fully heard on the question of the assignment; thereafter, the assignment was affirmed. A "day in court" has thus been given to the parties.

The practice in the Court of First Instance of Manila has been to assign cases by raffle. But, the Judges of said court at a meeting on October 11, 1957 agreed on a policy whereby "in cases involving new and the same fundamental questions, the branch to which was assigned the first case shall be the one to try all cases subsequently filed."cralaw virtua1aw library

When the petitions in Civil Case Nos. 58624 and 58782 were filed, two cases involving the same new and fundamental questions raised therein were pending before Branch VI. Petitioners, while admitting this, contend that the afore-stated policy does not apply where the parties are different. Nowhere in their agreement did the Judges of the Court of First Instance of Manila require that the parties be the same. The Judge who opened the meeting of October 11, 1957 said: "This meeting was called for the purpose of initiating a policy in cases involving maybe different parties but the same fundamental questions." (Italics supplied.)

Petitioners would also contend that the first cases involving the same questions were not assigned to Branch VI. Suffice it to state that as of the filing of Civil Case Nos. 58624 and 58782, the pending cases involving the same questions were before Branch VI; Civil Case No. 57271, "Vicente Caoile v. Martiniano P. Vivo, Et. Al." and Civil Case No. 57280, "Jose Caoile v. Martiniano P. Vivo, Et. Al." Petitioners refer to cases antedating the foregoing: Civil Case No. 51534, "Tong Siok Sy v. Martiniano P. Vivo, Et Al.," and Civil Case No. 51581, "Jose C. Mesina, Et. Al. v. Martiniano P. Vivo, Et. Al." But they also admit that said earlier cases were then no longer pending before the Court of First Instance of Manila. Thus, the reason for the afore-stated policy, as herein petitioners put it, "the need for consolidation to avoid duplicity in the calling of witnesses and presentation of evidence," left no alternative but to assign Civil Case Nos. 58624 and 58782 to Branch VI. We may add that by long- standing provision of law, from Section 167-A of the Revised Administrative Code to Section 61 of the Judiciary Act, the Court of First Instance of Manila has "administrative control of all matters affecting the internal operations of the court." No justifiable reason exists for Us to interfere with the internal policy of the court in the assignment of its cases.

Petitioners also state that the Presiding Judge of Branch VI has shown bias against them and, in support of this, mention previous decisions of said Judge reversed by this Court. We trust, however, that respondent Presiding Judge will follow the rulings of this Court, not insist upon his own, in the instances where his decisions had been reversed.

WHEREFORE, We hereby deny the petition and dissolve the preliminary injunction heretofore issued, without costs. So ordered.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The petition in Civil Case No. L-58624 alleged inter alia that therein petitioners entered the Philippines in September 1961; that on October 3, 1961 Board of Special Inquiry No. 2, in its decision ordered them admitted "under documentation as Filipino citizens" ; that the Board of Immigration Commissioners affirmed said decision; that the present Board of Immigration Commissioners reviewed its predecessor’s action motu propio and without hearing; that in its decision of September 27, 1962 said Board decreed petitioners’ exclusions "as aliens not properly documented" ; that said petitioners are about to be arrested, detained and deported; that, in fact, Jose Tobiano and Justo Tobiano have been arrested and detained. (Annex A, Petition.)




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1964 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18212 December 8, 1964 - IN RE: ONG GIOK LIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-15902 December 23, 1964 - IN RE: ALFREDO V. CRUZ, JR. v. DOLORES H. SISON

  • G.R. No. L-18962 December 23, 1964 - SANTIAGO MERCADO v. ELIZALDE & COMPANY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19418 December 23, 1964 - ONG TAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19762 December 23, 1964 - ADOLFO B. BENAVIDES v. EDUARDO ALABASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-19860 December 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN QUIMSING

  • G.R. No. L-19924 December 23, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS CELESTINO

  • G.R. No. L-20234 December 23, 1964 - PAULA DE LA CERNA v. MANUELA REBACA POTOT

  • G.R. No. L-20413 December 23, 1964 - GO UAN v. EMILIO L. GALANG

  • G.R. No. L-20822 December 23, 1964 - DIONISIO A. SARANDI v. CORAZON ESPINO

  • G.R. Nos. L-20916-17 December 23, 1964 - PANGASINAN TRANSPORTATION CO., INC. v. GREGORIO A. LEGASPI

  • G.R. No. L-17739 December 24, 1964 - ITOGON-SUYOC MINES, INC. v. JOSE BALDO

  • G.R. No. L-18494 December 24, 1964 - NIEVES VDA. DE MIRANDA v. LIM SHI

  • G.R. No. L-18534 December 24, 1964 - GOLDEN RIBBON LUMBER CO., INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN

  • G.R. No. L-19563 December 24, 1964 - TEODORA VILLALON VDA. DE GENEROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-19615 December 24, 1964 - IN RE: LEONOR DE LOS ANGELES v. ISIDORO O. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-19953 December 24, 1964 - PILAR REVILLA DE LAGDAMEO v. JUAN LA’O

  • G.R. No. L-20654 December 24, 1964 - MARCELINO M. FRANCISCO v. CITY OF DAVAO

  • G.R. No. L-20697 December 24, 1964 - EUSEBIO M. LOPEZ v. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA

  • G.R. No. L-23608 December 24, 1964 - FRANCISCO SOCORRO v. MONTANO ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-18946 December 26, 1964 - MUNICIPAL BOARD v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-20089 December 26, 1964 - BEATRIZ P. WASSMER v. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ

  • G.R. No. L-14639 December 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIO CONTANTE

  • G.R. Nos. L-17177-80 December 28, 1964 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO TIERRA

  • G.R. No. L-18739 December 28, 1964 - SILVINO DE GOMA v. ROSARIO DE GOMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18799 December 28, 1964 - JOSE F. FERNANDEZ v. HERMINIO MARAVILLA

  • G.R. No. L-19090 December 28, 1964 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. TEODORA BUSUEGO

  • G.R. No. L-19336 December 28, 1964 - JOSEFA VDA. DE SANTOS v. ANDRES J. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. L-19658 December 28, 1964 - VICTORIAS-MANAPLA WORKERS ORG. (PAFLU) v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

  • G.R. No. L-20108 December 28, 1964 - ALAN A. BAKEWELL v. JOSE T. LLOREN

  • G.R. Nos. L-20179-81 December 28, 1964 - EUGENIO LOPEZ, SR. v. CHRONICLE PUBLICATIONS EMPLOYEES ASSO.

  • G.R. No. L-20451 December 28, 1964 - R. F. SUGAY & CO., INC. v. PABLO C. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20521 December 28, 1964 - ISAIAS ANGCAO v. JOSE PUNZALAN

  • G.R. No. L-20568 December 28, 1964 - RAMON A. GONZALES v. PROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF ILOILO

  • G.R. No. L-20825 December 28, 1964 - AMALIA PLATA v. NICASIO YATCO

  • G.R. No. L-23838 December 28, 1964 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. LUIS B. REYES

  • G.R. No. L-16933 December 29, 1964 - TALISAY-SILAY MINING CO., INC. v. VICENTE G. BUNUAN

  • G.R. No. L-19528 December 29, 1964 - PERFECTO LIMCHAYPO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-19652 December 29, 1964 - BALONG CALSE v. PINKISAN YADNO

  • G.R. No. L-20674 December 29, 1964 - UNITED STATES LIFE INSURANCE CO. IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK v. CENTRAL BANK