copy of 1181 barreto

8/12/2019 Copy of 1181 Barreto

1/15

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 8692 September 10, 1913

GODOFREDO B. ERRER!, "# m$%&'&p"( pre#&)e%t o* C"(oo'"%,petitioner,vs.!+BERTO B!RRETTO, $)-e o* *&r#t &%#t"%'e o* R&"(, "%) CONST!NC/OO!U/N,respondents.

Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey for petitioner.R. Diokno, and Gibbs, McDonough and lanco for respondents.

MORE+!ND, J.:

This is an application for a writ of certiorari to the Court of First nstance of the Province ofRi!al.

t appears that on or about the "st of March, "#"$, Constancio %oa&uin, believin' hi(selfentitled to a license to open and e)ploit a coc*pit in the (unicipalit+ of Caloocan, and theauthorities thereof refusin' to issue it to hi(, be'an an action a'ainst odofredo B. -erreraas (unicipal president of said (unicipalit+, the officer whose dut+ he clai(ed it was to issuecoc*pit licenses, to obtain a !anda!us co(pellin' said official to issue such license.

n the presentation of the verified co(plaint and upon the facts stated therein and thee)hibits anne)ed thereto, the plaintiff as*ed that the court issue a (andator+ in/unctiondirected to the defendant re&uirin' hi( to issue a provisional license under which the plaintiff

(i'ht conduct his coc*pit durin' the pendenc+ of the action. The court, in pursuance of suchre&uest and upon the facts stated in the co(plaint and e)hibits anne)ed thereto, issued suchorder e" parte without notice of the defendant.

Thereupon the defendant in that action be'an a proceedin' in this court a'ainst the /ud'e ofthe Court of First nstance who had issued the (andator+ in/unction relative to theprovisional license referred to, -onorable Alberto Barretto, and Constancio %oa&uin, plaintifftherein, for a writ of certiorari, alle'in' that the court below and had acted without /urisdictionin the followin' particulars0

". That the said -onorable Alberto Barretto e)ceeded his /urisdiction in issuin' a(andator+ in/unction, because, accordin' to para'raph 1#2, section 34, of the

Municipal Code and article 3 of (unicipal ordinance No. 5 of Caloocan 1E)hibit " a2,the issuance of coc*pit licenses in 6o(a and Ma+pa/o does not pertain to the(unicipal president of Caloocan but to the (unicipal council thereof.

7. That the said -onorable Alberto Barretto e)ceeded his /urisdiction in issuin' the(andator+ in/unction e" parte without 'ivin' the (unicipal president opportunit+ toshow cause wh+ such in/unction should not be issued as re&uired b+ section 747 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure.


2/15

$. That the said Alberto Barretto e)ceeded his /urisdiction in issuin' such (andator+in/unction for the reason that the coc*pit license which the president of Caloocan haderroneousl+ issued in favor of Constancio %oa&uin, on the da+ of 8888888888, "#"$,has been annulled and cancelled b+ virtue of ordinance No. 88888 of the (unicipalcouncil of Caloocan, which ordinance has been dul+ approved b+ the provincialboard of Ri!al.

3. That there bein' another action pendin' between the sa(e parties, founded uponthe sa(e facts and reasons, the Court of First nstance of Ri!al had no /urisdiction toissue the (andator+ in/unction of the "st of March, "#"$ 1E)hibit 32, for the reasonthat such in/unction tends to render inefficacious and null the final decision which thishonorable court will render in civil case No. 59:$.

The action referred to in this para'raph is one be'un b+ Antonio Bertol and Tran&uilina T.,windows of An'eles, a'ainst odofredo B. -errera and others relatin' to the validit+ of acertain ordinance.

;. That there bein' pendin' civil case No. #59 (entioned in the previous para'raphs,

the Court of First nstance of Ri!al lac*ed /urisdiction to issue the (andator+in/unction which he issued on the "st of March, "#"$, for the reason that it tends torender inefficacious and null the decision which the -onorable Richard Ca(pbell willrender in civil cause No. #59.

This ob/ection is based upon an action previousl+ be'un b+ Antonio Bertol and Tran&uilina T.,windows of An'eles, a'ainst the (unicipalit+ or the officials thereof for the purpose of havin'declared null and void (unicipal ordinance No. 5 of Caloocan, which is the sa(e ordinanceupon which was based the co(plaint of Constancio %oa&uin and in which the (andator+in/unction was issued.

9. That the said Constancio %oa&uin at the present ti(e does not possess a licenseto (aintain and run the said coc*pits of 6o(a and Ma+pa/o, nor does he have theri'ht to e)ploit the sa(e.

t has been repeatedl+ held b+ this court that a writ of certiorariwill not be issued unless itclearl+ appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or in e)cess of

/urisdiction. t will be not be issued to cure errors in the proceedin's or to correct erroneousconclusions of law or of fact. f the court has /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter and of theperson, decisions upon all &uestions pertainin' to the cause are decision within its

/urisdiction and, however irre'ular or erroneous the+ (a+ be, cannot be correctedb+ certiorari. The Code of Civil Procedure 'ivin' Court of First nstance 'eneral /urisdiction inactions for !anda!us, it 'oes without sa+in' that the Court of First nstance had /urisdictionin the present case to resolve ever+ &uestion arisin' in such an action and to decide ever+&uestion presented to it which pertained to the cause. t had alread+ been held b+ this court

that, while it is a power to be e)ercised onl+ in e)tre(e cases, a Court of First nstance haspower to issue a (andator+ in/unction to stand until the final deter(ination of the action inwhich it is issued.


3/15

t has been ur'ed that the court e)ceeded its /urisdiction in re&uirin' the (unicipal presidentto issue the license, for the reason that he was not the proper person to issue it and that, ifhe was the proper person, he had the ri'ht to e)ercise a discretion as to who( the licenseshould be issued. the ri'ht to act in a case. ?inceit is the power to hear and deter(ine, it does not depend either upon the re'ularit+ of thee)ercise of that power or upon the ri'htfulness of the decisions (ade. %urisdiction shouldtherefore be distin'uished fro( the e)ercise of /urisdiction. The authorit+ to decide a causeat all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what (a*es up /urisdiction.


4/15

n Hager!an vs. Sutton1#" Mo., ;"#2, the court said0 @The power to decide correctl+ and toenforce a decision when correctl+ (ade necessaril+ i(plies the sa(e power to decideincorrectl+ and to enforce a decision when incorrectl+ (ade. 1evis vs.Pac*ard, "4 the (ere power > to decide the &uestion either wa+.@

n (eis vs. (arson13;


5/15

n the case of tah Association vs.Bud'e 1"9 daho, :;"2, the court said0 @f the court had/urisdiction of the person and the sub/ect (atter, then it is clear that whatever (ista*es hasbeen (ade has been onl+ an error co((itted on the part of the trial court in e)ercisin' his

/ud'(ent and appl+in' the law to the case, rather than an e)cess of /urisdiction in actin' in a(atter wherein he had not ac&uired /urisdiction to act or wherein his court has no /urisdictionof the sub/ect in liti'ation. . . . The court had the /urisdiction, power, and authorit+ to hear and

deter(ine that &uestion. t accordin'l+ did so. f the court co((itted an error in decidin' the&uestion thus presented, we answer that the court had /urisdiction to co((it the error.@

Althou'h certiorari (a+ be considered a direct attac* upon a /ud'(ent as distin'uished fro(a collateral attac*, nevertheless, under the laws of these slands the onl+ 'round for theissuance of certioraribein' the failure of /urisdiction of the inferior tribunal, the basis of thedirect attac* upon the /ud'(ent beco(es in this /urisdiction the sa(e as for collateral attac*,inas(uch as, 'enerall+ spea*in', a collateral attac* a'ainst a /ud'(ent is sustainable onl+when the /ud'(ent is void for lac* of /urisdiction in the court to pronounce it. Therefore theauthorities relative to the 'round necessar+ for a successful collateral attac* upon a

/ud'(ent are authorities in a lar'e sense, pertinent to a discussion as to when a court (a+be held to have acted without or in e)cess of /urisdiction.

n the case of $ooper vs. Reynolds1"4


6/15

n the case of Miller vs. Roan17;" ll., $332, the court said0 @A /ud'(ent or decree is notbindin' upon an+one unless the court renderin' the sa(e had /urisdiction of the parties andthe sub/ect (atter of the cause. The court did have /urisdiction of the parties, and theappellant, who is disputin' the bindin' effect of the decree, was one of the co(plainants.%urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter is the power to ad/ud'e concernin' the 'eneral &uestioninvolved, and if a bill states a case belon'in' to a 'eneral class over which the authorit+ of

the court e)tends, the /urisdiction attaches and no error co((itted b+ the court can renderthe /ud'(ent void. t the court has /urisdiction, it is alto'ether i((aterial, when the /ud'(entis collaterall+ called in &uestion, how 'rossl+ irre'ular or (anifestl+ erroneous itsproceedin's (a+ have been. The /ud'(ent cannot be re'arded as a nullit+, and cannot,therefore, be collaterall+ i(peached. ?uch a /ud'(ent is bindin' on the parties and on ever+other court unless reversed or annulled in a direct proceedin' and is not open to collateralattac*. f there is a total want of /urisdiction in a court its proceedin's are an absolute nullit+and confer no ri'ht and afford no protection but will be pronounced void when collaterall+drawn in &uestion. 1Buc*(aster vs.Carlin', $ ?ca(., "43 ?wi''art vs.-arber, " id., $93People vs.?eel+e, "39 ll., "5# Clar* vs.People, "39 id., $35 Brien vs.People, 7"9 id.,$;3 Peoplevs.Tal(ad'e, "#3 id., 9:.2@

&ro!bly vs. lersy1"39 Mich., 9352 $hap!an vs. &aliaferro1" a. App., 7$;2 S!ith vs.Schlink133 Colo., 7442, where the court said0 @That the court had /urisdiction of the partiesand the sub/ect (atter cannot be &uestioned. This bein' true, and it not appearin' that the

/ud'(ent was not within the issues presented b+ the pleadin's, however, erroneous it (a+be, the /ud'(ent cannot be held to be void, so as to brin' this case within the rule thatdisobedience of a void decree does not constitute conte(pt of court.@

aldin vs. %oster1";: Cal., 93$2, where the court said0

Throu'hout this consideration the fact is to be borne in (ind that we are notreviewin' this /ud'(ent under attac* (ade on direct appeal where errors pre/udicialto those appealin' would call for a reversal, but we are considerin' it upon collateralattac*, where ever+ intend(ent is in favor of the /ud'(ent and where (ere errors

and irre'ularities will not be considered. pon collateral attac* the /ud'(ent will beset aside, 'enerall+ spea*in', for but one of three reasons0 6ac* of /urisdiction of theperson, lac* of /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter of the action, or an absolute lac* of

/urisdiction to render such a /ud'(ent as the one 'iven. 1Moore vs.Martin, $5 Cal.,375 Ma+o vs.Fole+, 34 Cal., 75" /n re %a(es, ## Cal., $:3 $: A(. ?t. Rep., 94 $$Pac., ""77


7/15

affidavit as to invo*e the e)ercise of this /urisdiction is one which the court has the sa(e ri'htto deter(ine as it would have in the decision of an+ other &uestions which (i'ht arise in a(atter within its reco'ni!ance. n the e)ercise of this power it (a+ issue an erroneous order,but such an order is not absolutel+ void unless it is re(edied durin' the sa(e action b+(eans of an appeal or otherwise, it will have the effect of a valid order. The Court of Firstnstance should not 'ive a /ud'(ent upon a co(plaint on a pro(issor+ note which does not

state a cause of action, but if it does so its /ud'(ent is valid unless it is reversed b+ (eans ofappeal.


8/15

that the procedure of the court below is devoid of all the for(al re&uisites established b+ lawfor the lev+in' of such attach(ents.

))) ))) )))

The /ud'e, did not, therefore, act ithout/urisdiction when directin' the attach(ent of

the vessel in &uestion, and has not e)ceeded his /urisdiction. f the e)cess of/urisdiction upon which the ar'u(ent was based consists in his havin' levied theattach(ent without the fulfill(ent of the necessar+ conditions and without followin'the for( prescribed b+ so(e law of procedure applicable to the case, it is our opinionthat this error is not such an e)cess of /urisdiction as can be secured b+ prohibition,and the petitioner has other (eans whereb+ this error or procedure (a+ be correctedor re(edied. pon these 'rounds we decide that the petition for a writ of prohibition(ust be denied, with the costs to petitioner, and it is so ordered.

n the case ofraneta vs. &he Heirs of &ran0uilino Gustilo 17 Phil. Rep., 942, this court said0@This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the Court of First nstance ofccidental Ne'ros in re&uirin' a supersedeas bond under section "33 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. t does not appear fro( the petition what the a(ount involved in the liti'ation is,nor on what su( that bond was fi)ed b+ the court, but it is alle'ed that the bond is e)cessive.The court below had /urisdiction to re&uire the bond as a condition of a sta+ of e)ecution,and to fi) its a(ount. Assu(in' that the bond was e)cessive, +et nothin' is alle'ed in thepetition which shows that the court e)ceeded its /urisdiction in the pre(ises or co((ittedan+ irre'ularit+ in its proceedin's in e)ercise thereof. The writ (ust therefore be denied.@

n the case of Springer vs. Odlin 1$ Phil. Rep., $332, the court said0 @The court, on the $4th ofMa+, after hearin' both parties, (ade an order b+ which it was ad/ud'ed that the clai( ofCoDBanco had a preference over the clai( of ?prin'er and ordered the (one+ in the custod+of the cler* to be believed to CoDBlanco, but re&uirin' hi( to e)ecute a bond for the su( ofP344 with sureties for the protection of ?prin'er in case he appealed to the ?upre(e Courtto annul the order.

The plaintiff, ?prin'er, alle'es in his application for certiorari that the Court of Firstnstance acted without /urisdiction in (a*in' this order of the $4th da+ of Ma+, "#4$that not bein' a part+ in the cause of the nited ?tates vs.Catalino Mortes, he hasno ri'ht to appeal nor has he an+ plain, speed+, and ade&uate re(ed+ fro( theorder and further alle'in' that CoDBanco had no lien upon the P7;#.;4 in dispute,either b+ attach(ent or b+ e)ecution nor did the said CoDBlanco on the date of the(a*in' of the order in his favor have an+ ri'ht of an+ other character upon said(one+.

f the Court of First nstance had /urisdiction to render the /ud'(ent of the "$th da+ ofMa+, "#4$, in favor of CoDBanco in the case of the nited ?tates vs.Catalino Mortes,

and in the proceedin' in which ?prin'er intervened resultin' in the order of Ma+ $4,or if the plaintiff, ?prin'er, had an+ plain, speed+, and ade&uate re(ed+ b+ a bill ofe)ceptions, appeal, or otherwise fro( the order of the $4th da+ of Ma+, "#4$, b+which the (one+ in &uestion was directed to be paid to CoDBanco, then theproceedin' in certiorari will not lie.

n the case of %eli1ardo vs. 2ustice of the 'eace of /!us 1$ Phil. Rep., 9$;2, the court said0@Attorne+s Pineda and Escueta, on behalf of Flaviano Feli!ardo and Francisca Feli!ardo,upon the facts stated b+ their co(plaint, dated April 3, "#43, and upon the 'round that there


9/15

was no other speed+ and ade&uate re(ed+ in the ordinar+ course of law, pra+ for an orderdissolvin' the attach(ent levied upon the propert+ of the petitioners, and that a writ issue tothe /ustice of the peace of (us, re&uirin' hi( to absolutel+ refrain fro( all furtherproceedin's until a final decision is rendered upon the co(plaint.

B+ intervenin' in the suit result in which the attach(ent was levied, the parties (a+

avail the(selves of all the le'al re(edies provided for the defense of their lawfulri'hts, but cannot avail the(selves of the writ of prohibition for the purpose ofobtainin' a dischar'e of attach(ent co(plained of. The case is one which pertainse)clusivel+ to the /urisdiction of the /ud'e who is tr+in' it, and there is no authorit+ oflaw for interference with the proceedin's.

n the case of Rubert 3 Guanis vs. Seeney 13 Phil. Rep., 3:$2, the court said0 @The courtbelow had /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter of that suit and of the parties thereto. t hadpower b+ law to 'rant an in/unction in the case and power to dissolve it or (odif+ it. Therecan be no doubt of the correctness of these propositions, but it is clai(ed b+ the plaintiff inthis suit that the stipulation (ade between the parties to the suit below to the effect that thesheriff should hold the (one+ until the final /ud'(ent in that case, deprived the court of

/urisdiction to (a*e the order (odif+in' the in/unction and re&uirin' to sheriff to pa+ the(one+ to the defendant 6o ?hui upon his furnishin' a proper bond.


10/15

re(edies a'ainst the /ud'(ents of inferior courts would be subverted. t should beborne in (ind that the enforce(ent of the laws /urisdiction of the various courts,concerns the interests of the co((unit+ at lar'e.

The /ud'e of the Court of First nstance of 6e+te had no power to ta*e co'ni!ance,on appeal, of a case ori'inall+ tried in the /ustice court of the cit+ of Manila, nor has

he the power to ta*e co'ni!ance of cases that should ordinaril+ be tried in the Courtof First nstance of Manila, unless b+ virtue of a special co((ission. Nor has he thepower to issue writs of in/unction in connection wit other special and e)traordinar+re(edies sou'ht fro( the decisions of said /ustice of the peace.

n the case of Her!an vs. $rossfield1: Phil. Rep., 7;#2, the court said0 @After the ter( atwhich /ud'(ent was rendered, a Court of First nstance (ade an order openin' the case forthe introduction of additional evidence, the (otion therefore havin' been (ade and ar'ueddurin' said ter(. Held, That such order was not void because (ade after the close of saidter( and that it could not be reviewed on certiorari.@

The court at pa'e 79" said0 @


11/15

sustained. The court of Pan'asinan had /urisdiction of the case of Tan Chu Cha+ a'ainst theplaintiff Artacho, /urisdiction both of the parties and of the sub/ect (atter, and the (ere factthat so(e creditor of Tan Chu Cha+ had attached the debt due fro( Artacho to the for(er didnot oust that court fro( its /urisdiction to proceed with the case. 1?ee a(on' other casesdecided b+ this court0 Rubert G ua(is vs.?weene+, 3 Phil. Rep., 3:$?o(es vs.Crossfield, 5 Phil. Rep., 753 and Ha(bert vs.McMic*in', "4 Phil. Rep., #;.2@

n the case of (agahit vs. +engasca and )isli1enus 1"7 Phil. Rep., 37$2, the action was oneof certiorari. The action in the court below was one over a contested election. The court,spea*in' throu'h Mr. Chief %ustice Arellano, said0 @


12/15

propert+ belon'in' to Ful'encio TanDTanco was the sub/ect of liti'ation in the case of SergiaReyes vs. &an-&onco nor did the case fall within either of the other subdivisions of section":3 that the placin' of the propert+ of the defendant in said cause in the hands of thereceiver for the purpose, after pra+in' fees and e)pense of distributin' the propert+ a(on'the creditors, was practicall+ a ban*ruptc+ proceedin' that there are no ban*ruptc+ laws inforce in these slands that ban*ruptc+ proceedin's have been e)pressl+ forbidden b+

section ;73 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions until a law shall be enacted and thatconse&uentl+ the Court of First nstance acted in e)cess of its /urisdiction in appointin'

Antonio Torres receiver in said action.


13/15

n the case of a5es vs. $ordero 1"$ Phil. Rep., 3992, the court said0 @And, if the /urisdictionhas not been e)ceeded, there is not nor could there be an+ le'al 'round for the issuance ofthe writ of certiorari, because these proceedin's can onl+ e)clusivel+ be 'ranted to re(ed+abuses co((itted in the e)ercise of a power or /urisdiction. ?ections 7": and ;"3 of theCode of Civil Procedure providin' for such relief une&uivocall+ and specificall+ refer to theact of e)ceedin' or 'oin' be+ond the /urisdiction and this court has repeatedl+ held that, in

order that certiorari (a+ issue, it is absolutel+ necessar+ to show that the respondent hase)ceeded his power or /urisdiction. 1/n re Prautch, " Phil. Rep., "$7 e los Re+es vs.Ro)as," Phil. Rep., 97; ?prin'er vs.dlin, $ Phil. Rep., $33.2@

n the case ofr1adon vs. $hanco 1"3 Phil. Rep., :"42 the court decided as follows0@$ertiorari is the proper re(ed+ whenever an inferior tribunal, board, or officer e)ercisin'

/udicial functions has e)ceeded its or his /urisdiction, and no appeal, nor an+ plain, speed+,and ade&uate re(ed+ e)ists to correct such e)cess or e)tra li(itation. 1?ecs. 7": and ;"3,Code of Civil Procedure2. The /urisdiction of Courts of First nstance to hear and decideelection contests is e)clusive and final 1sec. 7: of the Election 6aw2 conse&uentl+, decisionsrendered b+ the( in the e)ercise of said /urisdiction cannot be reviewed b+ (eans of anappeal. As the+ are not appealable and as a'ainst the( no other plain, speed+ andade&uate re(ed+ e)ists, it is evident that the+ constitute a proper sub/ect for thee)traordinar+ re(ed+ of certiorari. Therefore, if the court below has e)ceeded his /urisdictionin renderin' the aboveDcited decision it is proper to annul and the sa(e b+ virtue of saidproceedin's.@

n that case the Court of First nstance (ade the followin' order0 @B+ the fore'oin', ?ilvestreAr!adon appears to have violated the provisions of the Election 6aw which prohibit ever+action, influence, and pro(ise of an+ *ind, for the purpose of obtainin' votes. These shouldindicate the free will of the voters, and for such infractions his election for the office of(unicipal president of the town of Badoc (ust be considered ille'al.

Therefore, it is declared b+ the court that the election of ?ilvestre Ar!adon for theoffice of president, held on the ";th da+ of Nove(ber last in the (unicipalit+ of

Badoc, locos Norte, was not le'al, and another special election for the said office(ust be held at the e)pense of the said Ar!adon who shall not then be eli'ible, andan+ vote entered in his favor shall not count the costs and e)penses of theseproceedin's shall also be char'ed to hi(.

n respect to that order the ?upre(e Court said0 @t is our opinion that he has so e)ceededhis /urisdiction. The /urisdiction of Courts of First nstance hear election protests is conferredupon the( b+ the aforesaid section 7: of the Election 6aw, and neither the said section, noran+ other le'al provision, authori!es the court, in decidin' such protests, to declare ineli'iblein future elections the person a'ainst who( the protests was presented, nor to sentence hi(to pa+ the e)penses of the new election to be held. -ence, the court below had no power toenter such rulin's in the case as 'ave rise to these proceedin's, and in conse&uence there

of said rulin's (ust be entirel+ annulled.@

?ee also &opacio vs. 'aredes 17$ Phil. Rep., 7$52.

The case of 4angco vs. Rohde 1" Phil. Rep., 3432 was one relatin' to the allowance ofali(on+ pendin' the trial of an action for a divorce. The court below allowed ali(on+althou'h the answer denied the (arria'e. Prohibition was brou'ht in this court, and afterhearin', the lower court was en/o+ed fro( lev+in' and collectin' ali(on+. The court said atpa'e 3"30 @The court below had /urisdiction to tr+ the divorce suit, but he was without


14/15

/urisdiction to 'rant ali(on+ when the ri'ht to clai( ali(on+ had not accrued in accordancewith the provisions of the Civil Code. This code onl+ 'rants the ri'ht to ali(on+ to a ife. Thisstatus not appearin' b+ a final /ud'(ent, the court is without /urisdiction to (a*e an+ order inthe (atter.@

?ee also . ?. vs.Crossfield 173 Phil. Rep., $7"2 4oung )a!po vs. $ollector of

$usto!s 1id., 3$"2.

The reasons 'iven in these cases last cited for the allowance of the writ of prohibition areapplicable onl+ to the class of cases with which the decisions deal and do not in an+ wa+(ilitate a'ainst the 'eneral proposition herein asserted. Those which relate to electioncontests are based upon the principle that those proceedin's are special in their nature and(ust be strictl+ followed, a (aterial departure fro( the statute resultin' in a loss, or in ane)cess, of /urisdiction. The cases relatin' to receivers are based, in a (easure, upon thesa(e principle, the appoint(ent of a receiver bein' 'overned b+ the statute and in partupon the theor+ that the appoint(ent of a receiver in an i(proper case is in substance aban*ruptc+ proceedin', the ta*in' of which is e)pressl+ prohibited b+ law. The case relativeto the allowance of ali(on+pendente lite when the answer denies the (arria'e is (ore

difficult to distin'uish. The reasons in support of the doctrine laid down in that case are 'ivenin the opinion in full and the+ see( to place the particular case to which the+ refer in a classb+ itself.

t is not li'ht thin' that the law(a*ers have abolished writs of error and withthe( certiorari and prohibition, in so far as the+ were (ethods b+ which the (ere errors ofan inferior court could be corrected. As instru(ent to that end the+ no lon'er e)ist. Theirplace is now ta*en b+ the appeal. ?o lon' as the inferior court retains /urisdiction its errorscan be corrected onl+ b+ that (ethod. The office of the writ of certiorarihas been reduced tothe correction of defects of#urisdiction solel+ and cannot le'all+ be used for an+ otherpurpose. t is trul+ an e)traordinar+ re(ed+ and, in this /urisdiction, its use is restricted totrul+ e)traordinar+ cases>cases in which the action of the inferior court is wholl+ void wherean+ further steps in the case would result in a waste of ti(e and (one+ and would produce

no result whatever where the parties, or their privies, would be utterl+ deceived where afinal /ud'(ent or decree would be nou'ht but a snare and a delusion, decidin' nothin',protectin' nobod+, a /udicial pretension, a recorded falsehood, a standin' (enace. t is onl+to avoid such results as these that a writ ofcertiorari is issuable and even here an appeal willlie if the a''rieved part+ prefers to prosecute it.

A full and thorou'h e)a(ination of all the decided cases in this court touchin' the &uestionof certiorari and prohibition full+ support the proposition alread+ stated that, where a Court ofFirst nstance has /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter and of the person, its decision of an+&uestion pertainin' to the cause, however erroneous, cannot be reviewed b+ certiorari, but(ust be corrected b+ appeal.

t (ust be re(e(bered that the people of the Philippine slands (a+ 'o to the Court of Firstnstance to re&uire a public officer to perfor( his duties and the+ have the ri'ht to have thatcourt pass upon the whole case and upon ever+ phase thereof and upon ever+ &uestionarisin' therein. This ri'ht is conferred b+ statute. t would be respected b+ the courts as wellas b+ others. t would be (anifestl+ ille'al, as it would be fla'rantl+ un/ust, so lon' as thecourt acts within its /urisdiction, to withdraw fro( the Court of First nstance the considerationof that caseunder color of an+ proceedin' whatever. As lon' as the court is considerin' thatcase, its ri'ht and the ri'hts of the liti'ants to continue to final deter(ination are inviolate.


15/15

The fact that another action (a+ have been pendin' involvin' the sa(e sub/ect (atter andeven between the sa(e parties, which was not the fact in this case, does not touch the

/urisdiction of the court to act.

copy of 1181 barreto

Documents