G.R. No. L-12487; January 30, 1962
Castor Custodio, petitioner-appellant, vs. Judge Pedro T. Cristobal, etc., et al., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Castor Custodio was convicted of malicious mischief by the Justice of the Peace Court of Mabini, Pangasinan, and was committed to jail on June 20, 1955, the date of the sentence’s promulgation. On June 22, 1955, he gave notice of his intention to appeal and was ordered released provisionally upon filing an appeal bond. However, the complainant filed a motion to lift this release, arguing Custodio had already begun serving his sentence. The justice of the peace granted the motion, set aside the release order, and ordered Custodio’s recommitment on July 5, 1955.
Custodio promptly filed a petition for certiorari with injunction before the Court of First Instance against the justice of the peace and the chief of police, challenging the recommitment order as issued in excess of jurisdiction. The court initially granted a preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the court, acting motu proprio, ordered Custodio to amend his petition to include the complainants as respondents pursuant to Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court. Custodio filed a manifestation arguing such inclusion was unnecessary, as the officials who issued and implemented the order were already named, and the real party in a criminal case is the People. The lower court dismissed the certiorari case for failure to comply with its order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari outright for petitioner’s failure to include the complainants as respondents.

RULING

Yes, the lower court erred. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case. While the trial court’s directive for petitioner to amend his petition to include the complainants may have been procedurally sound under Rule 67, its outright dismissal of the case was unduly harsh and a misuse of discretion. The petitioner had submitted a written manifestation explaining his legal position against the necessity of the amendment. Even if his view was incorrect, the court should have granted him a final opportunity to comply with the order rather than imposing the drastic penalty of dismissal.
The Court emphasized that technicalities should not override substantive justice, especially where a fundamental right is at stake. The certiorari petition raised a substantial claim—that the recommitment order was issued without jurisdiction, as Custodio had not begun serving his sentence but was merely detained pending his appeal. An outright dismissal on a procedural technicality would cause irreparable damage by effectively nullifying his right to appeal. Therefore, justice demanded that Custodio be given a final chance to amend his petition as directed by the lower court. The case was remanded with instructions to allow the petitioner five days to file the amended petition.