G.R. No. L-13515; April 29, 1961
PAZ BACABAC, petitioner-appellant, vs. VICENTE F. DELFIN, etc., GORGONIO D. DRILON, etc. and PACIENCIA RAFOLS, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Paz Bacabac attempted to file a complaint for slight physical injuries against Paciencia Rafols in the Justice of the Peace Court of Sagay, Occidental Negros, concerning the alleged maltreatment of her twelve-year-old son. The acting Justice of the Peace initially refused to docket the complaint, asserting it lacked the signature of the offended party or the chief of police. This refusal prompted Bacabac to file a mandamus action in the Court of First Instance. That case was later dismissed after the Justice of the Peace Court eventually docketed the criminal case. Subsequently, the incumbent Justice of the Peace, respondent Drilon, inhibited himself from the criminal case because he had been named a respondent in the earlier mandamus suit. The Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance then designated respondent Judge Delfin to try the case. Judge Delfin later granted the accused’s motion to quash and dismissed the criminal case on grounds that the complainant lacked authority to file it and that the action had prescribed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner can validly assail, through a petition for certiorari and mandamus, the orders concerning judicial disqualification and designation, and the subsequent dismissal of the criminal case, instead of pursuing the ordinary remedies of reconsideration and appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the petition. The legal logic is clear: certiorari and mandamus are extraordinary writs and cannot substitute for lost ordinary remedies. First, the petitioner failed to seek reconsideration of the Executive Judge’s order designating Judge Delfin, an unexplained omission that precludes resort to these extraordinary remedies. Second, the order of dismissal issued by Judge Delfin was a final order on the merits; the proper remedy against it was a timely appeal. Since the petitioner did not appeal, allowing the order to become final and executory, she cannot now collaterally attack it via certiorari. Finally, even assuming arguendo that Judge Delfin’s designation was erroneous, he acted at least as a de facto judge, and such an error did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction over the case. Therefore, the petitioner’s attempt to use certiorari and mandamus was procedurally improper, and the appealed order was correctly affirmed.