G.R. No. L-1180; May 26, 1947
RICARDO MEDINA, petitioner, vs. AMBROSIO SANTOS, Judge of First Instance of Batangas, VICENTE LONTOC and GAUDENCIO LONTOC, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ricardo Medina filed Civil Case No. 133 in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. He alleged that on August 19, 1943, he delivered a truck to Justo Casas for repair. Respondents Vicente Lontoc and Gaudencio Lontoc, through false representations, managed to take the truck from Casas’s shop. Medina prayed for a judgment declaring him the owner of the truck, ordering its restitution, and alternatively, ordering the respondents to pay him damages in the amount of P20,000. In their answer, respondents Vicente and Gaudencio Lontoc alleged that the truck was owned by Gaudencio Lontoc and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and a declaration of Gaudencio’s ownership. During the hearing on October 23, 1946, the parties appeared and were ready to present their evidence. However, respondent Judge Ambrosio Santos, motu proprio, issued an order suspending the proceedings while the moratorium order (Executive Order No. 25, as amended by Executive Order No. 34) was in effect. Medina’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 5, 1946. Medina then filed this petition for certiorari seeking to annul the suspension order and to compel the hearing of the case.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in suspending the proceedings in Civil Case No. 133 based on the moratorium order.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, treating it as one for mandamus. The Court ruled that the respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in suspending the proceedings.
1. Nature of the Action: Civil Case No. 133 is primarily an action to determine ownership (reivindicacion) and for the restitution of a truck, not an action for the payment of a monetary debt or obligation. The owner has the right to possess and enjoy his property without unnecessary delay. If the evidence proves Medina is the owner, the court would order the respondents to return the truck, and only if they cannot return it would the subsidiary obligation to pay its value arise. Conversely, if the evidence proves Gaudencio Lontoc is the owner, the case should be dismissed promptly. Since the case involves a movable property that depreciates over time, it should be heard as soon as possible for the convenience of all parties.
2. Inapplicability of the Moratorium: The moratorium order (Executive Order No. 25, as amended) applies only to monetary debts and obligations contracted in areas of the Philippines before their liberation from Japanese control. Any monetary obligation that may arise from a judgment in this case would be created after the court renders its decision, not before. Furthermore, the Province of Batangas had been liberated long before, so any future monetary obligation from a judgment would not be subject to the moratorium.
3. Ministerial Duty of the Judge: It is the ministerial duty of a judge to hear and decide cases within his court. Suspending the hearing of a case indefinitely without justifiable cause is a violation of that duty.
4. Remedy: Although the petition was titled “Certiorari,” its allegations and prayer showed the petitioner sought mandamus to compel the judge to perform his duty. The Court looks at the substance of the pleading, not its title.
The Court revoked the order of October 23, 1946, and ordered the hearing of Civil Case No. 133 to proceed. No costs were awarded.