G.R. No. L-23457 December 16, 1968
ERNESTO ESCALER, JOSE ESCALER, JR., FEDERICO ESCALER, ALICIA E. GANA, ELISA E. PUNO, and WIVINIA E. TABORA, petitioners, vs. HON. TOMAS P. PANGANIBAN, in his official capacity as Presiding Judge, Court of Agrarian Relations, Fifth Regional District, Branch II, and SEVERO LISING, respondents.

FACTS

On February 20, 1964, respondent Severo Lising filed a petition with the Court of Agrarian Relations against petitioners. He subsequently filed an amended petition praying for: (1) an order allowing him to redeem his landholding of thirteen balitas upon payment of P17,500.00 or a reasonable price pursuant to Section 12 of the Agricultural Land Reform Code; or, in the alternative (2) a declaration that the deed of sale of the lot is null and void; (3) payment of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses; and (4) other just and equitable remedies. Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the original petition for failure to state a cause of action, and later a supplemental motion to dismiss the amended petition on the ground that the Court of Agrarian Relations lacked jurisdiction over the second cause of action. On July 11, 1964, respondent Judge Tomas P. Panganiban issued an order deferring resolution of the motions to dismiss until trial on the merits, citing that the grounds pleaded, especially those pertaining to jurisdiction, did not appear to be indubitable under Section 3, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court. The order also directed petitioners to file their answer. Instead of complying, petitioners filed the present petition for prohibition on September 4, 1964, claiming the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction by deferring the resolution and ordering them to answer.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of his jurisdiction in deferring the resolution of the motions to dismiss until trial on the merits and ordering petitioners to file their answer.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for prohibition. The Court held that no real question of jurisdiction was involved. The respondent judge neither granted nor denied the motions to dismiss; he merely deferred action. In doing so, he might have committed an error of judgment in finding the grounds not indubitable, but such an act did not constitute acting without or in excess of jurisdiction. The Rules of Court expressly authorize a judge to defer resolution on a motion to dismiss if the ground relied upon is not indubitable. The Court further opined that the orderly judicial procedure should be followed, as there was no clear showing that proceeding to trial would cause unnecessary and substantial prejudice, and the facts did not seem to demand a protracted trial. The writ of preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved.