G.R. No. L-23838 December 28, 1964
COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION and BOARD OF IMMIGRATION COMMISSIONERS, petitioners, vs. HON. LUIS B. REYES as Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, HON. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch VI, MERCEDES TOBIANO CO, SUSANA TOBIANO, JOSE TOBIANO, JUAN TOBIANO, JULIO TOBIANO, JOSE TOBIANO and PABLO TOBIANO, respondents.

FACTS

On October 10, 1964, Mercedes Tobiano Co and six others filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 58624, against immigration officials. Simultaneously, they filed an ex parte petition to assign the case to Branch VI, citing two pending cases (Civil Case Nos. 57271 and 57280) with identical nature and facts and the same respondents. The Executive Judge granted the petition. On October 26, 1964, a petition for habeas corpus was filed on behalf of Jose and Justo Tobiano, docketed as Civil Case No. 58782. An ex parte petition was also filed and granted to assign this case to Branch VI. The Presiding Judge of Branch VI then issued an order for the production of the detainees. The Commissioner of Immigration and the Board of Immigration Commissioners, upon learning of the assignments, filed ex parte motions for reconsideration, praying that the cases be recalled from Branch VI and assigned by raffle. They also filed an urgent motion for postponement in the habeas corpus case. The Executive Judge set the motions for hearing, and the Presiding Judge of Branch VI postponed proceedings pending resolution of the assignment question. After a hearing, the Executive Judge denied the motions for reconsideration on November 18, 1964. The immigration officials then filed the present petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with preliminary injunction before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the assignment of Civil Cases Nos. 58624 and 58782 to Branch VI of the Court of First Instance of Manila without raffle and prior written notice to the parties violated Section 7, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition. Section 7 of Rule 22 does not require assignment exclusively by raffle; it allows assignment “by raffle or otherwise” and mandates written notice to parties sufficiently in advance to enable their presence. The purpose of the notice—to afford parties a chance to be heard on the assignment—was sufficiently accomplished in this case. After the assignment, the petitioners filed motions for reconsideration, which were set for hearing, and the parties were fully heard on the question before the assignment was affirmed, thus giving them their day in court. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance of Manila had an internal policy, agreed upon by its judges on October 11, 1957, whereby in cases involving new and the same fundamental questions, the branch to which the first case was assigned would try all subsequently filed cases. Since Civil Cases Nos. 58624 and 58782 involved the same fundamental questions as two cases already pending before Branch VI (Civil Case Nos. 57271 and 57280), the assignment to Branch VI was in accordance with this valid internal policy. The Court found no justifiable reason to interfere with the court’s internal policy on case assignment, which falls under its administrative control. The preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved.