G.R. No. 30188, October 2, 1928
FELIPE TAYKO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. NICOLAS CAPISTRANO, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Felipe Tayko, et al., sought a writ of prohibition to enjoin respondent Judge Nicolas Capistrano from taking cognizance of certain election-related civil and criminal cases. They alleged that: (1) Judge Capistrano had reached the compulsory retirement age of 65, thus disqualifying him from office under the Administrative Code; (2) there was an understanding that Auxiliary Judge Sixto de la Costa would handle all election cases; and (3) Judge Capistrano improperly appointed a deputy fiscal to file informations after the regular provincial fiscal refused due to insufficient evidence. Respondents demurred, arguing the petition failed to state a cause of action.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of prohibition is the proper remedy to challenge Judge Capistrano’s authority to act based on his alleged disqualification due to age and the other grounds raised.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the petition.

1. On the alleged understanding with the auxiliary judge: A mere “understanding” regarding the distribution of cases does not deprive a judge of the jurisdiction conferred by law. Prohibition lies only when a judge acts without or in excess of jurisdiction. There was no allegation that the cases had been formally assigned to or taken cognizance of by another judge.

2. On the appointment of a deputy fiscal: The Administrative Code authorizes a judge to appoint an acting provincial fiscal when the regular fiscal is unable or fails to discharge his duties. The determination of such failure lies within the judge’s sound discretion. The petitioners’ allegation that the appointment was “unjustifiable” is a conclusion of law, not a factual allegation showing abuse of discretion. Therefore, the judge acted within his jurisdiction.

3. On the judge reaching age 65: The title to a judicial office, whether de jure or de facto, cannot be collaterally attacked in a prohibition proceeding. It can only be questioned directly in a quo warranto proceeding. The official acts of a de facto officer (one with at least colorable right to the office) are valid as to the public and third parties. Prohibition cannot serve as a substitute for quo warranto. Since Judge Capistrano was at least a judge de facto, his authority could not be challenged via prohibition.

The petition was dismissed for failure to state a valid cause of action for prohibition. The preliminary injunction was dissolved.