GR 3463; (September, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. 3463
JUAN FAJARDO, petitioner, vs. JULIO LLORENTE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, ET AL., respondents.
September 5, 1906
—
FACTS:
1. Petitioner’s Claim: Juan Fajardo filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Nueva Ecija against Emiliano Soriano for the crime of seduction, punishable by arresto mayor.
2. Judge’s Ruling: Judge Julio Llorente dismissed the complaint, holding that since the penalty for seduction was arresto mayor, jurisdiction lay with the justice of the peace of Aliaga (where the crime occurred), not the CFI.
3. Petition for Mandamus: Fajardo, through attorneys Buencamino and Diokno, sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel Judge Llorente to admit the complaint and conduct a preliminary investigation.
4. Respondent’s Defense: Judge Llorente demurred, arguing that Fajardo had an alternative remedyappealunder the procedural rules.
—
ISSUE:
Whether a writ of mandamus is the proper remedy to compel Judge Llorente to admit Fajardo’s complaint for seduction, despite the availability of an appeal.
—
RULING:
1. Mandamus Not Warranted:
– Under Section 515 of the Code of Civil Procedure, mandamus is only available if there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
– Here, Fajardo could have appealed the dismissal under Section 107 of General Orders No. 58 (governing criminal procedure).
– Since an appeal was a viable remedy, mandamus was improper.
2. Jurisdictional Issue:
– The CFI correctly ruled that the justice of the peace had jurisdiction over seduction cases punishable by arresto mayor (per Section 56(6) of Act No. 136 , the Organic Act).
3. Disposition:
– The Supreme Court sustained Judge Llorente’s demurrer and denied the petition for mandamus.
– Costs were taxed against Fajardo.
Court Members: Arellano, C.J., Mapa, Carson, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concurring.
—
Key Doctrine:
– Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and will not issue if another adequate remedy (e.g., appeal) exists.
– Courts must strictly observe jurisdictional limits based on the penalty prescribed for the offense.
(Batas Pinas Note: This case highlights early procedural principles under the American colonial judiciary system.)