GR 40055; (October, 1933) (Digest)
G.R. No. 40055; October 18, 1933
PEDRO R. ARTECHE, petitioner, vs. MARIANO L. DE LA ROSA, Judge of First Instance of Samar, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Pedro R. Arteche was elected provincial governor of Samar, but his election was declared null and void by respondent Judge Mariano L. de la Rosa. Pending appeal, Arteche assumed office on October 16, 1931, after consulting executive officials. The appeal was later affirmed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, the Provincial Fiscal charged Arteche with violation of the Election Law for assuming office while knowing he was disqualified. During the criminal proceedings, Arteche filed a motion to disqualify the respondent Judge, alleging the Judge was a necessary witness, and later, the Fiscal moved to dismiss the case for lack of positive proof. The respondent Judge denied both motions. Arteche then filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, and injunction, seeking to restrain the Judge from further proceeding, to compel dismissal of the case, or to disqualify the Judge.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge committed a grave abuse of discretion or acted without jurisdiction in: (1) denying the motion for his disqualification; (2) denying the Fiscal’s motion to dismiss the criminal case; and (3) whether extraordinary writs are appropriate remedies under the circumstances.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. (1) The respondent Judge was not disqualified under Section 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as there was no valid reason to call him as a witness; his communications with Arteche were merely administrative and did not pertain to facts material to the criminal case. The Judge’s decision on his own competency is not reviewable until after final judgment. (2) The denial of the Fiscal’s motion to dismiss was a judicial act within the Judge’s discretion; mandamus does not lie to control judicial discretion. (3) The extraordinary writs are not proper remedies. Arteche’s claim of not receiving a fair trial is premature, and if an error occurs, his plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is an appeal after trial and judgment. The preliminary injunction was set aside.
AI Generated by Armztrong.