GR 47770; (June, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47770 ; June 10, 1941
SILVESTRE GALLANO, petitioner, vs. PABLO S. RIVERA, as Judge of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and CESAREO ESPAÑOLA, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Silvestre Gallano, filed a petition for certiorari against the Honorable Pablo S. Rivera, as Judge of First Instance of Negros Occidental, and Cesareo Española. The petition seeks to annul the court orders dated August 10 and August 29, 1940, issued by the respondent judge, for having been rendered without jurisdiction. The August 10 order denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the case where Cesareo Española is the plaintiff and Silvestre Gallano is the defendant. The August 29 order denied the motion for reconsideration of the August 10 order. The petitioner’s basis for the petition is that the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental by virtue of an appeal interposed by the petitioner against the decision of the Justice of the Peace Court of Pontevedra, Negros Occidental. The petitioner asserts that the Justice of the Peace Court decided the case only after one week from the date it was submitted for decision, which he claims is contrary to the provisions of Article 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 11, Rule 4, of the New Rules, which provide that justices of the peace must decide cases within one week from the date they are submitted to the court for resolution.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judge acted without jurisdiction in issuing the orders denying the motion to dismiss, based on the allegation that the Justice of the Peace Court lost jurisdiction for failing to decide the case within the one-week period prescribed by law.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. Citing the case of Alejandro et al. vs. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan (G.R. No. 47384, decided December 5, 1940), the Court held that the provision of Article 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, from which Article 11, Rule 4 of the New Rules is copied, is not mandatory but merely directory as to the one-week period. Therefore, even if the Justice of the Peace Court decided the case after the said period, it did not lose jurisdiction over it. Consequently, the respondent judge did not act without jurisdiction in issuing the assailed orders. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.