G.R. No. L-10144; January 27, 1915
ANASTASIA PAMINTUAN, ET AL., petitioners, vs. JULIO LLORENTE, Judge of First Instance, and CLEMENTE DAYRIT, respondents.

FACTS:
On August 3, 1910, respondent Clemente Dayrit filed a civil action (Civil Case No. 507) against petitioners Anastasia Pamintuan et al. in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. At that time, respondent Judge Julio Llorente was the presiding judge of that court. The trial of the case had commenced, with Judge Llorente having heard witnesses and conducted an ocular inspection of the property in dispute. However, the trial was not concluded. On July 1, 1914, Act No. 2347 took effect, which reorganized the judiciary. Pursuant to this Act, Judge Llorente “vacated” his position as judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga and was appointed judge of the Fifth Judicial District. He thereafter refused to continue with the trial of Civil Case No. 507, claiming he was no longer competent to do so. The petitioners filed this mandamus action to compel Judge Llorente to continue and conclude the trial.

ISSUE:
Whether a judge who has commenced the trial of a case but, due to a judicial reorganization, has vacated his position in that court and been appointed to another district, may be compelled by mandamus to continue trying the case.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition for mandamus.

The Court held that under Act No. 2347 , the “present judges” (those in office prior to July 1, 1914) were deemed to have vacated their positions effective that date. The word “vacate” means to annul, deprive of force, or put an end to authority. Thus, Judge Llorente’s authority as judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga ceased.

Petitioners relied on Section 24 of Act No. 2347 , which provided that cases “pending decision or sentence, or pending continuance of the evidence” shall remain under the jurisdiction of “said courts.” The Court clarified that this provision referred to the courts as institutions, not to the individual judges previously presiding. The legislative intent was to ensure the continuity of the courts themselves, not to retain jurisdiction in judges whose offices had been vacated.

The Court further cited jurisprudence establishing that a judge who has been transferred to another district loses jurisdiction over cases in his former court and cannot perform judicial acts therein. Since Judge Llorente had vacated his office in Pampanga and was now judge of a different district, he had no authority to continue acting in Civil Case No. 507. Mandamus will not lie to compel a judicial act over which the judge no longer has jurisdiction.

The demurrer was sustained, and the petition was dismissed with costs against petitioners.