G.R. No. L-10252; March 26, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSE C. ABREU, PONCIANO REMIGIO, JOSE GOMEZ ARCE, ANTONIO DIZON, and LUCAS GUEVARA, respondents.

FACTS:
On December 6, 1913, an information for estafa was filed against the private respondents. The case was tried before Judge Charles S. Lobingier of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and the trial concluded on January 23, 1914. Judge Lobingier ordered the parties to submit written memoranda based on the stenographic transcript of the proceedings. Before he could render a decision, Judge Lobingier was appointed as a judge of the United States District Court in China, effective February 14, 1914. Subsequently, Judge Jose C. Abreu was appointed and assumed his post on July 1, 1914. The prosecution filed a motion asking Judge Abreu to decide the case based on the evidence already presented. Judge Abreu denied the motion, ruling that under Act No. 2347 , he lacked jurisdiction to decide a case that had been tried by a judge of a court superseded by the said Act. The prosecution then filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court to compel Judge Abreu to decide the case.

ISSUE:
Whether a judge of the Court of First Instance, appointed under Act No. 2347 , can be compelled via mandamus to decide a criminal case fully tried before another judge who left office before rendering judgment.

RULING:
YES. The Supreme Court granted the writ of mandamus, ordering Judge Abreu to decide the case.
The Court held that Act No. 2347 did not abolish the existing Courts of First Instance and replace them with entirely new courts. It merely reorganized the judiciary by appointing new judges. The courts themselves retained their jurisdiction and identity. Section 24 of Act No. 2347 provided that all cases pending in the Courts of First Instance at the time the Act took effect “shall remain under the jurisdiction of said courts until their final decision.” This meant that the case remained with the Court of First Instance of Manila, not with the individual judge who heard it.
The Court rejected the technical objection that a judge who did not hear the witnesses could not decide the case. It reasoned that with a complete stenographic record of the trial, a new judge is fully capable of reviewing the evidence and rendering a just decision, just as appellate courts do. To hold otherwise would elevate form over substance and cause unnecessary delay and expense. The demurrer was overruled, and the writ of mandamus was issued.

DISSENTING OPINION: Justices Carson and Trent dissented, with Justice Trent indicating he would file a separate opinion.