G.R. No. L-14917; May 31, 1961
AURELIO P. REYES and FRANCISCO REYES, petitioners, vs. THE HON. GUILLERMO ROMERO, in his capacity as Justice of the Peace of Parañaque, Rizal, and concurrently acting Municipal Judge of Pasay City and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Aurelio P. and Francisco Reyes were charged with maintaining a gambling den (Crim. Case No. 8370) in the Pasay City Municipal Court. The case was initially assigned to Judge Lucio Tianco, but he was on leave when the information was filed. Consequently, Secretary of Justice Jesus G. Barrera designated respondent Judge Guillermo Romero as acting judge to preside over Judge Tianco’s branch, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 134. Judge Romero commenced the trial and heard the testimony of the principal witness, Capt. Adelio Cruz.
Judge Tianco subsequently returned to office. However, at Judge Tianco’s own written request, Secretary Barrera issued Administrative Order No. 183. This order designated Judge Romero to continue trying the specific criminal case against the petitioners, provided Judge Tianco would be considered on leave whenever the case was scheduled for hearing until its final termination. The petitioners filed a motion for Judge Romero to inhibit himself in light of Judge Tianco’s return, which was denied. They then filed this petition for prohibition, arguing the administrative order was illegal, contravened the Pasay City Charter, and violated judicial independence.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) the validity of Administrative Order No. 183 issued by the Secretary of Justice; and (2) whether respondent Judge Romero acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in refusing to inhibit himself and continuing the trial.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Administrative Order No. 183 and denied the petition. The legal logic centered on statutory authority and the absence of jurisdictional error or grave abuse of discretion. The Court found that both the Judiciary Act of 1948 and Section 76 of the Pasay City Charter ( Republic Act No. 183 ) expressly authorized the designation of an acting municipal judge in case of the incumbent’s absence. The administrative order was issued precisely upon the written request of the incumbent, Judge Tianco, who sought leave to enable Judge Romero, who had already started the trial and heard the key witness, to see the case through to its conclusion.
The Court emphasized that this arrangement was motivated by a legitimate desire for judicial efficiency, fairness to the parties, and the interest of justice, ensuring continuity in the proceedings. Since the order was legally grounded, Judge Romero’s compliance with it could not constitute an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the Court noted that a writ of prohibition lies only against a tribunal acting without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. The petition failed to allege any such jurisdictional defect, and the respondent judge was merely performing a duty under a valid designation. The preliminary injunction was dissolved.