G.R. No. L-16578; July 31, 1961
EULALIO PARINGIT, petitioner, vs. THE HON. HONORATO MASAKAYAN, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch II; SILVERIO CERTEZA, GAVINA DUA, EVE CERTEZA, FABIAN LABORIDA, and MARIANO ERIGINO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Eulalio Paringit filed a complaint for malicious mischief in the Justice of the Peace Court of Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya, against Silverio Certeza and others. The complaint alleged that the accused willfully filled and covered the petitioner’s irrigation canal, causing damage to his agricultural crop and claiming indemnity of P5,600.00 per year. The Justice of the Peace Court, after overruling a challenge to its jurisdiction and conducting a trial, convicted five of the accused. It sentenced them to pay a fine and to indemnify the offended party in the sum of P15.00, the estimated value of the damage to the irrigation canal itself. Both the convicted accused and the offended party appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI).
Upon appeal, the provincial fiscal filed an information in the CFI. The accused moved to quash, arguing that the Justice of the Peace Court lacked original jurisdiction because the civil indemnity claimed in the complaint (P5,600.00) exceeded the court’s jurisdictional limit. The respondent CFI Judge, Hon. Honorato Masakayan, granted the motion and dismissed the case, ruling the inferior court’s decision void for lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner, as the offended party, did not appeal this dismissal order but instead filed the present petition for certiorari, alleging grave abuse of discretion.

ISSUE

Whether the writ of certiorari is the proper remedy to assail the CFI’s order of dismissal.

RULING

No, certiorari is not the proper remedy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The writ of certiorari under Rule 67, Section 1 of the Rules of Court is only available when a tribunal has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court held that an appeal was the correct and available remedy against the CFI’s dismissal order. That order was a final judgment as it completely disposed of the action, leaving nothing more for the trial court to do. Consequently, any error in the issuance of that order, even if it involved a question of jurisdiction, was an error of judgment correctible only by appeal, not by certiorari.
The Supreme Court further clarified, obiter dictum, that the respondent Judge’s underlying legal premise for dismissal was erroneous. Applying the Judiciary Act of 1948 prior to its amendment, the Justice of the Peace Court had original jurisdiction over the crime of malicious mischief as specifically enumerated in Section 87(c). This jurisdiction was conferred without qualification regarding the civil liability claimed. The civil indemnity, though determined in the criminal action, is not part of the punishment. The amount of civil damages claimed does not divest the court of its criminal jurisdiction over the offense itself; at most, the offended party would be deemed to have waived the excess over the court’s civil jurisdictional limit. Thus, the Justice of the Peace Court validly acquired jurisdiction.