GR L 22488; (October, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22488; October 26, 1967
MATEO C. BACALSO and CESAR GONZALEZ, petitioners, vs. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and CELESTINO BACALSO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Mateo C. Bacalso and Cesar Gonzalez seek to prohibit respondent Judge from proceeding with the trial of Civil Case No. 7278. The case originated from a dispute over mining claims in Toledo City, Cebu, wherein the Director of Mines and the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources decided in favor of petitioners. Dissatisfied, respondent Celestino Bacalso filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. Petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the administrative decision was final, but the motions were denied. Petitioners then filed an ex-parte motion to transfer the case from Branch V (presided by respondent Judge) to Branch VII in Barili, Cebu, citing Administrative Orders Nos. 302 and 337 of the Department of Justice, which included Toledo City under the jurisdiction of Branch VII. The respondent Judge denied the motion, citing that the case was filed and several incidents had been resolved by Branch V before the creation of Branch VII and the issuance of the administrative orders. A motion for reconsideration was also denied.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Judge presiding over Branch V of the Court of First Instance of Cebu lost jurisdiction to try and decide Civil Case No. 7278 by virtue of Administrative Orders Nos. 302 and 337 of the Secretary of Justice, which transferred cases from Toledo City to Branch VII.
RULING
The petition is dismissed. While the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction is vested in the Court of First Instance as a whole, not in any particular branch or judge, and that the Secretary of Justice has the administrative power under Section 57 of the Judiciary Act to apportion cases among different branches for convenience and coordination, the legal question became moot and academic. Republic Act No. 3729 , which took effect on June 22, 1963, amended the Judiciary Act and increased the number of branches in the 14th Judicial District. Section 6 of RA No. 3729 provides that all cases already filed in an existing court shall be heard, tried, and decided by that court even after the establishment of additional branches. Consequently, Branch V retained jurisdiction to try and decide Civil Case No. 7278. The writ of preliminary injunction issued was dissolved, with no costs on equitable considerations.