G.R. No. L-23731 February 26, 1965
Pedro Acharon, petitioner-appellant, vs. Fidel P. Purisima, et al., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Pedro Acharon was charged in four separate criminal informations for violation of Commonwealth Act No. 303 before the Municipal Court of General Santos, Cotabato. Prior to the scheduled preliminary investigation, Acharon filed a motion to quash the informations on two grounds: (1) failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided under the rules and regulations of the Minimum Wage Law as a condition precedent for filing a criminal action, and (2) lack of the required certification from the Secretary of Labor as a prerequisite for an action under Commonwealth Act No. 303 . The municipal judge denied this motion, and a subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. Instead of proceeding to trial, Acharon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, alleging lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion by the municipal court. The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition because Acharon failed to incorporate into his petition the actual informations filed and the order denying his motion to quash, making it impossible for the court to rule on the merits. Acharon appealed this dismissal to the Supreme Court and also sought a preliminary injunction to restrain the municipal judge from hearing the criminal cases pending the appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed Acharon’s petition for certiorari and whether the Supreme Court should grant the preliminary injunction to restrain the municipal court proceedings.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and denied the petition for a preliminary injunction. The Court held that the Court of First Instance correctly dismissed the petition for certiorari due to Acharon’s failure to incorporate the necessary pleadings (the informations and the denial order) into his petition, which prevented a proper determination of the alleged lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The Court further ruled that Acharon’s proper remedy after the denial of his motion to quash was not to file a petition for certiorari but to proceed to trial, reiterate his special defenses, and, if convicted, appeal the decision in the manner authorized by law. Filing a petition for certiorari at that stage was contrary to the usual course of law. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in continuing the appeal and no basis for issuing the requested preliminary injunction.