G.R. No. L-8991
December 12, 1913
CONSTANCIO JOAQUIN, plaintiff, vs. ALBERTO BARRETTO, ET AL., defendants.

FACTS:
Plaintiff Constancio Joaquín filed an action in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal to compel municipal authorities to issue him a cockpit license. During trial, Judge Alberto Barretto voluntarily disqualified himself upon the defendants’ suggestion. Joaquín then filed a petition for mandamus in the Supreme Court against Judge Barretto, arguing that the judge was not legally disqualified and should proceed with the trial. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that Judge Barretto was not disqualified, and ordered him to proceed with the trial. The dispositive portion of the decision stated: “As a consequence, we set aside the order (of disqualification) and require the judge to proceed with the trial . . .” An order was issued accordingly and served on Judge Barretto.

Subsequently, before the case could be tried, Judge Barretto was temporarily relieved from duty in Rizal, and Judge Jose C. Abreu was designated to hold court in his place. When the case was called for trial before Judge Abreu, the plaintiff objected, contending that the Supreme Court’s order was directed specifically to Judge Barretto and that no other judge could lawfully hear the case. The plaintiff then filed a motion in the Supreme Court asking for clarification and to render unambiguous the order issued in the mandamus action.

ISSUE:
Whether the Supreme Court’s order in the mandamus action, which required Judge Alberto Barretto to proceed with the trial, precludes any other judge of the CFI of Rizal from trying the case.

RULING:
The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that there was no ambiguity in its decision or order. The Court explained that the mandamus action related solely to the qualifications of Judge Barretto in his capacity as judge presiding over that specific case. The order was directed to him in his official capacity as Judge of the CFI of Rizal, not personally. The Court reasoned that the efficacy of the mandamus order was contingent upon Judge Barretto remaining as the judge in that province. Since his temporary replacement was beyond the Court’s control, the order could not bind a successor judge. The action was therefore cognizable by any judge duly sitting in the CFI of Rizal, whether Judge Barretto or his substitute. While the motion was denied for lack of ambiguity, the Court provided an advisory opinion to guide the parties and avoid further delay and expense.