G.R. No. L-9043 July 30, 1955
THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, as ex-oficio Provincial Warden, THE DEPUTY PROVINCIAL WARDEN, THE PROVINCIAL COMMANDER, PC, of Negros Occidental, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE JOSE TEODORO, SR., HONORABLE EDUARDO D. ENRIQUEZ, as Judges of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental and RAFAEL LACSON, the “petitioner” in Special Proceeding No. 3157 of said Court of First Instance, respondents.

FACTS

On August 21, 1954, respondent Rafael Lacson was convicted and sentenced to death by the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental in Criminal Case No. 3220. He was confined in the Provincial Hospital under guard. On September 9, 1954, Lacson filed a special civil action for certiorari (Special Proceeding No. 3157) in the same Court of First Instance against the Director of Prisons, the Provincial Governor, the Provincial Commander, and others. He alleged that transferring him from the hospital to the New Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa would endanger his life due to his worsening health, supported by physicians’ certificates. He prayed to be retained in the hospital for 30 more days and for a writ of preliminary injunction. Respondent Judge Eduardo D. Enriquez issued the writ of preliminary injunction. The petitioners (the officials) moved to lift the injunction, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Respondent Judge Jose Teodoro, Sr., relying on a medical committee’s report dated March 2, 1955, which stated that Lacson’s transfer might provoke severe attacks endangering his life, denied the motion to lift the injunction on March 7, 1955. The petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Did the Court of First Instance that convicted respondent Lacson have the power and authority to issue the writ of preliminary injunction, prohibiting his transfer from the provincial hospital to the Insular Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of preliminary injunction. Upon the perfection of Lacson’s appeal from the judgment of conviction in Criminal Case No. 3220, the trial court lost jurisdiction over the case, including both the record and the person of the accused-appellant. The judgment was promulgated on August 21, 1954, and became final on September 5, 1954, after which the criminal case was pending before the Supreme Court. This appellate jurisdiction may not be interfered with by the trial court. The principle that a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case upon perfection of an appeal, expressly provided for civil cases under Rule 41, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, applies with equal force to criminal cases to ensure orderly procedure. The attempt by Lacson’s attorneys to circumvent this lack of jurisdiction by filing an independent special civil action for injunction and prohibition in the same trial court was invalid, as what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. Consequently, the orders of the lower court granting and refusing to lift the preliminary injunction were adjudged null and void.