Rare Periodicals

3. Changes Caused in Granting Inferior Courts Concurrent Jurisdictions with the Court of First Instance in Some Cases.pdf

Media

Part of The Lawyers Journal

extracted text

CHANGES CAUSED IN GRANTING INFERIOR COURTS CONCURRENT JURISDICTIONS WITH THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE; IN SOME CASES' By Judge DAl\'(IAN L. JIMENEZ*"' Judge Damian Jfownu P rior to the amendment made on the provisions of the Judiciary Law of 1948 by Rep. Act 2613, specificaliy Sections 8G, 87, 88 and 90, questions on the extent of cases which may be taken cognizant of by courts of limited jurisdiction seem less unsettled thun as now obtaining. Howeve1·, though this is not saying that all the conceivable questions on the jurisdiction of such courts havo fully passed judicial interpret."ltivc scrutmy, the fact reffiains, u:1d fact it is that a number of issues raised from without the exp1·css lnnguage cf the Judiciary Act had been iaid bare by decisions of the superior courts.I On August 1, 1959, when Judges of Municipal Courts and Justices of the Peace Courts of the capital o! ' provinces began re-adjusting themselves to the conformity of Rep. Act 2613, jui·isdict[onal issues which mostly are questions of first impression began assei·ting themselves in one form or another. A Fiscal, may for instance, file a case before a court only to be tossed back by the Judge on a claim lhat he is without jurisdiction to t ry it, or, a J udge of an inferior coul't after judgment of conviction in a case appealed" against, transmits the records thereof to thf' Court of First Instanct only to be remanded upon a resol~tion that the appeal pertains to the .Cou1·t of Appeals. These an3 other similar questions arc not infrequent' occurcnces after the amen.latory provisions became effective. Therefore, aware as we are of the motive behind the amendment, an outlook to obviate !rem these sad experiences should be as compelling as the inducement which, by legislative fiat, made the amendment possible. It is to this end that this paper is intended, without assuming that everythinlt' will be solved. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act or 1948 enact.c-d and marle effective upon its a91>roval on June 17, 1948, t~c jui·isdiction of the justices of the peace and Mu11icipal Courts of chartered cities covers those expressly pr.Jvidcd i11 Sections F6, ':-.7, BS :ind 90 thereof. In addition, f:uch courts have jurisdict:on concurn•ntly with the Cou rts of First Instance and the Supreme Court "over cases affe<..ting amb:is.:adO-,·<>, other' public ministers and ronsuls"2 including, as advanced by some local commentarists. the power of judicial review.3 Section 86 Of Rep. Act 296 or better known as the l.Tudi.!iary l.:tw of !!HS as amended by ReJJ. Act 644, states that justic~ of the peace and judges of municipal courts of chnrtered cities hav< jurisdiction ccnsisting of: (al Ol'iginal jurisdic:;on to try cl'iminal caSC>s in 1Yhi('h lho cffensc charged has been committed within their respective tenitorial jurisdiction; (b) Orig:nal judsdiction in civil actions arisini' in their re~ pective municipalities and cities, and not exclus.ively cog· nizable by the Courts of First Instance; and * Speech delive;·ed at the Convention of City Judg-es held in 2. Concunent original jurisdiction in this class of cases should Baguio City last February 23, 1961. mean the sharing of the Supreme Court with the most inferior •• Judge Jimenez is presently a Judge of the Municipal courts of cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and Court of Quezon City. a position he has held since 1956. Before consuls such that the Supreme Court would have concurrent j uristhe war, he engaged in private practice, holding at the same tim~ diction with the lo\v-cst courts in our jurlicial hierarchy, the ju .. tice the office of the Justice of the Peace of Calauag, Quezon. He sub- of the peace courts. in a petty case involving for instance, the sequently held the positions <if special counsel, deputy fiscal and violation of a munici1ml ordinanC"f. affeeting the parties just mcnassistant fiscal of Quezon City and Manila. The experience and tioned. (Concurring Opipnion, 'Justice Laurel, Schneckenburger vs. training gained by h im in private practice and in the fiscal's office Moran. 63 Phil. p. 267-268) has earned him the appointment to the office he is presently occupy- 3. That lower courts have the power of judicial review is merely ing. A holder of MA, LLB, LLM and DCL degrees, i.Judge J imenez an incident of the power to decid£' actua! oses before the ccurt. 8ince is teaching law, philosophy and social science in the University of the function of adjudication imposes on the court the duty of _ascerSanto Tom.as, Lyceum of the Philippines and the Philippine Col- taining the facts .and :ipplying the law to such facts and since tl~c lege of Crimjnology. constitution where app:;cab\e overrides a statutory provision. exo>cu1. Uy Chin Hua vs, Dinglasan. 47 0.G. 233 (Supplement) No. <:ive o:-der or municipal ordinance, it does foll0w that in deciding 12. After hoiding that destierro though, of long dur:ition than a case before it. a lower court muy have tv annul any legislative n rreslo nta·y<>r is a lighter penalty than the latter, the SuprcmC' or executive act in contravention of the constitutional provision. Court held that the infedor C:'!Urb; have jurisdiction of cases so (Constitution cf the Philippines annotated, 'l'uftada & Fernan<lo, p. J'enalizert saying-: .. Thus there oist:i a ~ap in the law as to which 775) Uncier Section 10. Art. VIII of the Philippine Constitu~i('n, coul't sh<";il t>ave originnl jurisdi~·tion over offenses pcnnli7,ed w;t!': the Supreme Court has the power to declare a law or treaty undc~tierr-0 or hanishme nt. Until the law making' body should fill constitutional. There is hoWcver, nothing in said secti.on from that gap by t:Xpressly providini::- othenvire, the Court must Jo so which it can be concluded that the power to ileclare a law unconsli~rc:~sonable inteq>retation of the existing law.'_ ' _ _ _ _ _ _ tutior.:il belorigs exclusively to the Supre111e Court, this .. :ectiol'I proEDITORJAL . (Conti11'!1('(l from page 321) hesitate to cross party lines in considering the persons idto would reflect his official personality. Virtue 1s never the monopoly of a political party. Nor, for that matter, is vice. The President-elect has every right to demand loyalty lo the announced policies of his administration. But in justice to himself, he cannot afford to demand volitical loualty as <t condition precedent to public service. For he, and not his pa'rty, will beal' the bru.nt of the vublic .<.:crutin11 that will judge the calibre of the men and women he appoints to office. Responsibiht11 is on him. Not on his party. Appointments to executive and admini.stTative vositiuns in the governnient must transcend partisa.n considerations. The onlJJ political expedient criteria are com .. -petence and 1~ntegrity, as the ccitasttophic experience of the cn1tgoiug president has indicated. This is tke .only way by which the President-elect can channel the nation's available intellectu(/l and moral resources of the country ·into public service. This is the only 1l'a?I he can successfully shouhler the burden of presidential responsibility. He fa no longer ju.st the m·esident of a political party. He is now the President of the PhilipPines, to which he owes, by his own choice, ultim.ate and supreme fidelity. LAWY ERS !JOURNAL Ncvemher 30, 1961 (c) The last phrase of par. (e) or (Section forty-four) of · this Act, notwithstanding, justices of the peace and judi;·e-; of municipal courts shall have concurrent. jurisdiction with the Courts of First ln!>tance in the appointment of gu:lnlians and adoption r.a'Oes. This section was not modified by the new amendment, rnv~· probably the last pani.graph thereof which may be said to h>1v'3 l:ccn impliC'dly repealed by the 2nd paragraph of Section 88, ~ls now read, on appointment of guardians. This conclusion seems clear from the mar.ner the amendment is expressed. Rep. Act 2613 Cf'n · sists of 13 sections. All sections, except the 12th and tho 13th, the appropriation and effectivity cbuses, are introduced by the phrase •·is hereby ~mc·ndcd to read a:> follows," following the citation of the section3 mqdifit:d. Such being the case, the legislature tncr~­ fore mel"ely intended a change in the provision of the particular i;edion or sedions expressly mentioned and not to ::iny other scd.i,..n or sections of the old' provisions of the Act."" Of t he elev~n section'O in Rep. Act 2613, no mention of Section 86 was ever made. It foltows therefore, that the intention of Congress wns to retain t~H' odginal provision of Section 86, and not to suffer it the modifications of the new provisions as set out. H owever, though this may be so concluded on paragraphs (a) and (b) of Sectio~ 86, the ~amc shouk not be made to apply to par. (c) even in the face of the knowledge thnt Rep. Act 2613 did not provide for a repealinr,clause. To hold it so would be to say that Cong ress intended to make the j urisdiction of the courts rcJe!"l'f'd to in Section 86 1111certain - a supposition which does not deserve rvcn the slightest regard. Therefore, the obvious contrariety between the provisions of par . (c) of Section 86 proviUing for a concurrent juris<lictivn in the appointment of guardians and thl" provisions of Section lO o( Rep. Act 2613 whioh do away with such concurrence with the Courts 'Jf First Instance, should be reconciled. Sine~ the provision::; of Section 10 amending Section 88 of the Act do away with the power of the inferior courts in i he appointment of guardians gr3nt. ed them under the provisions of par. (c) of Section 86 of the Act, the conclusion should be that, as a general rule, justices Of th1• 11eace courts and judkes of municipal courts have no jurisdiction in the appointmtnt of guardians, by tacit 1·epP.ai,<> the repugnancl! b·~­ tween the two provisions being irreconcilable.' The rule, however, as said, is but general. It cannot be claimed obsolu~ly that,- by Section W of the amendatory Act, justices of the peace and j11dgPs of municipal court! are at p1·esent totally divested with such powei·. vide~ only fc.r the procedure thnt th~ Supreme Court shou!<l folJ,...w whlln such question is presented before it. (Espiritu vs. Fugo~o. G.R. No. L-1768, Oct. 20. 1948) Furthermore the provisions of the constitution that the Supreme Court shall ha"e exclusive juri.<:diction to review. revise, modify, or affirm on appeal. certiorari or writ of error. as the law or r ules of court may provide, final j udgments enc! decrees of inferior courts in a ll cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty or law is in question, implies that the inferior co~rts may declare a law or treaty unconstitutional, but their decisions or decrees on the constitutionality or validity of any law or treal y :i.re subject to a ppeal to U·P Sunrcnw Court. (Phil. Const. Law by R. Martin, Rev. Ed. 1956, p. 65) '· Where the specific prnvision was amended '"to read as follows : 'it is a re-enactment of the whole subject in substitution of the previous one which the~·eafter dis3ppea 1·s entirely. The intent of the legislature to set out the original section as amended is most commonly indicated by a statement in the amendato1·y act that the original sectio11 ii,: amended 'to read as follows: '"The legislature thereby declares that thf! new statute i~ a substitute. for ihe original act or section. Only thosc pro\·ision of the original act or section repeated in the amendments are retained. (Domingo T. Parras vs. Land Registration Commission citing> I Sutherland statutory constn1ction. 3l'd Ed .. p. 4Z0-421) G.R. L-160!1; Prom. July 26. 1960. 6. From the momc-nt there is a ct:1nflict hetween an old" Jaw and a new taw. so that the observance <Jf one excludes tha~ of the other, the conflict must be resolved in favor of the later Jaw. This implied repeal of an eal'lier !aw takes place without any special declaration in the .o:ubseq:.ient !aw. (Calderon vs. Santisimo Tioi::a rio 28 Phil., 161; U.S. \' S. Chnn Tienc". 25 Phil .. 8!).) ' · l bilf Stronrly indicating- this contention is the force draw• from the fact that Section 90 of the Act has not suffered emasculation by tl1e amendment. Said Section 90, as a.mended :1 ""Justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities shall have concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of first instance to appoint guardians or g"U:J.rdian AD LITEM fttr pet" BQ118 1vho m·c incapacitated by bein!I of 1ninor a. Qe <>r m entally incapable in nuilU:rs within their respecti"Vc juristlicti011." (Underscoring supplied) Inasmuch as the provision of Seciion 10 Of Rep. Act 2613, b this regard is couched in gencrnl tei-ms, it is believed that it could 11ot affect Section 90 such as to remove the same power of appointment of guardians from the cognizance of the inferior courts to the Courts of First Instanoc, over specific subjects, and in "matters within their respective ju1 isdiction." Section 90, like Sc-ct.ion f;(; of the Act was not t reated by the amendment, which, as al r~ady noted, only modified isolated t l'ctions of the prior pl"Ovisior.s oi tho Act. Untouched, it therefore remains effective as apportioned !)y Congre'is to the inferior courts concunently with the Courts of Pirst Instance. This is one reason for holding this view. Anothe1', anC n more compelling one, is the fact that Section 90 C'"OVers not the entire field of the power of appointment of guardians but me1 ·cly some cases of that gamut .. Un!ike the observation he1·e made between Section 10 of t.he amendntory law and Section 86 par. (c) of the Act, said Section IO does not produce any confEct or antaR '..mism with Sect.ion 00. On thr~ contrary, the or.e is the hl'l.rmoniom~ pan of thP. other,8 or, gl<!aned in anotht•r light, may be taken to l)e a cnse of an excl"ption from: a rulc.9 Therefore, Section l!) of the amendment and Section 90 of the Act construed together should make up the following rules: (1) Where the subject of the prO<"eeding8 are person<l who a re incapacitated by being of minor :tge l"'J" arc mentally incapable, justices of the 11ea~e and ju<lb'"el-l Of municipal courts have jurisdiction in matters within thei1 · respcct!ve jurisdiction, concunently with the Courts of F irst h1· stfmce; (2) Where th~ subject of the proceeJings are t~c p:orsons above referred to but the matter before said courts are without their respective jurisdiction, there is no concurrt'nce : jurisdiction. in the Courts of First Instance is exclusive ; :\nd {3 ) Whei·e the subject of proceedings arc other incompetent! (those under civil interdiction, hospitalized lepers, prodigr.l.i, den{ and dumb who are unabl<> to J"<:ad and write, tho!>1, who by reason of uge, disease and other similar cau~~:>, cannot, without outside aid take care of themselves anci urnnagc their property, becoming thereby an easy prey fol" deceit an<! exploitation - (See Sc: . 2 Rule 93, Rules nf C'-0urt) the jur isdiction. to appoint gunrdians is excltt~ivc in the Court of F irst l n!-ltance. (NOTE: The J uvenile and Domestic Reiations Court of the City of Manila is of the category of a Court of Fir~t Instance.) Eal"iicr, mention was made that in view of the manner whereby Congress incorporated into the provisions of the Act the Present change, Section 86 not thtireby includP.d, should not be taken to bend to the new changes save par. (c) on the matter of appoint1. See Rep. Act 648. 8. Lichauco vs. Apostol. 44 Phil., 13K But in all cases wl!ere two stntutes <"over, in whole or in part, the same matte1 ·, bu~ tl1 <!y are not absolutely irreconcilable, the duty of the Court - no purpose to r1:peal being clearly indicated 0 1 · f'Xprcssed - is. if possible. to give effect to both. . . . 9. Ihid. Wht-n there are tw(l net:,; 0 1· pmy1i;1011s, one of whtch is special and particular and includ~s the matter in question. a!lti the othec general, which, if stanchng alone, would a!so inclu<~C the same matter and thus C'Onfl1ct with the specml act or 1wov1sion the special must he. taken as intf'ndcd to ·con~titute an exception 'to the g:>nci·aJ :\ct or provision. No-.embe!" 30, 1961 LAWYERS ITOURNAL Pai::-e 323 ment of guardians. This statement should be qualified by th~ effect borne of t he provisions that "Justices of the Peace in thP. =apitals of provinces and judges of municipal courts shall have jurisdiction &$ the Courts of First Instance to try parties chargeJ with an offense committed within the province in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision conecional or imprisonment for not more than six (13) years 01 fine no~ exceeding three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) or both x x x,llJ on the provisions gninting original jul'isdiction to try criminal cases in which the offense charged has been committed w ithin the respective l,erritorial 7uristliction of justices of the pe&.ce and judges of municipal courts.i I Before the amendment, the respective territorial j urisdiction nf the justices of the peace has been undei·stood to extend only over cases committed within the te!Titorial limits of municipality whcrf! they sit. Conversely, a just ice of the peace would have no 1 >owel· to try a case committed beyond the territory of the municipality whei·c he sits, the reason being that a ny exercise of jul"isdir.tion by a ju:-t1ce cf the peace beyond his prescribed territory is corant 11011 j11tlice :md \·oid.12 However, under ~he present law as mvdifie:l, ju°-stice~ of the peace courts of the capitals of provinces hi:..ve jurisdiction to try cases committed within the p1ovince where the imposable penalty does not exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six (13) years or fine not exceeding three thou,;anJ pesos (P3,00-0.00) er both irrespective of whether ihe tl"ial be on the mer its or me1·ely one preliminary to such trial before the Court of Fil'st Instance of the province. Therefore, if the case bo one triable by virtue of their a uthol'ity to conduct prelimin-ar:t1:wcst.1f!':ltions. said justices of the pe:ice courts have jurisdiction ' ''without regard to the limits of punishment x x x." This woulrl seem to be the correct view conside1·ing that since Section 10 (I f Rep. Act 2613 amending Section 87 par. 4 which int!'Oduces said paragraph with the words "Said justices of the peace' and judges l f municip:il courts '.'( x x·• did not qualify the first of its compound subject. to distinguish or dL~criminate between justices of the peace court<; of the capitals of provinces ~rnd the justi..:es o~ the peace 'cou!'ts of the municipalties other than the capitals of p r·o · vinces said phrase (justices of the peace) must be held to inclu<lc both kinds - Ubi l~x 1wn distinguit nee non di.stinguere debemw;. Henre, the provisions of Section 86 par. (a) of the Act which grants original juri;;diction to try offt:r,ses C<.'mmitkd within the resprc· tive tel'ritorial jurisdiction, should now be understood to have been '.'n:aq;ed at ]e;ist insofal' as the territorial jurisdiction of justices of the peace of capitals of provinces arc concerned. By Section JO of Rep. Act 2613, thl' original prnvi!l.ions of Section 87 were replaced. Now, the latter 1·cads: ;,Sec. 87. Original jurisdiction t'> try niminal cases.--Justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts of cha11ei·erl cities shall have original jurisclicti•m over: •-(a) All violations of municipal or city ordinances committed within their respective terl"ito1·ial jurisdiction; ·'(b) All criminal cases arising under the iaws relating to : "!. G:1mbling a nd management or ope,·ation or lottel'ies: '°'> Assaults where the intent to kill is not cha1·geJ or evident upon the frial: "3. Larceny, embezzlement and estafa where the amount of money or property stolen, embezzled. or otherwise involved, does not exceed the sum 01· vaJ·ue of two hundred pesos; ''4. Sale of intox!cating iiquors; ,;5 Falsely impersonating an officer; "6. Malicious mischiefs; "7. T respass on government or private property; "8. Threatening to take human life; and "9. I!legal possession of firearms. 10. Section 10 Rep. Act 26Ia amendin't Section 87 par. 5. ll, Section 86 pnr. (a) Rep. Act 296. 12. 5 1 C .. J.S. 83. ,;(c) All other offense except violation of election laws in which the penalty provided by law is imprisonment for not more than six months or a fine of not more than two hundred pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment; "Said justices of the peace and judges of munici pal courts may aiso conduct preliminary investigation for any offense ~.lleged to have bt'rn committed within their respective municipalities a nd citie:1, without. regard t 11 th~ limits of punishments, and may release, or commit and bind over any person charged with su,ch offense to securP his a p· JJearance before the proper court. "J ustice<: of the peace in the capit'lls vf provir.ce3 ai1 d .Juq:es of l\tuni<:ipal Ccurts :;hall have like jurisdiction as t he Court of First Instance to try pa1·ties charge:t with an offense committed within the province in which the penalty provided by law doc:; nClt exceed prision correccional or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding three thousa11d pesos or both, and in th<> :1bscm1 of the distr ict judge, ::hall have like .iuri'ld:U:ti•Jll within the JJl'OVince as the Comt of Fit"st Instance to hea.ttJ)plicatio11 for bail. "All cases filed unde1· the next preceding paragrap!i with lJusticcs of t.he Peace of car itals and municiJ:lll wu.1 t judger, shall be t1·ied and decided on the mei'its by th<? 1esp(ctiv<' juslices of the peace or municipal jud~e.'!. PJ"Occcclings had shall be a1111rnlable direct to the Court of AppCals oz· the Supi·eme Court, as the case may be." By the amending law. the noticeable changes may be summe.l us follows: (u) T he t1·ansposition of par. (b) to (c) and vice versa; (b) The intl'Oduetion of par. (b)-9, adding to the list of of· fense therC'in enumerate(!, r:. charg~ of illegal !>OSSl';;<;1 on of firearms; (c) Violation of election laws have been inserted as an exception to the provisions of par. (c) which embraces :i.ll offeuses exclusively cognizable by justices of the pf'acc and municipal coui·ts; (cl) A provision giving to justices of the peace of capitals ,.f provinces and municipal coui·ts of chartered citie;; like authority as the Court of Pirst Instance over cr:mi'lal ca<;e~ the pe11ei:.y of which is limited to !ll'isior> co1·recional or its equ~v!l~ent or a fine net exceeding P3 OOfl.00 0r both committ-:id w!thin the province. (c) A provision introducing trial en the merits of the elaR'= of cases referred to above (par. 4 hereof ), the recording of the sam~ t.nd a direct ion that such cases shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. (f) The provisions granti:ig like j uiisrliction with the Court.'! of First Instance by :is!>ignment Clf cli~irict j!1dges to 1 Justic:es of the Peace of capitals of provinces to try pat·ties charged with !ln offense committed within the p 10vince in which the penalty docs not C;Xcetd imprison"'llf'l~I fot· two years and four months, or a fine of tw'l thcu:;:rnd pesos or both, have been legislated out, save their like juris<tiction with the Court of Fin;t lnstarce within t.hP prov· ince 10 hear applicat;·111s foi· bail. S:i'fe the foi·egoings all others have been 1 ·etained. On these: obsf'rvations, it can be said gcncrnlly, that tlw ju; i t-diction of inferior courts have been extended. However, whi!•· the jurisdict ion of justices of the peace and municipal courts over a ll vi•Jiations <)( municipal or city ordinances committed within thei1· respective tenitorial jurisdiction have b(.'Cn retained e'i toto, thei1 · 1 authority io t ry pa1ties charged with an offense punishnble by an ·mprisonment of not more thr-n six months or a fin<' of not more than two hundTcd pesos or both was constricted lo exclude therefrom violations of election law<; reg:w<tless of the 1>enalties. By fm·c:c Qf par. (c) Sectio~1 87 as amended, all offenses which lhi! law assigns a penalty of imprisonment f01· not mo:·e than i;i:\ Page ~24 LAWYERS \JOURNAL November 30, 1961 months or a fine of not exceeding P200.00 committed within the respective territorial jurisdiction of j ustices of the peace anti rnunicip:il courts of ch:irtcred cities are exclusively cognizable by them; otherwise they are cognizable by the Courts of First Im;· tance.11 In such cases the maximum of the penalty whether it be in the form of imprisonment or fine furnishes the test, and the foct that. the minimum punishment is within the justice's jurisdiction is immaterial.14 For insta11ce, if the imposable penalty for the offense is arresto mayor and a fine from 325 to 3,250 pesetas, a sum greater than P200.00, conviction thereon by n justice of the peace is null', for want of jurisdiction. 15 So aba, if i he imposable penalty for the 0ffense. is 11.rrC'sto mayor in its ma· ximum to prison correccional in its minimum period and/ or a fine not tixceeding P200.00 pesos the j ustice of the llt!l-\CC is without power to tr; the charge ev~n considering that the altemativc or conjuctiv~ penalty of fine imposed by law is within its power to impose. However, justices of the peace courts may not have jurisdiction over a casc when, althou).':'h the penalty prC!scrih~d by law is not more than six mont:is impri!'onment a11d 1wo hunJ1·cd peso1 finC!, the law pre;cribes an ad:titional penalty wh'c·1 the just;ce of the peace courts have no jurisdicticn to impose.•G According ly, it has been held where the accusc.I public official was charg<'d foi· estafa, flll offense punishable with the pcnn;ty d anr.sto mayor 9.lld the additional pen-.lty of temporary S!J('c:aJ disqualific:ition in its m:iximum degree to pc1 ·pctual special disqualification,17 or, where thi, 1 1ctitione1· was charged with a violation c-f Art. 155 par. (4) of the RC'vi.~c<l Penal Code which calls for the additional penalty of two ycu rs, four months and or>..: day of prision correcior.al for habitu:il dt!lii;quC!ncv 011 sir.Munt. n ~ t,?s two preYi<.>us convictions for the samf' offonse,18 or, where to impose the pennlty of ar1'e1<to mayo1· upon the nccuscd guil1y of sedu-0111g a m•nor, the additional penalty of certain civil obligntions which a re not really, in a strict sense, accessories of the personal penalty, such a s, the ack11owledgement and lhe i,.uppo1 t or the c-hild begotten,u the justic~ of the pcac,.. has no jurisdfrtion. But it has also been held that where the justice of the peace has jn risdiction ove!· the imbject matier a s the penalty for thC' offer.«~· brougi1t before him is within his jurisdiction pursuant to Jaw, said justice is not precluded from imposing subsidiary imprisonment ronsequcnt upcn the inability of the accused to satisfy his neci;•1· ia ry liabilities even when to do so would distend the penalty of imprisonment to o\·er ~ix mo11ths.20 So also. si.1re the pe.'aily of destierro is not a highe1 · penalty than arrcsto mayo1· for the icason that it is merely a restriction on one's libcdy of movc:ne;.t and net a l'omplete d~pri\'ation of such libf'rty, the imposition of the sam.e is \':ithin the exclus:ve jurisdict'on of tho? justice of the 11cacc to impoEe de.c;pite that it exceeds the terms of six months.21 And in another case 22 the ju1·isdiction of the jusricc of the pcor" has been conceded where it nrdered the confinement or a mil'<..?' delinquent in a reformatory for a period exceeding six months. With l'Cspcct to the provis;~ns of Section 87 par. (b) as n "lw :1mf'ndcd. justices of the pe11cc courts and mur.icipal judges of rh'l.•·. tned cities have exclusive jurisdiction OVI'\' all casc1 the natur" of which ar..:: of those spe,·ifically enumernkd and in\·olving a per.alty the l't•tm of which docs not excced the limits set out in pt.i·. ( d. Rut in thost; same e?.SC!s, said justices and judger, of mun·cira! cr u rh exercises the auth,.,rity tc t1·y thr sam<' coHclu·•·e;it\y with u . Section 4< 1 par. (f) J udicia ry Act of HM8. u . 31 Am. J ur. - 739. u. U.S. YS. Almazan and Martinez 20 Phil., 225. M, U.S. vs. Bornardo, 19 Phii., 265, U.S. V!: . Regala 28 Phii., 37; Pevple vs. Costosa. 40 Off. Gaz., 17th Supp. 147. 11. U.S. vs. F igueroa, 22 Phil., 2G 9. 18. Llobrera vs. The Director ')f P l'isons , G.R. No. L-3{lg4, Aug. 16. 1950. 19. U.S. \'S. Bcrnurdo, 19 Phil., 265. to. Peopl·J V f!. Caldito, Pt n!., 40 O G. 5522. t i. Ibid. 2t. Bactoso vs. Governor of Cebu, 2S Phil.. 25 ~he Courts of First Instance,2s where thP. imposable penalty exce-?ds t he limits set forth in par. (c)2' sin06! tha controlling basis for rnch jurisdiction lies not on the mcasur~ of the imposable pcnalt.y but upon the character of the offensr!,26 the imposition of additi~­ nal penalty, such a$ habitual delinqucncy, notwithlitandin~.M However, tJ115 ruht has been qualified by jurililprudencq hotdin-r 1hat whP•'f> lo fry and determine a case either civil or criminal, the j ustice of the peace has k first decide title to real property necessarily im·o\ved thC'rcin, h~ ·h::.s no jurisdiction.27 So that, if a nimil,al i:ase be filed wilh a justice of the peace or muni~ipal judge for the offense of other forms of swindlin2' defined :ind 1111nish~d under Art. 316 of th~ Revised Penal Code par. (1) i::n:r. justice or jude-e is competent to try and hear it, hut where to rli .<:.o, he would hnve to first resolved t it\P t,., such real oronC!rfv. then ~iiid jur.ti:::P hu.<: no jurisdiction. It is well to note that in the foi·mer instance, th<' justice of the peace acttuired jurisdiction been.use ,.,f the 3rd par. of Section P:7 of the Act, but in tl-e latter it ""''Ii' not try the cnse though it wr.mld have had 11ndcr the n1 1ti.,.,.il•· wnfcrrcd to it in pars. (U), or (c) because it has to decide a question of t itle to real property which is within the cxc1m1iw rog-n;i;'lr>c,.. .,f the Courts of First Tnstnnce. Jn the snmc ._rPtlth. .1 just ic' l)f the rPacf' l)r municipal CC'llrt would have no inri:;dirliun to try IH"O!OC<'!Jtion~ ·unde r the pl'Ovisi,.,ns of the Anli·gr::ift Law (Rep. Act 3019), though the imposable penelty thcr<'in rn1; vided in cases of conviction, would have been wen within his com'Jl<'lence to impose. the statute itself providing tha, "all pro~"ll · lions unde1· t.!'iis Act" shall bl! within the original jurisdirtiof'! c.f the proper Court of First Instance.ZS H owever, it shoulcl be well to note that the jurisdiction gn m t· eel the justices of the peace and municipat judges of chartere,l cities over all criminal cases 11.rising under the laws !'elating V those cnumerntcd in paragraph (b) ~f Section li7, concurrentlr with the Cnul'ts of First Instance, refers only to ,•,,nsummat2d offenses. Where the offense ch:irged recites a mere attempt to commit estafa where the amount involved is P202.00 an amount exceeding the limit set forth m Section 87, par. (b) sebpar. (3), the judge of the Court of First I n~tance has no jurisdiction to try iL Th~· Supreme Court in upholding the jtu·isdiction ol the mun·e·r<\l cc.urt in this case, disregarded Snbsec. (c) (now sub.c;ec. (b) d~ch. r­ ing \}i:lt ··we f'houlcl not los<> 5ight of the fact that the offcnse;; 1 ~H:ntion".!d in !ia id subst'ction (c) refer to r.on111onmated nets ~ l"I\ 11ot me1ely to those that arc uttempted or frustr r.tt':d in natur'J." A differen: interpretation, it war. further i;aid, woulJ t!ivc 1 i.~e to t he incong ruous situation where while under subscetion (c) the 11ffcnsc docs not come with the juri:-;<liction ilf t~ municipa l cc\ll't bccau<<t' the value of the thing i;tolen ii; mora than f>'200.00 it at tl1e same time comes within its j urisdiction under subsection (b) becam;c the penalty involved is less than six months.2!l Under thei prior provisions of par. (b) of Section 87, w~.t express to read: "All offenses in which the penalty x x x." How('ver unUc1· the amendme11t it is 1iow worded: "all othe1· off~ns<:>s in which the penalty x x x." It is therefore obvious th:i.t it \\'R.S the intcn<:ion to limit the cases of ..:rimes that may be taken cognizance ,,f by the j ustices of the pcaCe and municipal cout1a to those sp:!· cified, never to any criminal cause n(1 t spe:ified - e:tvressio 1 u1iu.s est e:rcl1"8io 1 tlteriw1. F ollowing this 1casoning, it i:: conceded th11t justices of the peace of capitals nnd municipal courts of chartered cities, may determine all the cases enumerated therein under the a uthority conferred to them by the pi-ovisioni; of the 3rd. par. ol Section 87 of the present Act. B) the langua;,;c of the 3rd. par . .)f Section f 7 as amended by Section tO, of Rep. Act 2G13, justices of the peace of the capitals 23. P"!oplc vs. Colico XVI, L.J. 5l}fl. u. Ibid. 21 •. Pe:Jplc vs. Palmon G.R. No. L·28GO, May 11, 1950. 28. People vs. Blanco G.R. No. L-7200 \Jan. 13, 1950 21. Carroll & Bnllesteros vs. ParcMs, 17 P hil., 94. 211. Sectil)n JO, Rep. Act 3019. 20. People vs. Marita Ocampo y Pure C.R. No. L-10015 Prom. Dccembel' 1~. 1956. Novemh<!r 30, 1961 LA WYERS OOURNAL of provinces and municipal courts of chartered cities are ncrw authorized to try criminal cases to which the law assigns th ~ penalty of prision correcional or its equivalent and/or a fine not exceeding P3,000.00 committed within the province. This authority however, is not exclusive, but concurrent with the Courts of First Instance. Ju1·isdittion of such courts under lhis paragraph may bt cxe-.·ciscd by them over s~id cases not. 0nly when committed wi\;11in the territorial linuts of the capital of the pl'Ovince but also committed elsewhere within the province. The rnme proposiliC1n will hold true, where the capital of the province is at the <:amc time a city, but in chartered cities which a1·e not the capitals r.f the provinces where they are lccated, the jurisdiction of such courts extend only to c1·iminal offenses committed within the city limits. This would scEm to be th.? mcrtning C'lf the provision of the 3rd pa1·. of Section 87 when it provides: "Justices of the peace in the C(1pitals of provinces and judges of Municipal Courts sha!I have 1:ke j urisdiction as the courts of F'i1'St fo11tancc: to try parties ch:i.rgcd wit.h an offense committed 11,.•ithin the proi·ince, x x x." Had the law intended differently, it would have been easy for Con\or1·cs:; tc prn\•ide the same by merely saying "within ~he provinc.e or city, respectively" or by words of like import. More so, to entertain the idea that j ustices of the peace of the capitals •lf pro\•inces ma~ ..1ry cases committed within the territorial limits of the provinces without however conceding the same authority to judg1::s of municiJJ9.l courts simply because it happened that thti latter sit in cities whir::1 are also capitals, wouid lead to n ludicrous result. Precisely, the intent behind the amendment is to enlarge the jurisdiction of inferior courts in order to ease the clogging of cases in the Courts of First Insta nce.30 Considering further, that even Congress is well aware that most of the capitals of the provinces ar~ now cities, it may be assumed that Congress did not intend to discriminate between the territorial jurisdiction of a justic.e of th1• peace of the capital of a province and j udge of a 1r.unicipal courr of a city where such city is a\'so the capital of the province. Thereforti, under the present set up the justice of the peace of Pasig, !lizal. for instance. can take cognizance of a case of "homicide thru reckless impruJencc"31 committed in any municipality embraced in that prcYincc. And also, the justice of the peace of Mal'ikina, Hizal, for instance, may remand a case of the same kind, afte1· pi·eliminary inquiry either to the Courts of F irst Instance or to the justice of the peace stationed at Pasig, Rizal. Since the jurisdiction of j ustices of the peace of capitals and judgt!s of municipal court under the previsions of the 3rd par. of Section 87, is determinc1l by the penalty therein provided, it follows that the prevailing decisions limiting or qualifying the provisicns of par. (c) should be made applicable to them. Hence, justices of the peace of capitals of provinces and judges of ' municipal courts have no jurisdiction where to try a criminal cause, they would have to impose an additional 1 1enalty in certain cases, such as that cf habitual delinquency, or, to first resolve title to real property necessarily involved therein, or tc. require an accused to acknowledge and give support to the child begotten by him with a minor he had scduced.32 By the 4th par. of Section 8'/ as amt<nded, all cas.:=s filed with justice of the peace and municipal courts which may be tried by 30. " There arc now a number of cases that are pending anJ which cannot possibly be dispo11cd of by the prt'sent number of Judges of courts ot First Instance. Just tC'I s<!e the number of cases pending will convince anyone. There were 74.870 cases pending at the end of the year, last year (1958)." "While all the judges arc trying to do tt:.eii· best to di~pose of them, yet they cannot cope with the inc1·c-asing number of cases, which by the year a1·e increasing more than in the pal!t. "We propose to increase in this bill the jurisdiction of the justices nf the Peaec Courts." Ponencia del Sen. Paredes, p. 1497 to 1498 Cong. Rec. Vol. II, No, 58. 1959. a1. A rl. 365. Revised Pena l Code, )'!I.I'. numbered 2 :i.s amet!de'! by Rep. Act No. l 790. 32. S'Jpru - p. 11. them coneunently with the courts of First Instance "shall" be t ried oo the merits by the respective ju;;tices vr municip:tl jud~es, and tho proceedings therein had shall be recorded. By these is meant lhat when said courts acquir(! jurisdiction to try amt dccid..: a case of lhc natur".l mentioned in the 3rd paragrarh of &!<:tion 87 of the Act, as amended, to the exclusion of the Courts of Fil'st Instance, said courts, from the filing of the corres:~onding complai nt or informati;t11 beco:ue courts cf recont insofar as the C\l3C tiled is concern<'ri. Therefoi·e the procedure by whi,.h a criminal action is tried before the Court of First lnslance should be made U(lplicable, re~ording the p1·ocecdi11gs therein had from the beginning to end. Tile judgment to be promulgated !lnd entered in such cases should .;dso conform to the 1·equircmcnts of statin~ the facts . :rnd the laws applied ir. the decision which must be in Wl'iting, so that if an appeal is raised thereon, the Ccurt of Appeals or the Supreme Court, to which such appeals are made, may howl so>mething to appreciate. So also, in cases of appeals. the pioceduro followed for ap;wals frem the Courts of First Instance to the Court of Appcds or Supreme Cl)urt, ai; the case may be, should be adopted. The 4th par. of Se<'tion· 87 t.f the Acl as amended, begins with : '"All cases-filed unch:!r the n~t 1,,.eceding' parng-raph x- xx." F1om this is clear that only those case3 referred to in the 3rd paragraph 1hereof are i·nd :;hould be app~aled direct to the Court of Apr)(!a!s c>I' Supreme Court as the case may he in cases, where appeals arc iaised. This gi\•es r ise to th·~ further implication that where a ju!>t ice l)f ~he peace court of th".l capital of " province or a judge of :1. municipal court dccide11 n criminal rase pursuant to his authority uuder the cas~~ p rnvided in p:i.ragraphs (t•), (b) or (c) of Secticn 87 of the Act a s now amended, appeals shoulct be made to t he Cou11s of First Instance. This becomes even more obvious should w~ consider that in such cases the trial court is not a court of record. Thercfo!'e, whe:re the judgme11t appealed· from is <'ne l'Cndered fill any of the cases mentioned in par. (b) the ap1 Jeals should be b11.mght to the Courts of F irst Instance, even if the sentence th('rein imposl'.J m:1y well exceed the penalty of prisi<'n correcion:il or a fine of more than P3,000.00 01· both. Though in some of thes<! cases the justice of the peace and municipal judge may try and decide them concur rently with the Court of First Instance, the fact of mere ron('urrence, however, does not bring t hem within the application of the 4th pa1·. of Section 87 inasm.uch ns the phrase " All cases filed undel' the next pl'eceding parag raph" is clearly indicative of the legislative intent to c<1 t·er only the cases falli!I~ in thei r cogni~ance under said 4th parrigrnph to the exclushn of all the other cases. Because of the amendment distending the power of justices of the pt'ace cot:rts of capitals of provinces and judges of municipal, courts of chartered cities, far-reaching implications have ins.inuatcd, themselves into the field of procedure. A notable instanc? is the J"Ule to the effect that warrant of anest issued by the justice of the peace cannot be served bl' exe-c.uted outside his province unless the judge of the Court of First Instance of the district or, in his absenc-e, the provincial fiscal shall ce1·tify that in his opirdnn the interest of justice requires such service.aa Because of the nmendment it is now believed that in the cases covered in the provisions of the 3rd par. of S.:-ction 87, the namrd cou11s may issue wat"rants without the certification of District Judges or Provincial Fiscal, the se1 ·vice. of which may be affected within the Philippines. The consistency of this contention, it is submitted, J:es 4 heavily on the rule that when by law jurisdiction is conferred on a court 0 1· judicial officer, all auxiliary writ~, processes and other means necCS!>ary to carry it into effect may be employed by such (Ourt or .,fficer; a nd if the prondure to be followed in the exerci!le of such jurisdiction is not specifically pointed out by the Rules of Court. any suitable p roce:-1il or mode of proceeding- may [.)(' ~:1. Sec. 'I. Ruic 109. Rule~ of Court. Page 326 LAWYERS \JOURNAL Ncvember 30. 1961 adopted which appears most conformable to the spirit of said rulcs.34 Again, bcc~us<: of the grant to the justices of the p2ace or e::ipitals and j,1dgcs of municipal co,1rts of chartucd cities like jurisdfotio11 f!i< the Courts of First Instance, it can now be mid that in casce of conviction where an appeal is made therefrom, the defendant appealing may be admitted to bail, nnt as a matter of right but ut the discrcticm of the Court.. I r, lhf' same vein, since the dcfrndant must be pcrso1wl:y present at the annignment where the charge is for an offense within the jurisdiction of the Courts of F irst Instan«>,3& the snmc must be followed where the defen<!ant is chargr:d for an offense concurrently triable by the former and the latter courts under the provisions of the 3rd par. of Section 87, as amended. For the same reason, an a ppeal taken from a j udgmc-nt of conviction rendered by Judges of municipal courb or chartered C'itlc1; should be made within fifteen d3ys from the rem!it:ion of lhe j udgment appealed !rem, when the j udgment rcnderecl by said cou11.s is upon a case cognizable by both the Courts cf First In>i~nr.n• and judges r.f mu,nicip'll cou1·ts. This would · seem to be the mode applicable notwithstanding appeals from municipal courts bad been, by the respective city charters, made to be done within the da)• following the rendition or promulgation of the judgment, usually at 4 :00 o'clock or 6 :00 o·clock post meridian,3& for the reason that it could not be presumed that Congress intended that sn id city charters should prevail over a law yet to be made. And by. paralld reasoning, it may also be said that justices of the peace courts of ihe capitals of provinces and municipal courts of .chartered cities, when in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred to them by the provisions of the 3rd par . of Section 87, as amended, l!l.:l) now be competent to net in a i:ummary proce<'dings for direct contempt under the provisions of Section 1, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court in like mnnner as the Courts of F irst Instance to whose proYince the impositic.n of a fin'! of not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten days or bot~, has been given. The consideration for this proposition lies on the theory that direct contempts bei11g as thty are remedias ancilbry to a principal cause should be deemed to be wit hin the sphere of the Court's cognizance, where the principal cause is by law vested in s11.id Court.!7 And, since no appeal lies from a decisiotl of the Court of First Instance in summary proceedings for direcl con· tempt or court,38 the same is submitted to apply with equal force upon a.n adjudication for contempt rcnd~red by justices of th<' peace courts of capitals of provinces and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities in the cases provided in 3rd par. of Sectir.n 87. The above a rc only my humble 01,ini-0n as there arc preeedents yet -On the matter. C IVIL The authority o! inferior courts to hear and decide civil cases under the 11ri'>r c.nactment was mC'asurcd by thf' value -0f the subject matter or amount of the demand, exclusive of the costs and intez·ests. Pursuant t-0 the t hen provisions of Section 88 of the Uudiciary Act of 1948, the limit wns set at an amount or value not exceeding !'2,00-0.00 exclusive of costs and interests. Under t he present rule, rhc vnlu~ of the subjcet m!l.tter or amount of the demand was fi xe<! at P5,000 0-0, exclusive of interests a nd costs. Outside of l i i:s 34 . Sec. 6, Ruic 124, Ibid. 3!>. Sec. 2, Rule 112, Rules of Court 36. In Rep. Act 537, as amended, a ppeals from a j udgment of conviction from the municipal cour ts of Quew n City should Le tnken befor..! the hour of 4 :00 o"clock post meridian of the foi lowing .!ay. In R~p. Act 409, as amer.ded. appfals from a judgment of r-onvictil-t: rcndert'.'d by a municipal juJJ:t"c should be p.;-rfccted the day iollowini.:- the rendit ion at (j :00 o'~!ock post mel"idian. .~i . The 1 icwer of l·ourt.i of justice, whl'ttie:-r -0f rccoi·d or not, to punish fo.- c.onlt!mpt is an incident essentia l to the exccut\on a nd maintena nce of judicial authority ( 12 Am. Jur. :l90) . 311. Pt'.lple v. AIJ9.ya, 43 Phil., 247 ; sum or value. justices of the peace or municipal courts of chartered citie:s arc without autho1 ·ity to act on ordinary civil actions, the power to take action there~n being vested exclusively in the Courts ot F irst Instance.39 And, in det<>rmining this value or the subject matte1· 01· dmount of said su it <n· that there arc ~everal claim!' or caus<'s of adion between the same parties emb:>died in the Sl\tne complaint, the amount of lhc demand shall he the totality of t!ic demand in all t he causes of act.ion, iricspective of whether the causes of action arose out of the same or different transactions; but where the claims or causes of action j oined in a sin~le c')mplaint a rc separately owned by or due to diffc1·ent part!es, each f::cparate eiaim shall fumish the jurisdictional test.~O The juri!;diction of justices of the peace courts obtaining und('t the provision~ of Section 88 of the Act before the amendment over assigned cadastral or la nd 1·egistration cases was also fixed a t rz,000.00 This is now fixed at P5,000.00. Beyond this value of contested lots, justices of the peace have no jurisdiction to hea1 ·• and dctenninc cadastral and lnnd registration cases assigned to them by the District J udge and approved by the Secretary of .Justice. Outside of these changes the ~m.·isdiction of inferior comts tinder the provisions of the Judiciary Law, as to all other matters, have been kept intact, save, as mentioned earlier, their authority to appoint guardians, generally. ~9. Sec. 44 par. (c) as amended by 8cc. 3 Rep. Act 261~ of the Judiciary Act of 1948. ~c. (a) In general, in an .:a•.tion in which the relief snught is a suu\ of money, the amount daime<l in good faith by plaintiff, the same being well pleaded. determines the 11mount in controv<'rsy for the purpose of determining the court's j ursidiction. This nmount is determined without rderence W any defense or pica set upon by the defendants, and is not determined by the proof adduced during the trial of t"l1e case or by the amount of the re<:overy. If the amount cluime<l is such as tt• bring the c.ase within the jurii:-diction of the court, such jurisdiction is not defeated by the fact that tho actual recovery is less than the jurisdictional amount; unless it appears that the ol'igina\ demanci was fictitious or fraudulent. (21 C.J.S., Sec. 50, p. 65.) (bJ Where there are s1:: .. ·cral claims or causes of action be· tween the same )>arties embodied in a single complaint, the juris· diction of the court depends, not upon the value or dema nd in each single cause or action, hut upon the totality of the demand in all the causes of action. In other words, "the amount Of the demand" means tho total or aggregate amount demanded in the complaint, irrespective of whether the plural causes of acticn constituting the total claim arose out of the same, or different transafti;Jns. This is the r•iling of the Supreme Court on t he matt<'!" a wl. makes obt>olete the contrary ruling made in Ge vs. Go, C.H. No. L-7020, June 30, 1954, wherein a distinction was drawn between a claim composed of several accounts arising from difCcrent transactions. and another which is composed of several accounts which arise out of the same transaction; and it was held that in the first case, the ainount of each account furnishes the test of jurisdiction, while in the second, the jurisdiction is determined by the total amount claimed. (Campos Rueda Corp. vs. Sta. Cruz Timber Company ct al.. G.R. No. L-6994, March 21, 1956.) (c) When two or more p!·aintiffs. each having separate and distinct demnnd, join in a single suit, the demand of ench. must be of the requisite jurisdictional amount. Aggregation of the claims to make up the jurisdictional amount is permitted only if the claims are of a joint nature, as when it is sought to enforce a single r ight in which plaintiffs have a common ~nterest. As American Jurisprudence puts it. •'Where several claimants hav'J separate and distinct demands_ against a ?efcnda~t or defc_ndants which mr.y propedy be Joined in a smgle SUJt , the claims cann'ot be added together to make up the required jurisdictional amount ; each separate claim furnishes the ju1·isdictional t~st." ( Hacknes v. Guarar.ty T rust Co., of New York .. 4 _Fed. Rules Srrv. 378; U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Second Circuit, J an. 13, 1!)41 l 17 .F'. (2nd) 95.) Novembtr 30, 1961 LAWYERS lJOURNAL Pag» 327

Date

1961

Rights