Jurado & Co. v. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a challenge to the competency of a judge of the Supreme Court. The challenge was raised by the attorney for the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation during a hearing on a motion filed by Jurado & Co. The basis for the challenge was the judge's prior involvement as a fiscal. 2. Procedural History: The case originated with a motion filed by Jurado & Co. on September 11, 1902. A hearing was held on October 8, 1902, during which the competency of one of the judges of the Supreme Court was challenged. The court considered the application of article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to this challenge. 3. The Petition: The specific vehicle for raising the issue was a challenge to the competency of a Supreme Court judge. The arguments presented centered on the interpretation of article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding challenges to judicial competency, particularly when directed at a judge of the Supreme Court. The court ultimately adopted a construction where the challenged magistrate sits with the court to decide the question of competency as a body, and the challenge was not allowed.
Issue(s)
Whether the challenge to the competency of a Supreme Court Justice, based on his prior role as a fiscal, should be decided by the challenged Justice himself or by the Court en banc. Whether the challenge to the competency of the judge is meritorious.
Ruling
The challenge to the competency of the judge is not allowed. The hearing of the motion will be continued.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court adopted the construction that when a challenge is directed to the competency of a judge of the Supreme Court, the challenged magistrate sits with the court, and the question is decided by the court as a body. The Court rejected a construction where the magistrate decides for himself, as this could allow a party to stop all proceedings by challenging multiple justices. The Court also rejected a third construction where the court decides excluding the challenged members, as this would also be susceptible to abuse. The Court found that the challenge should have been made in writing according to Article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but it was more convenient to settle the question on the merits. The Court examined the original documents and found nothing to support the challenge or express an opinion on the merits of the case. On Issue 2: The Court found no merit in the challenge. The complaint of the fiscal was to compel the judge to comply with the law, and the judge had failed to send a report as directed. The fiscal, who was now a Justice of the Supreme Court, merely made a written request that the judge be directed to send in the report, which was considered a mere matter of procedure. Therefore, the challenge was not allowed.
Main Doctrine
When a challenge is made against the competency of a judge of the Supreme Court, the second construction of Article 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is adopted, wherein the challenged magistrate sits with the court, and the question of competency is decided by the court as a body. This construction prevents a party from paralyzing proceedings by challenging multiple justices.