Mediante v. Ortiz
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: A criminal complaint for "Illegal Possession of Firearm" was filed against Mamerto Campo and Anastacio Baclayo in the Municipal Court of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental, presided over by petitioner Demosthenes Mediante. A warrant of arrest was issued. Subsequently, Mamerto Campo, along with 29 others, filed a petition for "Prohibition, Injunction and Damages with Preliminary Injunction" in the Court of First Instance of Agusan, seeking to restrain the proceedings in the criminal case and to prevent the petitioners (Chief of Police and Municipal Judge) from prosecuting them for acts done within the territory of Carmen, Agusan, or certain parcels of land. 2. Procedural History: The respondent Judge of the Court of First Instance of Agusan denied the motions to dismiss filed by the herein petitioners and issued a writ of preliminary injunction, restraining respondents from threatening, coercing, harassing, and disturbing petitioners in their possession of certain lands, and from harvesting products from said lands. 3. The Petition: The petitioners then filed the instant petition for prohibition. The petitioners seek to prohibit the respondent Judge from requiring them to go to trial in the special civil case and from further proceeding therein, and to set aside the writ of preliminary injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of First Instance of Agusan has jurisdiction to issue a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the proceedings in a criminal case filed in the Municipal Court of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental. Whether the petition for prohibition against the Municipal Court of Magsaysay should have been filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The respondent Judge is prohibited and enjoined from further proceeding against the petitioners in special civil case No. 59. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent Judge is not set aside as it does not enjoin the criminal prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Agusan: The Court held that the respondent Court of First Instance of Agusan erred in taking cognizance of the petition insofar as it sought to prohibit the Municipal Court of Magsaysay from proceeding in the criminal case. The allegation of the situs of the offense in the information, which defines the jurisdiction of the municipal court, must be passed upon and decided in the first instance by the Municipal Court itself. The fact that the land in controversy pertains to the province of Agusan, as stated by the respondent Court, does not divest the Municipal Court of Magsaysay of its jurisdiction over the criminal case filed within its territorial limits, based on the allegation in the information. On the proper venue for the petition for prohibition: The Court further ruled that the petition below, insofar as it sought to prohibit the Municipal Court of Magsaysay from proceeding in the criminal case, should have been filed in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental. This is because the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction over all municipal courts in said province. The actuation of the respondent Judge of Agusan in entertaining the petition constituted an undue arrogation of supervisory power which did not belong to him. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent Judge, while it did not enjoin the criminal prosecution, was based on civil disputes over land and harvest, which were distinct from the criminal case itself, but the venue for the prohibition aspect was incorrect.
Main Doctrine
A petition for prohibition against a municipal court's proceeding should be filed in the Court of First Instance of the province where the municipal court is located, not in another province's Court of First Instance, as the latter has no supervisory jurisdiction over the former.