Bacalso v. Ramolete
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Celestino Bacalso filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu against the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Mateo C. Bacalso, and Cesar Gonzalez, seeking to annul a decision of the Director of Mines, affirmed by the Secretary, which declared Mateo C. Bacalso and Cesar Gonzalez as having superior location rights on certain mining claims in Toledo City. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 7278. Procedural History: Respondents filed motions to dismiss, arguing the administrative decision had become final and executory. These motions were denied. Subsequently, Mateo C. Bacalso and Cesar Gonzalez filed an ex parte motion to transfer the case from Branch V to Branch VII of the CFI of Cebu, alleging that Administrative Order No. 302, as amended by Administrative Order No. 337, included Toledo City under the jurisdiction of Branch VII in Barili, Cebu. The respondent Judge denied this motion, citing that the case was assigned to Branch V before the creation of Branch VII, several incidents had already been resolved by Branch V, and transferring the case would create variance and conflict in rulings. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, questioning whether the respondent Judge lost jurisdiction to try the case due to the Administrative Orders of the Secretary of Justice.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge presiding over Branch V of the CFI of Cebu lost jurisdiction to try and decide Civil Case No. 7278 by virtue of Administrative Orders Nos. 302 and 337 of the Secretary of Justice, which transferred cases assigned in Branch V, including Civil Case No. 7278, to Branch VII. Whether the respondent Judge erred in denying the motion to transfer the case to Branch VII.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed, and the writ of preliminary injunction is dissolved. The respondent Judge of Branch V retains jurisdiction to try and decide Civil Case No. 7278.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and the respondent Judge's refusal to transfer the case: The Court reiterated the settled rule that jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or law and cannot be fixed by the will of the parties, nor acquired, enlarged, or diminished by their acts or omissions. The power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts is exclusively within the province of Congress and cannot be delegated to the Secretary of Justice. The various branches of the Court of First Instance are coordinate and co-equal courts, and jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judges. Apportionment of cases among branches by the Secretary of Justice is an administrative right for convenience and coordination, not a grant or limitation of jurisdiction. The respondent Judge erred in refusing to comply with the directive of the Secretary of Justice based on the flimsy reason that several incidents had already been resolved by his branch, as this would create variance and conflict in rulings. The apportionment of cases must be respected by judges in the interest of order and coordination. On the subsequent legislation rendering the issue moot: The Court noted that Republic Act No. 3729, which went into effect on June 22, 1963, amended Republic Act No. 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) by increasing the number of branches of the CFI in the 14th Judicial District. Crucially, Section 6 of this new law ordained that wherever an additional branch is established in the same place as an existing court, "all cases already filed in the latter court shall be heard, tried and decided by such latter court." This provision meant that Branch V of the CFI of Cebu would retain jurisdiction to try and decide Civil Case No. 7278, thereby rendering the legal question under consideration moot and academic.
Main Doctrine
The apportionment and distribution of cases among different branches of the same court, as ordained by the Secretary of Justice, must be respected by Judges in the interests of order and coordination. Jurisdiction is vested in the Court of First Instance, not in a specific branch or judge, and trials may be held by any branch or judge. Subsequent legislation may, however, retain jurisdiction with the original branch.