Herrera vs. Barretto

HERRERA vs BARRETTO 25 PHIL 245, SEPTEMBER 10, 1913 FACTS: Constancio Joaquin began action against Godofredo B. Herrera as Caloocan municipal president when authorities refused to issue a license to open and exploit a cockpit. Joaquin asked the court to issue a mandatory injunction directed to Herrera, to issue a provisional license for Joaquin to conduct his cockpit. The court issued such order ex parte without notice of Herrera. Godofredo B. Herrera then began a proceeding against Honorable Alberto Barretto (judge of the Court of First Instance who had issued the mandatory injunction re cockpit license) and Joaquin (cockpit licensee) for a writ of certiorari alleging that the court had acted without jurisdiction in the following statements. Alberto Barretto exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing a mandatory injunction because: 1. Cockpit licenses in Loma and Maypajo, Caloocan are issued by the municipal council, not municipal president (Godofredo), according to section 40j, of the Municipal Code and article 4 of municipal ordinance No. 8 of Caloocan, 2. He did not give the municipal president opportunity to show cause why such injunction should not be issued as required by section 202 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. Cockpit license erroneously issued for Constancio has been cancelled according to ordinance No. ___ of Caloocan, approved by provincial board of Rizal. 4. There is another pending action between same parties, that the Court had no jurisdiction to issue the mandatory injunction because it renders null the final decision of court in civil case No. 8673. 5. Mandatory injunction tends to render inefficacious and null the decision which the Honorable Richard Campbell will render in civil case No. 986. 6. Constancio Joaquin has neither the license nor the right to run the cockpit in Loma and Maypajo. Objection is based on Bertol and Tanquilina T against municipality to declare null and void Caloocan ordinance No. 8, where complaint of Constancio Joaquin and mandatory injunction was based on. ISSUE: Whether or not Alberto Barretto and his alleged act of exceeding jurisdiction relative to issuance of mandatory injunction for the cockpit license of Constancio Joaquin should be granted a writ of certiorari. RULING: The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari and the proceeding is dismissed. From the order dissolving the writ of preliminary injunction, the petitioner has gone directly to the Supreme Court without giving the respondent Judge a chance or opportunity to correct his error, if any, in an appropriate motion for reconsideration. An omission to comply with this procedural requirement justifies a denial of the writ applied for. A writ of certiorari will not be issued unless it clearly appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or in excess of jurisdiction. If the court has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person, decisions upon all questions pertaining to the cause are decision within its jurisdiction and, however irregular or erroneous they may be, cannot be corrected by certiorari, but must be corrected by appeal. The Court of First Instance had jurisdiction in the present case to resolve every question arising in such an action and to decide every question presented to it which pertained to the cause, including issuance of a mandatory injunction to stand until the final determination of the action in which it is issued. While the issuance of the mandatory injunction in this particular case may have been irregular and erroneous, its issuance was within the jurisdiction of the court and its action is not reviewable on certiorari. It has been urged that the court exceeded its jurisdiction in requiring the municipal president to issue the license, for the reason that he was not the proper person to issue it and that, if he was the proper person, he had the right to exercise discretion as to whom the license should be issued. We do not believe that either of these questions go to the jurisdiction of the court to act. One of the fundamental questions in a mandamus against a public officer is whether or not that officer has the right to exercise discretion in the performance of the act which the plaintiff asks him to perform. In the case at bar no one denies the power, authority, or jurisdiction

of the Court of First Instance to take cognizance of an action for mandamus and to decide every question which arises in that cause and pertains thereto. The contention that the decision of one of those questions, if wrong, destroys jurisdiction involves an evident contradiction. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear and determine a cause —the right to act in a case. Since it is the power to hear and determine, it does not depend either upon the regularity of the exercise of that power or upon the rightfulness of the decisions made. Jurisdiction should therefore be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what makes up jurisdiction.