THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. RUFINO VILLANUEVA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.

These eight appeals, consolidated in one decision because of
identity of issues, question the correctness of the order of the Municipal Court of Oroquieta
(pro­vincial capital of Misamis Occidental)
dismissing, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, eight criminal cases
“delegated” or assigned to it by the Court of First Instance of said
province for trial and judgment.

Five of the eight cases
were in the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental on appeal from judgments of conviction rendered by several municipal
courts (other than that of Oroquieta); the other
three were original cases.  The appealed
cases were:  (1) People vs. Villanueva,
Criminal Case 5883 for Malicious Mischief, filed on June 5, 1963;^[1] (2) People vs. Burlayan,
Criminal Case 5331 for Less Serious Physical Injuries, filed on September 16,
1960;^[2] (3) People vs. Carpila,
Criminal Case 5216 for Theft, filed on May 5, 1960;^[3] (4) People vs. Labiaga,
Criminal Case 5343 for Less Serious Physical Injuries, filed on
September 27, 1960;^[4] and (5)
People vs. Lomoljo, Criminal Case 5277 for Trespass
to Dwelling with Threats, filed on August 31, 1960.^[5] The three
original cases were: (1) People vs. Ontolan and Arces, Criminal Case 5720 for Illegal Fishing with
Explosives, filed on April 30, 1962;
(2) People vs. Burlat de Baliao,
Criminal Case 5651 for Theft, filed on January
11, 1962; and (3) People vs. Gumisad,
Criminal Case 5803 for Illegal Fishing with Explosives, filed on October 29, 1962.

On different dates in
1963 and 1964, the Court of First Instance (Judge Alfredo Catolico
presiding) issued separate orders “delegating” or assigning the
above-mentioned criminal cases to the municipal court of Oroquieta for trial and judgment in
view, according to the Judge, of the many cases pending in his court.  Upon objection raised by the respective
counsel for the accused questioning the jurisdiction of the municipal court, it
returned the cases to the Court of First Instance.

On September
11, 1965, the Court
of First Instance issued a consolidated order sending all the eight cases back
to the municipal court of Oroquieta for “trial and final disposition.” In
the same order the Court made the observa­tion that “it should
be rather more to the interest of justice that if question of jurisdiction is
squarely raised, the said Municipal Judge should resolve the same directly, rather than just return the
cases back to the Court of First Instance, or if finding it to be the other
way, try the cases and on conviction, let the accused raise the question him­self,
rather than the court raising same x x x.”

Thereafter, the municipal
court of Oroquieta issued the disputed order
dismissing the cases “for lack of juris­diction.”

The Provincial Fiscal, Emeterio C. Ocaya, filed a
consolidated motion for reconsideration on November 20, 1965, stating that the
municipal court, instead of dis­missing the cases, should have
either insisted upon their return to the Court of First Instance or appealed
from the latter’s order of September 11, 1965. 
The municipal court denied the reconsideration, pointing out that his
previous order returning the cases had been overruled by the Court of First
Instance.  In fact, it even drew a
citation for contempt.  The municipal
court suggested that “if movant fiscal Ocaya really believes that the afore­said order of September
11, 1965 (of the
Court of First Instance) is erroneous, he could still ask for the review of the
aforesaid order by a superior court by certiorari proceedings.”

The Provincial Fiscal
forthwith filed a notice of appeal to this Court.  On December 28, 1965 the municipal court gave
the appeal due course and ordered the records elevated through the Clerk of the
Court of First Instance, but at the same time expressed “serious doubts as
to the propriety of the present appeal interposed by the government
since this appears to be not the case which could be directly appealed from the
municipal court to the Supreme Court.”

The records, however, were
sent back by the Court of First Instance on the excuse that they should
be forwarded by the municipal court itself. 
On February 9, 1966
the municipal court issued another order, this time disapproving the appeal on
the ground that what should have been appealed was the order of the Court of
First Instance of September 11, 1965.  Again the Provincial Fiscal moved to
reconsider but was turned down.

On April 25, 1966, the
Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental, in Special Civil Case 2552 entitled “The People of the
Philippines vs. Hon. Eligio C. Dajao,
as Municipal Judge of Oroquieta” (for Mandamus),
ordered him to forward to the Supreme Court the records of the eight criminal
cases.

The jurisdiction of
Justices of the Peace in provincial capitals to try criminal cases assigned to
them by the Courts of First Instance was conferred originally by Section 87 of
the Judiciary Act of 1948 (R.A.
No. 296), which provided:

“Justices of the Peace in the capitals of provinces may, by
assignment of the respective district judge in each case, have like
jurisdiction as the Court of First Instance
to try parties charged with an offense committed within the province in which
the penalty pro­vided by law does not exceed imprison­ment for two years and
four months, or a fine of two thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and
fine, x x x.”

On August 1, 1959
Republic Act No. 2613 took effect, in which the aforequoted
provision on delegation or assign­ment of cases was suppressed, and instead the
jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace in provincial capitals and Judges of
municipal courts (of chartered cities) was enlarged, as follows:

“Justices of the Peace in the capitals of provinces and Judges
of Municipal Courts shall have like juris­diction as the Court of First
Instance to try parties charged with an offense committed within the province
in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correcional
or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding three thousand
pesos or both, x x x.”

It should be noted that
in both provisions the jurisdiction thus conferred upon Justices of the Peace
in provincial capitals referred to “an offense committed within the
province,” although under the former provision the jurisdiction was a
“delegated” one, while under the latter it was original and could be
exercised concurrently with the Court of First Instance.

The law underwent another
amendment on June 22, 1963, when Republic Act No. 3828 was approved.  As amended the pertinent portion of Section
87 reads:

“Justices of the peace in the capitals of provinces and
sub-provinces and judges of municipal courts shall have like jurisdiction as
the Court of First Instance to try
parties charged with an offense committed within their respective
jurisdictions, in which the penalty provided by law does not exceed prision correccional
or imprisonment for not more than six years or fine not exceeding six thousand
pesos or both, x x x.”

This last amendment, which was already in effect when the eight cases involved herein were
assigned by the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental to the municipal court of Oroquieta,^[6] no longer refers to offenses committed
within the province but to those “committed within their respective jurisdictions,” that is, within the
territorial jurisdictions of the corresponding justices of the peace in
provincial capitals and Judges of municipal courts.  Thus, as the law then stood the said courts
could only try cases originally brought before them, and where their original
jurisdiction was not exclusive but concurrent with that of the Courts of First
Instance the territorial limits of such jurisdiction must be considered.  The eight cases here involved obviously fell
under neither category: they came to the Oroquieta
court by assignment, and the offenses
charged were committed in other municipalities. 
With particular reference to the five cases appealed to the Court of
First Instance, the lack of competency of the Oro­quieta
court is
even more obvious, for they
called for the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which the said court could
not possibly have, whether by delegation or concurrent­ly with the Court of
First Instance under Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act, as amended.

The order of assignment
issued by the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental was therefore nothing but an exercise in futility.  It was void and ineffective, and vested no
authority upon the municipal court of Oroquieta
except to return the cases physically to the court whence they came.  The order of dismissal subject of this
appeal, issued by a court without
jurisdiction, was equally to no purpose. 
The status of these cases is as if they had neither been assigned nor
dismissed, but had remained pending in the Court of First Instance all the
while.  It is of course to be deplored
that the rigmarole, unnecessary and avoidable as it was, has unduly delayed the
disposal of these cases and to that extent adversely affected the administration
of justice.

Wherefore, the records are ordered remanded to the
Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental for
further proceedings.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo,
and Villamor,
JJ., concur.

^[1]
Originally docketed as Criminal Case 717 in the Justice of the Peace (now
municipal) Court of Baliangao.

^[2]
Originally docketed as Criminal Case 629 in the Justice of the Peace (now municipal) Court of Baliangao.

^[3]
Originally docketed as Criminal Case 942 in the Justice of the Peace (now
municipal) Court of Plaridel.

^[4]
Originally docketed as Criminal Case 2161 in the Justice of the Peace (now municipal) Court of Aloran.

^[5]
Originally docketed as Criminal Case 380 in the Justice of the Peace (now
municipal) Court of Calamba.

^[6]
The first assignment order of the Court of First Instance was issued on August 26, 1963 in Criminal Case No.
5651.