EULALIO PARINGIT, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. HONORATO MASAKAYAN, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Paringit versus Masakayan

The Case

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari brought by Eulalio Paringit, the offended party in a criminal case for malicious mischief, against the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya. The petitioner asks the Supreme Court to review and set aside the trial court's order dismissing the criminal action on the ground that the justice of the peace court from which the case came had no jurisdiction over the offense. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean lesson on the extraordinary writ of certiorari: the writ will not lie where an appeal is available, even if the error complained of is one of jurisdiction. Second, it construes the original jurisdiction of justice of the peace courts over malicious mischief, and teaches that an inflated claim for civil indemnity cannot strip a court of the jurisdiction expressly conferred on it by law.

Procedural History

The case began in the Justice of the Peace Court of Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya, on a complaint for malicious mischief filed by the petitioner against Silverio Certeza and seven others. Before hearing, counsel for the defendants challenged the court's jurisdiction, but the court overruled the challenge and proceeded to trial. After hearing, the justice of the peace court convicted five of the accused, acquitted the other three, and sentenced each of those convicted to pay a fine, to indemnify the offended party jointly and severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay a proportionate share of the costs. Both the convicted accused and the offended party appealed, the former as to the conviction and the latter as to the civil aspect.

In the Court of First Instance of Nueva Vizcaya, the provincial fiscal filed an information reproducing almost verbatim the complaint below. The defendants then moved to quash on the ground that the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to try the case on appeal because the justice of the peace court had no original jurisdiction over it. The respondent Judge granted the motion and dismissed the case with costs de oficio, holding that the decision appealed from was void for want of jurisdiction over the offense charged. Neither the accused nor the prosecution appealed from that order. Only the offended party, the petitioner here, came to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, asking that the order be reviewed, vacated, and set aside for grave abuse of discretion.

Facts

On or about March 24, 1959, in the municipality of Aritao, Nueva Vizcaya, Silverio Certeza and seven others were said to have conspired and mutually helped one another in filling up and covering with earth the irrigation canal belonging to Eulalio Paringit. The act made the canal unusable for conveying water to his ricefield and caused his agricultural crop to fail, to his damage in the sum of 5,600 pesos per year.

On April 23, 1959, Paringit filed a complaint for malicious mischief in the Justice of the Peace Court of Aritao. The justice of the peace court convicted five of the accused and acquitted three, and fixed the indemnity at 15 pesos, the estimated value of the damage to the irrigation canal.

On appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the entire action, reasoning that the justice of the peace court had no jurisdiction over the offense. The offended party alone sought relief from the Supreme Court, and the sole question became whether certiorari was the proper remedy against that dismissal order.

Issues

• Whether or not the writ of certiorari may be entertained to review the order of the Court of First Instance dismissing the criminal case, considering that an appeal from that order was available to the petitioner.
• Whether or not the Justice of the Peace Court of Aritao had original jurisdiction over the crime of malicious mischief, despite the complaint's claim for indemnity in an amount beyond what that court could award.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, as invoked by the Court, defines when the writ of certiorari lies:

The writ of certiorari only lies when an inferior court, board or officer exercising judicial functions has acted without or in excess of his or its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

This is the gatekeeping provision: because an appeal existed, the extraordinary writ could not be used.

Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, Republic Act Number 296, provides in part:

Justices of the peace and judges of municipal courts of chartered cities shall have original jurisdiction over all criminal cases arising under the laws relative to malicious mischief.

This grants the justice of the peace court original jurisdiction over malicious mischief without qualification as to civil liability.

Section 44 of the same Judiciary Act, as referred to by the Court, fixes the concurrent jurisdiction of Courts of First Instance:

Courts of First Instance shall have original jurisdiction in all criminal cases in which the penalty provided by law is more than six months imprisonment or a fine of over two hundred pesos.

This explains why the justice of the peace court's jurisdiction over the crime is concurrent with the Court of First Instance where the penalty exceeds those thresholds.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition could not be entertained. Certiorari lies only where there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The Court stressed that even where the error complained of is one of jurisdiction, the writ does not lie if an appeal may be taken or another adequate remedy exists. It quoted its own precedent:

Where an appeal is the proper remedy, a petition for certiorari cannot prosper.

The order of December 17, 1959 dismissed the action as to all the defendants with costs de oficio. It was therefore final, for it completely disposed of the pending action so that nothing more could be done in the trial court. An appeal from that order was available to any party, including the offended party, and the petitioner failed to take it. Any error in the order was thus an error of judgment correctible only by appeal, not by certiorari.

On the second issue, the Court nevertheless examined the merits and found that the justice of the peace court did have jurisdiction over the offense. The claim for indemnity in an amount beyond that court's award did not oust it. The Court reasoned that the grant of jurisdiction over malicious mischief was unqualified and made no mention of civil liability or any incident of the crime. It would be absurd, the Court said, to think that jurisdiction expressly conferred by law could be defeated by an allegation of indemnity exceeding what the court could award, for that would place in the hands of the offended party the power to dispossess a court of its jurisdiction. Where the claim exceeds the inferior court's jurisdiction, the offended party is deemed to have waived the excess. The civil liability, though determined in the same criminal action, is not part of the punishment for the crime.

Doctrine

First, certiorari is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Even an error of jurisdiction does not open the door to certiorari where an appeal is available; errors committed within jurisdiction are errors of judgment reviewable only by appeal.

Second, a final order that completely disposes of the action is appealable, and the failure to appeal bars certiorari.

Third, justice of the peace courts have original jurisdiction over malicious mischief under Section 87 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, and that jurisdiction cannot be defeated by a claim for civil indemnity exceeding what the court may award. The offended party is deemed to have waived the excess of the claim.

Disposition

The petition was dismissed, with costs taxed against the petitioner, because he failed to show entitlement to the writ of certiorari.

Remember This

Memorize the line: where an appeal is the proper remedy, a petition for certiorari cannot prosper, even on a question of jurisdiction. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of certiorari and to illustrate that an inflated claim for damages cannot divest a justice of the peace court of its express jurisdiction over malicious mischief.