MATEO C. BACALSO AND CESAR GONZALEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, AND CELESTINO BACALSO, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for prohibition with a prayer for preliminary injunction
to restrain the respondent Judge from proceeding with the trial of Civil Case
No. 7278 of the Court of First Instance of Cebu,
entitled Celestino Bacalso
versus the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, Mateo Bacalso and Cesar Gonzalez.

Culled from the pleadings
and annexes thereto before Us, the following are the
facts pertinent to the issue involved in the present petition:

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Director of Mines, which
was affirmed by the Secretary of Agriculture & Natural Resources, declaring
that Mateo C. Bacalso and Cesar Gonzalez, petitioners
herein, have established superior location rights on certain mining claims
situated in the City of Toledo, Cebu, which were in
dispute between Celestino Bacalso,
on one hand, and Mateo C. Bacalso and Cesar Gonzalez,
on the other hand, and pursuant to which decision, the claims of the latter
were given due course, on November 10, 1961 Celestino
Bacalso filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance of Cebu, against the Secretary of
Agriculture & Natural Resources, Mateo C. Bacalso
and Cesar Gonzalez, dock­eted as Civil Case No. 7278.

The respondents filed separate motions to dismiss the case, based on a common ground,
that the decision of the administrative body had become final and executory.  The
motions were denied.  The private
respondents moved to reconsider the order which was also denied.  Before the trial on the merits, the private
respondents filed an “Ex-parte motion to or­der
the clerk of court, Atty. Vicente Miranda, to transfer civil case No. 7278, x x x from branch V to Branch VII, Barili, Cebu“, alleging that
“x x x in virtue of
the Administrative Order No. 302 of the Department of Justice, Series of 1962,
as amended by Administrative Order No. 337, in the sense that the City of
Toledo be included under the Seventh Branch in Barili,
Cebu and considering that the properties involved in
the litigation are located in Toledo City as above-stated – compliance to the
said Admi­nistrative Orders of the Department of Justice by the clerk of court
is necessary.”

Resolving the motion, the court denied the same in an order which
reads as follows:

“Defendants Mateo Bacalso and Cesar
Gonzalez, in their motion ex–parte dated May 15, 1963, ask this court to
order the clerk of court to transfer this
case to Branch VII of this court
at Barili, Cebu, alleging
as grounds that after the said additional branch was created, the Department of
Justice ordered that all cases originating from Toledo and other southern towns
of this province should be heard by the said branch; that this case involves
mining claims which are situated in Toledo City, within the jurisdiction of the
said branch at Barili, Cebu;
and that the trial of this case has not been started yet.  The movants
attached to their motion certified copies of their mining claims showing that
the said claims are situated in the City of Toledo.

“The same motion was submitted for resolution to the Honorable
Judge Amador E. Gomez, presiding as vacation judge, who refrained from
resolving the same.

“The record shows that this case was filed on November 22,
1961, long before the said Branch VII at Barili, Cebu was created by law, and since then several important
incidents have taken place, one of which was a motion to Dismiss the Complaint
for lack of jurisdiction, which motion was resolved by this court denying the
same.  Several motions for
reconsiderations had been submitted to, and considered and resolved by this
court.  Although it is true that the
mining claims in this case are situated in Toledo
City, within the jurisdiction of
this court at Barili, Cebu,
the said motion to transfer the case to that branch is not considered well
taken by this court by reason of the following grounds:

1.            This case had
already been assigned to the Fifth Branch of this court long before the Seventh
Branch was created and before Administrative Order No. 337 of the Department of
Justice was issued;

2.            Several important incidents had taken place
and resolved by this court, and it is necessary in order to avoid variance and
conflict in the rulings on the previous incidents resolved by this court, that
this case should remain to be tried by this Branch;

3.            The agreement of
the judges of this court concerning cases pertaining to the different branches
of this court does not cover the present case were several
incidents have already been
acted upon by this Branch.

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing
considerations, the ex-parte motion to order
the clerk of court to transfer this case to Branch VII of this court is hereby
denied for lack of merit.”

A motion for reconsideration of the order having been denied, the present petition for
certiorari with preliminary injunction was filed before this Court on February 28, 1964.

The question presented for review expressed in the terms and
circumstances of the case is, whether or not the respondent Judge presiding
over branch V of the Court of First Instance of Cebu,
to which the case No. 7278 has been assigned by agreement of the Judges
presiding over the other branches of the same court, and before whom the case
had been partially heard on matters other than the merits, has lost
jurisdiction to try and decide the said case by virtue of the Administrative
Orders Nos. 302 and 337 of the Secretary of Justice, transferring the cases
assigned in branch V, one of which is the case No. 7278, to branch VII of the
same court which is stationed at Barili, Cebu.

Administrative Order No. 302, dated August 20, 1962, states that,
in view of the addition of two branches of the Court of First Instance of Cebu from six to eight branches by virtue of Republic Act
No. 2613, approved in August 1, 1959, and pursuant to the provisions of Section 57 of the
Judiciary Act, as amended, that the cases coming from the different municipalities
of the Province of Cebu, are hereby distributed
between the eight branches of the court as follows:

(Here follows the list of cities and
municipalities, included among them the City of Toledo,
as corresponding to the six branches of the Court; the municipality
of Barili,
among other municipalities, corresponding to Branch VII.)

As already stated, the case No. 7278, by agreement of the judges presiding over the six branches
of the court, was assigned to Branch V,
presided over by the respondent Judge. 
On September 10, 1962, Administrative Order No. 337
was issued by the Secretary of Justice, amending Administrative Order No. 302,
providing that “the City of Toledo
be included under the Seventh Branch in Barili, Cebu.”

We start with the statement that it is a settled rule that
jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or the law.  It cannot be fixed by the will of the
parties; it cannot be acquired through, enlarged or diminished by any act of
omission of the parties. 
Constitutionally viewed, apportionment of jurisdiction is vested in
Congress.  As this Court has said, thru
Justice Concepcion (now Chief Justice) in Gumpal v. CFI of Isabela, et al., L-16409 and 16416, November 29, 1960:

“It is trite to say, however, that the validity of a given judicial
action is dependent upon the jurisdiction of the court taking it, and that, by
specific constitutional mandate, the power to define, prescribe and apportion
the jurisdiction of the various courts, is subject to the limitations set forth
in the fundamental law, within the exclusive province
of Congress.  Since, being legislative, said power cannot
be delegated to the Secretary of Justice x x x.”

The foregoing statement of the law on the fountain source and
extent of the jurisdiction of the court is beyond debate.  It is incorrect to assume, as the respondent
Judge did assert in his order complained of, that because the case No.
7278 has been assigned to Branch V, by agreement of the Judges presiding over
the six branches of the Court of First Instance of Cebu,
that he has acquired exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide the case to the
exclusion of the other Judges presiding over the other branches of the same
court.  The various branches of the Court
of First Instance of Cebu under the Fourteenth
Judicial District, are a coordinate and co-equal
courts, and the totality of which is only one Court of First Instance.  The jurisdiction is vested in the court, not
in the judges.  And when a case is filed
in one branch jurisdiction over the case does not attach to the branch or judge
alone, to the exclusion of the other branches. 
Trial may be held or proceedings continue by and before another branch
or judge.  It is for this reason that
Section 57 of the Judiciary Act expressly grants to the Secretary of Justice,
the administrative right or power to apportion the cases among the different
branches, both for the convenience of the parties and for the coordination of
the work by the different branches of the same court.  The apportionment and distribution of cases
does not involve a grant or limitation of jurisdiction; the jurisdiction
attaches and continues to be vested in the Court of First Instance of the
province, and the trials may be held by
any branch or judge of the court.

In the case at bar, the respondent Judge grievously erred in not
complying with the directive of the Secretary of Justice in Administrative
Order No. 337, on a flimsy, nay, self-conceited reasons that because –

“2.     Several important
incidents had taken place and resolved by this Court, and it is necessary, in
order to avoid various and conflicting rulings on the previous incidents resolved
by this Court, that this case should remain to be tried by this Branch.”

The apportionment of cases among the different branches of the
same court, as ordained by the Secretary of Justice, must be respected by the
Judges in the interests of order and coordination in the dispatch of cases.

Be all that as it may, however, the legal question under
consideration has become moot and academic, because on June 22, 1963, or more
than a year before the present petition was filed, Republic Act No. 3729
amending Republic Act No. 296, otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948,
went into effect, increasing the number of branches of the Court of First
Instance in the 14th Judicial District, comprising Cebu,
Toledo, and Bohol from 11 to 14 branches, and as ordained in Section 6 of the
law –

“Wherever an additional branch or branches of the Court of
First Instance is or are established in this Act in the same place where there
is an existing court or courts of first instance, all cases already filed in the latter court or
courts shall be heard, tried and decided by such latter court or courts.”
[Underscoring Ours.]

which means that
branch V of the Court of First Instance of Cebu shall
retain jurisdiction to try and decide the case No. 7278.

WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed, and the writ of
preliminary injunction heretofore issued is hereby dissolved.  On equitable
considerations, no costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Castro, and Fernando, JJ.,
concur.