Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

8692 September 10, 1913

GODOFREDO B. ERRER!, "# m$%&'&p"( pre#&)e%t o* C"(oo'"%, petitioner, vs. !+BERTO B!RRETTO, ,$)-e o* *&r#t &%#t"%'e o* R&."(, "%) CONST!NC/O 0O!1U/N, respondents. Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey for petitioner. R. Diokno, and Gibbs, McDonough and lanco for respondents. MORE+!ND, J.: This is an application for a writ of certiorari to the Court of First nstance of the Province of Ri!al. t appears that on or about the "st of March, "#"$, Constancio %oa&uin, believin' hi(self entitled to a license to open and e)ploit a coc*pit in the (unicipalit+ of Caloocan, and the authorities thereof refusin' to issue it to hi(, be'an an action a'ainst ,odofredo B. -errera as (unicipal president of said (unicipalit+, the officer whose dut+ he clai(ed it was to issue coc*pit licenses, to obtain a !anda!us co(pellin' said official to issue such license. .n the presentation of the verified co(plaint and upon the facts stated therein and the e)hibits anne)ed thereto, the plaintiff as*ed that the court issue a (andator+ in/unction directed to the defendant re&uirin' hi( to issue a provisional license under which the plaintiff (i'ht conduct his coc*pit durin' the pendenc+ of the action. The court, in pursuance of such re&uest and upon the facts stated in the co(plaint and e)hibits anne)ed thereto, issued such order e" parte without notice of the defendant. Thereupon the defendant in that action be'an a proceedin' in this court a'ainst the /ud'e of the Court of First nstance who had issued the (andator+ in/unction relative to the provisional license referred to, -onorable Alberto Barretto, and Constancio %oa&uin, plaintiff therein, for a writ of certiorari, alle'in' that the court below and had acted without /urisdiction in the followin' particulars0 ". That the said -onorable Alberto Barretto e)ceeded his /urisdiction in issuin' a (andator+ in/unction, because, accordin' to para'raph 1 #2, section 34, of the Municipal Code and article 3 of (unicipal ordinance No. 5 of Caloocan 1E)hibit " a2, the issuance of coc*pit licenses in 6o(a and Ma+pa/o does not pertain to the (unicipal president of Caloocan but to the (unicipal council thereof. 7. That the said -onorable Alberto Barretto e)ceeded his /urisdiction in issuin' the (andator+ in/unction e" parte without 'ivin' the (unicipal president opportunit+ to show cause wh+ such in/unction should not be issued as re&uired b+ section 747 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

$. That the said Alberto Barretto e)ceeded his /urisdiction in issuin' such (andator+ in/unction for the reason that the coc*pit license which the president of Caloocan had erroneousl+ issued in favor of Constancio %oa&uin, on the da+ of 8888888888, "#"$, has been annulled and cancelled b+ virtue of ordinance No. 88888 of the (unicipal council of Caloocan, which ordinance has been dul+ approved b+ the provincial board of Ri!al. 3. That there bein' another action pendin' between the sa(e parties, founded upon the sa(e facts and reasons, the Court of First nstance of Ri!al had no /urisdiction to issue the (andator+ in/unction of the "st of March, "#"$ 1E)hibit 32, for the reason that such in/unction tends to render inefficacious and null the final decision which this honorable court will render in civil case No. 59:$. The action referred to in this para'raph is one be'un b+ Antonio Bertol and Tran&uilina T., windows of An'eles, a'ainst ,odofredo B. -errera and others relatin' to the validit+ of a certain ordinance. ;. That there bein' pendin' civil case No. #59 (entioned in the previous para'raphs, the Court of First nstance of Ri!al lac*ed /urisdiction to issue the (andator+ in/unction which he issued on the "st of March, "#"$, for the reason that it tends to render inefficacious and null the decision which the -onorable Richard Ca(pbell will render in civil cause No. #59. This ob/ection is based upon an action previousl+ be'un b+ Antonio Bertol and Tran&uilina T., windows of An'eles, a'ainst the (unicipalit+ or the officials thereof for the purpose of havin' declared null and void (unicipal ordinance No. 5 of Caloocan, which is the sa(e ordinance upon which was based the co(plaint of Constancio %oa&uin and in which the (andator+ in/unction was issued. 9. That the said Constancio %oa&uin at the present ti(e does not possess a license to (aintain and run the said coc*pits of 6o(a and Ma+pa/o, nor does he have the ri'ht to e)ploit the sa(e. t has been repeatedl+ held b+ this court that a writ of certiorari will not be issued unless it clearl+ appears that the court to which it is to be directed acted without or in e)cess of /urisdiction. t will be not be issued to cure errors in the proceedin's or to correct erroneous conclusions of law or of fact. f the court has /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter and of the person, decisions upon all &uestions pertainin' to the cause are decision within its /urisdiction and, however irre'ular or erroneous the+ (a+ be, cannot be corrected b+ certiorari. The Code of Civil Procedure 'ivin' Court of First nstance 'eneral /urisdiction in actions for !anda!us, it 'oes without sa+in' that the Court of First nstance had /urisdiction in the present case to resolve ever+ &uestion arisin' in such an action and to decide ever+ &uestion presented to it which pertained to the cause. t had alread+ been held b+ this court that, while it is a power to be e)ercised onl+ in e)tre(e cases, a Court of First nstance has power to issue a (andator+ in/unction to stand until the final deter(ination of the action in which it is issued. <hile the issuance of the (andator+ in/unction in this particular case (a+ have been irre'ular and erroneous, a &uestion concernin' which we e)press no opinion, nevertheless its issuance was within the /urisdiction of the court and its action is not reviewable oncertiorari. t is not sufficient to sa+ that it was issued wron'full+ and without sufficient 'rounds and in the absence of the other part+. The &uestion is, did the court act with /urisdiction=

t has been ur'ed that the court e)ceeded its /urisdiction in re&uirin' the (unicipal 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 ri'ht to e)ercise a discretion as to who( the license should be issued. <e do not believe that either of these &uestion 'oes to the /urisdiction of the court to act. .ne of the funda(ental &uestions in a !anda!us a'ainst a public officer is whether or not that officer has the ri'ht to e)ercise discretion in the perfor(ance of the act which the plaintiff as*s hi( to perfor(. t is one of the essential deter(ination of the cause. To clai( that the resolution of that &uestion (a+ deprive the court of /urisdiction is to assert a novel proposition. t is e&uivalent to the contention that a court has /urisdiction if he decides ri'ht but no /urisdiction if he decides wron'. t (a+ be stated 'enerall+ that it is never necessar+ to decide the funda(ental &uestions of a cause to deter(ine whether the court has /urisdiction. The &uestion of /urisdiction is preli(inar+ and never touches the (erits of the case. The deter(ination of the funda(ental &uestions of a cause are (erel+ the e)ercise of a /urisdiction alread+ conceded. n the case at bar no one denies the power, authorit+, or /urisdiction of the Court of First nstance to ta*e co'ni!ance of an action for !anda!us and to decide ever+ &uestion which arises in that cause and pertains thereto. The contention that the decision of one of those &uestions, if wron', destro+s /urisdiction involves an evident contradiction. %urisdiction is the authorit+ to hear and deter(ine a cause >the ri'ht to act in a case. ?ince it is the power to hear and deter(ine, it does not depend either upon the re'ularit+ of the e)ercise of that power or upon the ri'htfulness of the decisions (ade. %urisdiction should therefore be distin'uished fro( the e)ercise of /urisdiction. The authorit+ to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what (a*es up /urisdiction. <here there is /urisdiction of the person and sub/ect (atter, as we have said before, the decision of all other &uestions arisin' in the case is but an e)ercise of that /urisdiction. n the case of $hase vs. $hristianson 13" Cal., 7;$2, the court said0 @-ere, then, was /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter and of the person and these conditions conceded, the decision of all other &uestion arisin' in the case is but the e)ercise of that /urisdiction and an erroneous decision of an+ of these other &uestions could not i(pair the validit+ and bindin' force of the /ud'(ent when brou'ht in &uestion collaterall+. t is not the particular decision 'iven which (a*es up /urisdiction, but it is the authorit+ to decide the &uestion at all. .therwise all distinction between erroneous e)ercise of /urisdiction upon the hand, and a total want of it upon the other, (ust be obliterated. n the case of %ree!an vs. &ho!pson 1;$ Mo., "5$2, the followin' is &uoted with approval fro( 'aine vs. Mooreland 1"; .hio, 3$;20 @The court once havin', b+ its process, ac&uired the power to ad/udicate upon a person of thin', it has what is called /urisdiction. . . . The distinction is between a lac* of power or want of /urisdiction in the court, and a wron'ful or defective e)ecution of the power. n the first instance, all acts of a court, not havin' /urisdiction or power, are voidA in the latter, voidable onl+. A court, then (a+ act, first without power or /urisdictionA second, havin' power or /urisdiction, (a+ e)ercise it wron'full+A or third, irre'ularl+. n the first instance the act or /ud'(ent of the court is wholl+ void, and is as thou'h it as thou'h it had not been doneA the second is wron' and (ust be reversed upon errorA the third is irre'ular and (ust be corrected b+ (otion.@ n Hardin vs. (ee 1;" Mo., 73"2, the court said0 @The /ud'(ent thou'h 'rossl+ erroneous was not void, the court havin' ac&uired /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter. . . . n a word, error and nullit+ are not le'al e&uivalent or s+non+(ous.@

n Hager!an vs. Sutton 1#" Mo., ;"#2, the court said0 @The power to decide correctl+ and to enforce a decision when correctl+ (ade necessaril+ i(plies the sa(e power to decide incorrectl+ and to enforce a decision when incorrectl+ (ade. 1Bevis vs. Pac*ard, "4 <end., :".2@ n 'aine vs. Mooreland 1"; .hio, 3$;2, the court said0 @The distinction is between a lac* of power or want of /urisdiction in the court, and a wron'ful or defective e)ecution of the power. n the first instance all acts of the court, now havin' /urisdiction or power, are voidA in the latter voidable onl+.@ n the case of $olton vs. eardsly 1$5 Barb., ;"2, the court said0 @The test of /urisdiction is, whether the court has power to enter on the in&uir+, and not whether its decision is ri'ht or wron'.@ n )erthei!er vs. oonville 17# Mo., 7; 32, the court said0 @ t is hard to conceive how the &uestion of /urisdiction can be (ade to depend on the fact whether the /ud'(ent was ri'ht or wron'. The (a+or un&uestionabl+ has authorit+ to decide whether the ordinance had been violated, and after he has deter(ined it, how can it be said he had no /urisdiction=@ n O*Rielly vs. +icholson 13; Mo., "942, the court said0 @A /ud'(ent, thou'h infor(al, even to the e)tent of 'rantin' a relief not conte(plated in the petition, when the parties are before the court and the relief is within its /urisdiction, is not a void proceedin'. The doctrine laid down in %ithian vs. Monks 13$ Mo., ;472, Cin that it fails to (a*e the readil+ observable distinction between /urisdiction to act in a 'iven cause, and erroneous e)ercise of such /urisdiction, . . . should no lon'er be followed . . . %urisdiction bein' ac&uired error could not oust it, althou'h that error consisted in 'rantin' relief not warranted b+ law.C@ n the case of Gray vs. o,les 1:3 Mo., 3"#2, the court said0 @<hen a court has /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter of the action and the parties to it, a /ud'(ent rendered b+ it, althou'h it (a+ be an erroneous, irre'ular, or wron' /ud'(ent, cannot be said to be void, but re(ains valid and bindin' until reversed or set aside on the 'round of such error or irre'ularit+.@ n ?tates vs. ?econd %udicial Bistrict 173 Mont., 7$52, the court said0 @A /ud'(ent was rendered a'ainst Ba*er, who appealed but could not furnish the necessar+ bonds or securit+ on appeal. The purpose of this application is to set aside the /ud'(ent, the relator assertin' that the district court was without /urisdiction. The ri'ht to hear and deter(ine necessaril+ carries with it the power to decide wron' as well as ri'ht. t did not e)ceed its /urisdiction althou'h the court (a+ have erred, +et it re'ularl+ pursued its authorit+. $ertiorari (a+ not be used to correct errors co((itted within the /urisdiction of the court.@ n $entral 'ac. vs. oard 13$ Cal., $9;2 the court said0 @Mere irre'ularl+ intervenin' in the e)ercise of an ad(itted /urisdiction > (ere (ista*es of law co((itted in conductin' the proceedin's in an in&uir+ which the Board had authorit+ to entertain, . . . are not to be considered here upon certiorari, otherwise that writ would be turned into a writ of error . . . %urisdiction over a &uestion presented bein' conceded, carries with it necessaril+ the authorit+ > the (ere power > to decide the &uestion either wa+.@ n (e,is vs. (arson 13; <is., $;$2, the court said0 @The /ud'(ent of a /ustice of the peace will not be reversed on a co((onDlaw certiorari, if the /ustice had /urisdiction to render it, no (atter how irre'ular or erroneous it (a+ be.@

n the case of Etah Association vs. Bud'e 1"9 daho, :;"2, the court said0 @ f the court had /urisdiction of the person and the sub/ect (atter, then it is clear that whatever (ista*es has been (ade has been onl+ an error co((itted on the part of the trial court in e)ercisin' his /ud'(ent and appl+in' the law to the case, rather than an e)cess of /urisdiction in actin' in a (atter wherein he had not ac&uired /urisdiction to act or wherein his court has no /urisdiction of the sub/ect in liti'ation. . . . The court had the /urisdiction, power, and authorit+ to hear and deter(ine that &uestion. t accordin'l+ did so. f the court co((itted an error in decidin' the &uestion thus presented, we answer that the court had /urisdiction to co((it the error.@ Althou'h certiorari (a+ be considered a direct attac* upon a /ud'(ent as distin'uished fro( a collateral attac*, nevertheless, under the laws of these slands the onl+ 'round for the issuance of certiorari bein' the failure of /urisdiction of the inferior tribunal, the basis of the direct attac* upon the /ud'(ent beco(es in this /urisdiction the sa(e as for collateral attac*, inas(uch as, 'enerall+ spea*in', a collateral attac* a'ainst a /ud'(ent is sustainable onl+ when the /ud'(ent is void for lac* of /urisdiction in the court to pronounce it. Therefore the authorities relative to the 'round necessar+ for a successful collateral attac* upon a /ud'(ent are authorities in a lar'e sense, pertinent to a discussion as to when a court (a+ be held to have acted without or in e)cess of /urisdiction. n the case of $ooper vs. Reynolds 1"4 <all., $452, the court said0 @ t is of no avail, therefore, to show that there are errors in the record, unless the+ be such as prove that the court had no /urisdiction of the case, or that the /ud'(ent rendered was be+ond its power. This principle has been often held b+ this court and b+ all courts, and it ta*es ran* as an a)io( of the law.@ n the case of $ornett vs. )illia!s 1$4 <all., 7792, it was declared that @the settled rule of law is, that /urisdiction havin' attached in the ori'inal case, ever+thin' done within the power of that /urisdiction, when collaterall+ &uestioned, is to be held conclusive of the ri'hts of the parties, unless i(peached for fraud.@ These two cases were cited and approved in the case of Manson vs. Duncanson 1"99 E. ?., ;$$2, wherein the court said0 @<hen a court has /urisdiction it has ri'ht to decide ever+ &uestion that (a+ arise in the causeA and whether its decisions be correct or not, its /ud'(ent, until reversed, is re'arded as bindin' in ever+ other court. These principles appl+ in all respects and with special force in this case. t was for the court whose decree is atte(pted to be i(peached, not onl+ to decide on the facts before it, but upon the construction and le'al effect of all deeds and (uni(ents of title upon which the proceedin' was based. The court havin' 'eneral /urisdiction over the sub/ect (atter of decreein' the sale of real estate of a deceased debtor and for the pa+(ent of debts, it had the ri'ht and was re&uired to deter(ine the &uestion as to the liabilit+ of the propert+ for the debts, and whether the case was within its /urisdictionA and thou'h its decision (a+ have been erroneous, it could onl+ be reversed upon a direct appeal.@ ?ee Shepard vs. -da!s, "95 E. ?., 9"5A Gunn vs. 'lant, #3 E. ?., 993A 'arker vs. .ane, 77 -oward, "A Huff vs. Hutchinson, "3 -oward, ;59A &ho!pson vs. &ol!ie, 7 Pet., ";:A Hatcher vs. Hendrie, 95 C. C. A., "#. ?ee also, the lon' list of authorities cited as sustainin' this doctrine in 7$ C+c., "4#4, where the rule is stated as follows0 @<here a court has /urisdiction of the parties and the sub/ect (atter, its /ud'(ent, althou'h irre'ular in for(, or erroneous or (ista*en in law, is conclusive, as lon' as it re(ains unreversed and in force, and cannot be i(peached collaterall+.@

n the case of Miller vs. Ro,an 17;" ll., $332, the court said0 @A /ud'(ent or decree is not bindin' upon an+one unless the court renderin' the sa(e had /urisdiction of the parties and the sub/ect (atter of the cause. The court did have /urisdiction of the parties, and the appellant, who is disputin' the bindin' effect of the decree, was one of the co(plainants. %urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter is the power to ad/ud'e concernin' the 'eneral &uestion involved, and if a bill states a case belon'in' to a 'eneral class over which the authorit+ of the court e)tends, the /urisdiction attaches and no error co((itted b+ the court can render the /ud'(ent void. t the court has /urisdiction, it is alto'ether i((aterial, when the /ud'(ent is collaterall+ called in &uestion, how 'rossl+ irre'ular or (anifestl+ erroneous its proceedin's (a+ have been. The /ud'(ent cannot be re'arded as a nullit+, and cannot, therefore, be collaterall+ i(peached. ?uch a /ud'(ent is bindin' on the parties and on ever+ other court unless reversed or annulled in a direct proceedin' and is not open to collateral attac*. f there is a total want of /urisdiction in a court its proceedin's are an absolute nullit+ and confer no ri'ht and afford no protection but will be pronounced void when collaterall+ drawn in &uestion. 1Buc*(aster vs. Carlin', $ ?ca(., "43A ?wi''art vs. -arber, " id., $93A People vs. ?eel+e, "39 ll., "5#A Clar* vs. People, "39 id., $35A .CBrien vs. People, 7"9 id., $;3A Peoplevs. Tal(ad'e, "#3 id., 9:.2@ &ro!bly vs. .lersy 1"39 Mich., 9352A $hap!an vs. &aliaferro 1" ,a. App., 7$;2A S!ith vs. Schlink 133 Colo., 7442, where the court said0 @That the court had /urisdiction of the parties and the sub/ect (atter cannot be &uestioned. This bein' true, and it not appearin' that the /ud'(ent was not within the issues presented b+ the pleadin's, however, erroneous it (a+ be, the /ud'(ent cannot be held to be void, so as to brin' this case within the rule that disobedience of a void decree does not constitute conte(pt of court.@ ald,in vs. %oster 1";: Cal., 93$2, where the court said0 Throu'hout this consideration the fact is to be borne in (ind that we are not reviewin' this /ud'(ent under attac* (ade on direct appeal where errors pre/udicial to those appealin' would call for a reversal, but we are considerin' it upon collateral attac*, where ever+ intend(ent is in favor of the /ud'(ent and where (ere errors and irre'ularities will not be considered. Epon collateral attac* the /ud'(ent will be set aside, 'enerall+ spea*in', for but one of three reasons0 6ac* of /urisdiction of the person, lac* of /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter of the action, or an absolute lac* of /urisdiction to render such a /ud'(ent as the one 'iven. 1Moore vs. Martin, $5 Cal., 375A Ma+o vs. Fole+, 34 Cal., 75"A /n re %a(es, ## Cal., $:3A $: A(. ?t. Rep., 94A $$ Pac., ""77A <ood vs. %ordan, "7; Cal., 79"A ;: Pac., ##:.2 Good!an vs. $ity 1"93 Fed., #:42A Sa,yer vs. .elly 1"35 owa., 9332A (ucy vs. Deas 1;# Fla., ;;72. That certiorari will lie onl+ in case of failure of /urisdiction has been consistentl+ held b+ this court. The followin' are substantiall+ all of the cases decided b+ this court referrin' to certiorari or prohibition. <e include those referrin' to prohibition for the reason that the 'round of its issuance is the sa(e as that in certiorari, vi!, lac* or e)cess of /urisdiction0 n the case of /n re Prautch 1" Phil. Rep., " $72, the court said0 @Ender the provisions of the code in certiorariproceedin's, it is necessar+ that it would appear both that the inferior court has e)ceeded its /urisdiction and that there is no appeal fro( such court.@ n his concurrin' opinion %ud'e <illard sa+s0 @Considerin' the e)istence of facts which (a+ confer /urisdiction, the &uestion of whether those facts are presented in such a (anner in the

affidavit as to invo*e the e)ercise of this /urisdiction is one which the court has the sa(e ri'ht to deter(ine as it would have in the decision of an+ other &uestions which (i'ht arise in a (atter within its reco'ni!ance. n the e)ercise of this power it (a+ issue an erroneous order, but such an order is not absolutel+ voidA unless it is re(edied durin' the sa(e action b+ (eans of an appeal or otherwise, it will have the effect of a valid order. The Court of First nstance should not 'ive a /ud'(ent upon a co(plaint on a pro(issor+ note which does not state a cause of action, but if it does so its /ud'(ent is valid unless it is reversed b+ (eans of appeal. <e cannot defer to an+ decision of the supre(e court of California which sustains a contrar+ doctrine. Article ;75, alread+ cited, establishes the law of these slands, and we (ust sub(it to that. To accept the other rule would be to convert the writ of habeas corpus into a writ of error, a thin' which is in no wise per(issible. t would (a*e it possible for an+ defendant b+ (eans of such writ to interpose an appeal to this court in all those cases in which an order of arrest should be issued and would obli'e us to review the errors of law which are alle'ed to have been co((itted b+ the court in investi'atin' the sufficienc+ of the affidavit, and this is, in our opinion the ver+ practice which article ;75 see*s to avoid.@ n the of Reyes vs. Ro"as 1" Phil. Rep., 97;2, the court held that the refusal to hear witnesses offered b+ the defense in a cri(inal action (i'ht constitute error, but was not an e)cess of /urisdiction to be re(edied b+certiorari, the court sa+in'0 @The co(plaint in this case does not alle'e that the court which convicted the petitioner had no /urisdiction to tr+ the case. Neither does it alle'e that in the prosecution of the case there has been an+ affir(ative action b+ the /ud'e outside of his /urisdiction. t si(pl+ alle'es that he has failed to ta*e actionA that he has refused to hear the witnesses for the defendant. This, if true, would constitute error, but it would be error co((itted b+ the /ud'e in the e)ercise of a /urisdiction which he possessed. The re(ed+ b+certiorari does not appl+ to this case.@ n the case of Dy $huan (eng vs. -!ber 1" Phil. Rep., ;$;2, the court said0 @<e cannot 'rant an in/unction under this section unless there is a co(pliance with article "93 and "99. t (ust appear fro( the co(plaint that the plaintiff is entitled to recover in the action. f the co(plaint states no cause of action no preli(inar+ in/unction can be issued. The co(plaint filed in this court is defective in this respect. t shows upon its face that the petitioner are not entitled to an order of prohibition a'ainst the court below. That court had /urisdiction of the action to dissolve the partnership. n that action it had the power to 'rant a preli(inar+ in/unction 1art. "932, and to appoint a receiver 1art. ":32. -avin' those powers, if in the e)ercise of the( an+ errors were co((itted, the+ could be corrected onl+ on appeal fro( the final /ud'(ent. The facts as alle'ed, that the co(plaint was a(bi'uousA that the /ud'e believed that the plaintiff below was a partner when the defendants denied itA that he fi)ed the bonds at F",444 instead of F$4,444, as re&uested b+ the defendantsA that no (ention of the bond was (ade in the writ of in/unctionA that he refused to hear the defendantsC witnessesA that he refused to dissolve the in/unction upon a bond which the defendants offered to 'ive, all of these do not show that the court was actin' outside of its /urisdiction. The+ si(pl+ show, if the+ are true, that the court has co((itted certain errors in e)ercisin' its /urisdiction, errors which (ust be corrected b+ appeal.@ n the case of /vancich vs. Odlin 1" Phil. Rep., 7532, the court said at pa'e 75:0 @The 'round upon which the second prohibition is sou'ht is that the attach(ent ordered b+ the court is not such an attach(ent as is authori!ed b+ articles 373 et se0. of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Philippine slands, but on the contrar+ is an attach(ent under a procedure not in force here, althou'h it is in force in the Enited ?tates of A(erica in (ariti(e cases, and that the attach(ent, (oreover, was levied without affidavit, bond, or an+ of the securities established b+ law whereb+ the owners of the stea(er can obtain reparation for an+ da(a'es which (a+ be occasioned the( b+ the unlawful detention of the said stea(erA and

that the procedure of the court below is devoid of all the for(al re&uisites established b+ law for the lev+in' of such attach(ents. ))) ))) )))

The /ud'e, did not, therefore, act ,ithout /urisdiction when directin' the attach(ent of the vessel in &uestion, and has not e)ceeded his /urisdiction. f the e)cess of /urisdiction upon which the ar'u(ent was based consists in his havin' levied the attach(ent without the fulfill(ent of the necessar+ conditions and without followin' the for( prescribed b+ so(e law of procedure applicable to the case, it is our opinion that this error is not such an e)cess of /urisdiction as can be secured b+ prohibition, and the petitioner has other (eans whereb+ this error or procedure (a+ be corrected or re(edied. Epon these 'rounds we decide that the petition for a writ of prohibition (ust be denied, with the costs to petitioner, and it is so ordered. n the case of -raneta vs. &he Heirs of &ran0uilino Gustilo 17 Phil. Rep., 942, this court said0 @This is a petition for a writ of certiorari to review the action of the Court of First nstance of .ccidental Ne'ros in re&uirin' a supersedeas bond under section "33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. t does not appear fro( the petition what the a(ount involved in the liti'ation is, nor on what su( that bond was fi)ed b+ the court, but it is alle'ed that the bond is e)cessive. The court below had /urisdiction to re&uire the bond as a condition of a sta+ of e)ecution, and to fi) its a(ount. Assu(in' that the bond was e)cessive, +et nothin' is alle'ed in the petition which shows that the court e)ceeded its /urisdiction in the pre(ises or co((itted an+ irre'ularit+ in its proceedin's in e)ercise thereof. The writ (ust therefore be denied.@ n the case of Springer vs. Odlin 1$ Phil. Rep., $332, the court said0 @The court, on the $4th of Ma+, after hearin' both parties, (ade an order b+ which it was ad/ud'ed that the clai( of CoDBanco had a preference over the clai( of ?prin'er and ordered the (one+ in the custod+ of the cler* to be believed to CoDBlanco, but re&uirin' hi( to e)ecute a bond for the su( of P344 with sureties for the protection of ?prin'er in case he appealed to the ?upre(e Court to annul the order. The plaintiff, ?prin'er, alle'es in his application for certiorari that the Court of First nstance acted without /urisdiction in (a*in' this order of the $4th da+ of Ma+, "#4$A that not bein' a part+ in the cause of the Enited ?tates vs. Catalino Mortes, he has no ri'ht to appeal nor has he an+ plain, speed+, and ade&uate re(ed+ fro( the orderA and further alle'in' that CoDBanco had no lien upon the P7;#.;4 in dispute, either b+ attach(ent or b+ e)ecutionA nor did the said CoDBlanco on the date of the (a*in' of the order in his favor have an+ ri'ht of an+ other character upon said (one+. f the Court of First nstance had /urisdiction to render the /ud'(ent of the "$th da+ of Ma+, "#4$, in favor of CoDBanco in the case of the Enited ?tates vs. Catalino Mortes, and in the proceedin' in which ?prin'er intervened resultin' in the order of Ma+ $4, or if the plaintiff, ?prin'er, had an+ plain, speed+, and ade&uate re(ed+ b+ a bill of e)ceptions, appeal, or otherwise fro( the order of the $4th da+ of Ma+, "#4$, b+ which the (one+ in &uestion was directed to be paid to CoDBanco, then the proceedin' in certiorari will not lie. n the case of %eli1ardo vs. 2ustice of the 'eace of /!us 1$ Phil. Rep., 9$;2, the court said0 @Attorne+s Pineda and Escueta, on behalf of Flaviano Feli!ardo and Francisca Feli!ardo, upon the facts stated b+ their co(plaint, dated April 3, "#43, and upon the 'round that there

was no other speed+ and ade&uate re(ed+ in the ordinar+ course of law, pra+ for an order dissolvin' the attach(ent levied upon the propert+ of the petitioners, and that a writ issue to the /ustice of the peace of (us, re&uirin' hi( to absolutel+ refrain fro( all further proceedin's until a final decision is rendered upon the co(plaint. B+ intervenin' in the suit result in which the attach(ent was levied, the parties (a+ avail the(selves of all the le'al re(edies provided for the defense of their lawful ri'hts, but cannot avail the(selves of the writ of prohibition for the purpose of obtainin' a dischar'e of attach(ent co(plained of. The case is one which pertains e)clusivel+ to the /urisdiction of the /ud'e who is tr+in' it, and there is no authorit+ of law for interference with the proceedin's. n the case of Rubert 3 Guanis vs. S,eeney 13 Phil. Rep., 3:$2, the court said0 @The court below had /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter of that suit and of the parties thereto. t had power b+ law to 'rant an in/unction in the case and power to dissolve it or (odif+ it. There can be no doubt of the correctness of these propositions, but it is clai(ed b+ the plaintiff in this suit that the stipulation (ade between the parties to the suit below to the effect that the sheriff should hold the (one+ until the final /ud'(ent in that case, deprived the court of /urisdiction to (a*e the order (odif+in' the in/unction and re&uirin' to sheriff to pa+ the (one+ to the defendant 6o ?hui upon his furnishin' a proper bond. <hen section ;"9 of the Code of Civil Procedure spea*s of a tribunal e)ercisin' functions which are without or in e)cess of its /urisdiction, it covers those cases onl+ in which such tribunal acts without or in e)cess of the /urisdiction conferred upon it b+ law. t has no reference to cases where it is clai(ed that such tribunal acts in e)cess of /urisdiction which the parties (a+ have atte(pted b+ stipulation to confer upon it, or in e)cess of a /urisdiction to which the parties (a+ b+ stipulation have atte(pted to li(it the court. The fact that the /ud'e (a+ have co((itted an error in disre'ardin' the stipulation of the parties has nothin' to do with the &uestion of the /urisdiction which b+ law the /ud'e was authori!ed to e)cess. f there was such error in the action of the court below, it was an error that (ust be corrected b+ appeal. An action of prohibition cannot be (aintained in such cases. 1Citin' cases.2 There is nothin' in the case of 4angco vs. Rohde 1" Phil. Rep., 3432, relied upon b+ the plaintiff, in conflict with this rule. As was stated in the case of Dy $huan (eng vs. -!ber above cited, the writ of prohibition was there 'ranted upon the 'round that in no case where the fact of (arria'e was denied did the Court of First nstance have an+ /urisdiction to 'rant te(porar+ ali(on+. n the case of $asta5o vs. (obinger 1: Phil. Rep., #"2, the court said0 @The concrete &uestions raised b+ the parties to these proceedin's are 1"2 whether or not the /ud'e of the Court of First nstance of 6e+te had power to issue an in/unction a'ainst the /ustice of the peace of Manila in an action pendin' in his court, and 172 whether the /ud'e of the said Court of First nstance of 6e+te could entertain a petition for a writ of certiorari a'ainst the said /ustice of the peace of the cit+ of Manila. ))) ))) )))

The /ud'e of the Court of First nstance of 6e+te had no /urisdiction over the /ud'e of the peace of the cit+ of Manila, and were a /ud'e of the Court of First nstance per(itted to 'rant such e)traordinar+ re(edies a'ainst a /ustice of the peace in a district or province other than his own, it would be a serious interference with the proper ad(inistration of /ustice, and a procedure relatin' to appeals fro( and other

re(edies a'ainst the /ud'(ents of inferior courts would be subverted. t should be borne in (ind that the enforce(ent of the laws /urisdiction of the various courts, concerns the interests of the co((unit+ at lar'e. The /ud'e of the Court of First nstance of 6e+te had no power to ta*e co'ni!ance, on appeal, of a case ori'inall+ tried in the /ustice court of the cit+ of Manila, nor has he the power to ta*e co'ni!ance of cases that should ordinaril+ be tried in the Court of First nstance of Manila, unless b+ virtue of a special co((ission. Nor has he the power to issue writs of in/unction in connection wit other special and e)traordinar+ re(edies sou'ht fro( the decisions of said /ustice of the peace. n the case of Her!an vs. $rossfield 1: Phil. Rep., 7;#2, the court said0 @After the ter( at which /ud'(ent was rendered, a Court of First nstance (ade an order openin' the case for the introduction of additional evidence, the (otion therefore havin' been (ade and ar'ued durin' said ter(. Held, That such order was not void because (ade after the close of said ter( and that it could not be reviewed on certiorari.@ The court at pa'e 79" said0 @<hether the order (ade on the "3th of April was ri'ht or wron' is not before us for decision. The court had /urisdiction to decide the (otion, even if it were a (otion for a new trial, a point which we do not deter(ine. f it decided it incorrectl+, the plaintiff who was the defendant in that case, had the ri'ht to e)cept to the order and, althou'h he could not brin' the case here at once for decision because that order was not a final /ud'(ent, +et he could do so after final /ud'(ent had been entered and could then have the order in &uestion reviewed.@ n the case of So!es vs. $rossfield 15 Phil. Rep., 7532, the action was one of certiorari. The court said0 @The plaintiff, in an action brou'ht b+ hi(self in the Court of First nstance of Manila, (ade a (otion for a preli(inar+ in/unction restrainin' the defendants fro( sellin' certain propert+ upon e)ecution. After a hearin' upon the (otion, the court after sa+in' that the plaintiff was not entitled to the preli(inar+ in/unction, (ade the followin' order0 @Accordin', the petition for a preli(inar+ writ of prohibition is denied, and it is hereb+ further ordered that the proceeds of the sales under the e)ecutions alread+ issued, and pendin', either in this court or in the hands of the sheriff of the Province of Alba+, be deposited in this court, sub/ect to the further orders thereof, upon a bond of P"4,444 bein' filed b+ the plaintiff to answer for an+ loss resultin' fro( the failure to appl+ said proceeds as ordered in the e)ecution issued.@ The plaintiff thereupon co((enced this ori'inal action of certiorari in this court, clai(in' that the court below, in (a*in' the order in &uestion, e)ceeded its /urisdiction. The defendants have de(urred to the co(plaint, and the case is now before us for decision upon such de(urrer. ))) ))) )))

That the court below did not e)ceed its /urisdiction in (a*in' that order is free fro( doubt. 1Rubert G ,ua(isvs. ?weene+, 3 Phil. Rep., 3:$.2 n the case of -rtacho vs. 2enkins 1"" Phil. Rep., 3:2, the court said at pa'e 350 @ t is alle'ed in the co(plaint that, in orderin' the issue of a second e)ecution, the defendant /ud'e e)ceeded his /urisdiction and that such order was absolutel+ void. This contention cannot be

sustained. The court of Pan'asinan had /urisdiction of the case of Tan Chu Cha+ a'ainst the plaintiff Artacho, /urisdiction both of the parties and of the sub/ect (atter, and the (ere fact that so(e creditor of Tan Chu Cha+ had attached the debt due fro( Artacho to the for(er did not oust that court fro( its /urisdiction to proceed with the case. 1?ee a(on' other cases decided b+ this court0 Rubert G ,ua(is vs.?weene+, 3 Phil. Rep., 3:$A ?o(es vs. Crossfield, 5 Phil. Rep., 753A and Ha(bert vs. McMic*in', "4 Phil. Rep., #;.2@ n the case of (agahit vs. +engasca and )isli1enus 1"7 Phil. Rep., 37$2, the action was one of certiorari. The action in the court below was one over a contested election. The court, spea*in' throu'h Mr. Chief %ustice Arellano, said0 @<hether or not the below acted ri'htl+ in considerin' the other candidate as the Cadverse part+C and the part+ defeated in the proceedin's is not a (atter on which action (a+ be ta*en b+ this court in the e)ercise of its appellate /urisdiction. t is evident that it was a (atter within the /urisdiction of the court below to ta) the Cadverse part+C with the costs. The re(ed+ of certiorari is, therefore, not available, as the purpose thereof is to prevent and re(ed+ e)tra li(itations of /urisdiction and authorit+, not to correct errors in decisions or (ista*es of law, which are proper sub/ects for appeal and cassation. The first findin' is perfectl+ in accordance with the provision of the law. The court below in decidin' upon the protest a'ainst the contested election for president of Alo'uisan said0 CThe court believes that the (a/orit+ of the electors at the present election voted in favor of the petitioner, ?i(eon Nen'asca.C <hether or not this opinion of the court below is proper cannot be the sub/ect or review b+ this court. t is a decision which is within the /urisdiction of the lower court as conferred b+ law. As a result of this opinion of the court below, and in co(pliance with the provision of the law, the /ud'(ent should have been0 @6et a writ of !anda!us be issued a'ainst the board of canvassers re&uirin' the board to correct its canvass in accordance with the facts as found.@ For the reason above set forth we decide that the order of the Court of First nstance of Cebu reco'ni!in' Nen'asca as presidentDelect at the elections in the (unicipalit+ of Alo'uisan, in said province, should be, and is hereb+ annulled for the reason that it is not within the /urisdiction of the said court to reco'ni!e or proclai( a president in a contested election. The action of Oca!po vs. 2enkins 1"3 Phil. Rep., 95"2, was one of prohibition. t was held there0 @The fact that an appeal is pendin' in the ?upre(e Court in a cri(inal case for libel, under Act No. 7:: of the Philippine Co((ission, does not prevent the prosecution of a civil action for da(a'es under the sa(e Act, which clearl+ reco'ni!es two distinct actions upon the theor+ that there are two separate and distinct in/uries received fro( the cri(e, one b+ the ?tate and the other b+ the individual da(a'ed b+ the libel. n such a case, therefore, a petition for a writ of prohibition en/oinin' the prosecution of the civil suit while the cri(inal appeal is pendin' will be denied.@ There are certain cases li*e (agahit vs. +engasca and )isli1enus above cited wherein the court has held thatcertiorari would lie. n the case of 6ncarnacion vs. -!bler 1$ Phil. Rep., 97$2, the court said at pa'e 9730 @ n the case of 6ugenio onaplata vs. yron S. -!bler et al. 17 Phil. Rep., $#72, which involved the validit+ of the appoint(ent of Antonio Torres as receiver of the estate of TanDTonco in the said cause of Sergia Reyes vs. %ulgencio &an&onco, it was held b+ this court that section ":3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the appoint(ent of the receiver was (ade, did not authori!e the appoint(entA that no

propert+ belon'in' to Ful'encio TanDTanco was the sub/ect of liti'ation in the case of Sergia Reyes vs. &an-&oncoA nor did the case fall within either of the other subdivisions of section ":3A that the placin' of the propert+ of the defendant in said cause in the hands of the receiver for the purpose, after pra+in' fees and e)pense of distributin' the propert+ a(on' the creditors, was practicall+ a ban*ruptc+ proceedin'A that there are no ban*ruptc+ laws in force in these slandsA that ban*ruptc+ proceedin's have been e)pressl+ forbidden b+ section ;73 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions until a law shall be enactedA and that conse&uentl+ the Court of First nstance acted in e)cess of its /urisdiction in appointin' Antonio Torres receiver in said action. <e adhere to the views e)pressed in the decision of this court in the said case of 6ugenio onaplata vs. yron S. -!ber et al.@ n the case of Enited ?tates vs. ?iaton' 1; Phil. Rep., 39$2, the court said0 @<ithout its bein' our purpose to decide if the re(ed+ or certiorari invo*ed b+ the provincial fiscal is proper in this case or not, we cannot ad(its his petition on account of its not bein' (ade in due for(. The re(ed+ of certiorari should be petitioned for b+ for(al co(plaint havin' all of the re&uire(ents prescribed b+ the Code of Procedure in Civil Actions, and the petition for(ulated b+ the fiscal in the for( of a brief in a cri(inal cause does not co(e up to these re&uire(ents, for which reason it is set aside in accordance with law.@ n the case of Rocha 3 $o. vs. $rossfield 19 Phil. Rep., $;;2, the court, on pa'e $;5, after &uotin' the section of the Code of Civil Procedure relatin' to cases in which a receiver (a+ be appointed, said0 @The case at bar does not fall within an+ of the provisions of this section. There is no alle'ation in the co(plaint, as has been before stated, that the plaintiff is the owner of an+ of the propert+ of Rocha G Co., nor is there an+ alle'ation that he has an+ lien thereon, nor are there an+ facts alle'ed in the co(plaint fro( which it could be inferred that he was the owner of such propert+ of had an+ lien thereon. .n the contrar+, fro( the facts that are alle'ed in the co(plaint it would see( that his separation fro( the partnership of Car(an G Co. left that partnership as a 'oin' concern and did not dissolve it. The effect of the provisions of the articles of partnership which are referred to in the co(plaint is that after the withdrawal of an+ partner the re(ainin' partners beca(e the owner of all the assets of the partnership and he beca(e a 'eneral creditor of the partnership. ))) ))) )))

The case not bein' one in which a receiver could be appointed, the order (a*in' such appoint(ent was void and was be+ond the /urisdiction of the court, althou'h that court had /urisdiction of the (ain action has been settled adversel+ to the defendants in this suit b+ the case of onaplata vs. -!ber 17 Phil. Rep., $#7A see also Encarnacion vs. A(ber, $ Phil. Rep., 97$A Findla+ G Co. vs. A(ber, $ Phil. Rep., 9#42. That certiorari is the proper re(ed+ in such cases was decided in the case of lanco vs. -!ber 1$ Phil. Rep., $;5, :$;2. n the ar'u(ent in this court it was clai(ed that this e)traordinar+ re(ed+ would not, lie because the plaintiff, Rocha G Co., had a ri'ht to appeal fro( the order appoint(ent a receiver, althou'h that appeal could not be ta*en until a final /ud'(ent had been entered in the case. That ar'u(ent is answered b+ what is said in the case of 4angco vs. Rohde 1" Phil. Rep., 3432.@

n the case of a5es vs. $ordero 1"$ Phil. Rep., 3992, the court said0 @And, if the /urisdiction has not been e)ceeded, there is not nor could there be an+ le'al 'round for the issuance of the writ of certiorari, because these proceedin's can onl+ e)clusivel+ be 'ranted to re(ed+ abuses co((itted in the e)ercise of a power or /urisdiction. ?ections 7": and ;"3 of the Code of Civil Procedure providin' for such relief une&uivocall+ and specificall+ refer to the act of e)ceedin' or 'oin' be+ond the /urisdictionA and this court has repeatedl+ held that, in order that certiorari (a+ issue, it is absolutel+ necessar+ to show that the respondent has e)ceeded his power or /urisdiction. 1/n re Prautch, " Phil. Rep., "$7A Be los Re+es vs. Ro)as, " Phil. Rep., 97;A ?prin'er vs. .dlin, $ Phil. Rep., $33.2@ n the case of -r1adon vs. $hanco 1"3 Phil. Rep., :"42A the court decided as follows0 @$ertiorari is the proper re(ed+ whenever an inferior tribunal, board, or officer e)ercisin' /udicial functions has e)ceeded its or his /urisdiction, and no appeal, nor an+ plain, speed+, and ade&uate re(ed+ e)ists to correct such e)cess or e)tra li(itation. 1?ecs. 7": and ;"3, Code of Civil Procedure2. The /urisdiction of Courts of First nstance to hear and decide election contests is e)clusive and final 1sec. 7: of the Election 6aw2A conse&uentl+, decisions rendered b+ the( in the e)ercise of said /urisdiction cannot be reviewed b+ (eans of an appeal. As the+ are not appealable and as a'ainst the( no other plain, speed+ and ade&uate re(ed+ e)ists, it is evident that the+ constitute a proper sub/ect for the e)traordinar+ re(ed+ of certiorari. Therefore, if the court below has e)ceeded his /urisdiction in renderin' the aboveDcited decision it is proper to annul and the sa(e b+ virtue of said proceedin's.@ n that case the Court of First nstance (ade the followin' order0 @B+ the fore'oin', ?ilvestre Ar!adon appears to have violated the provisions of the Election 6aw which prohibit ever+ action, influence, and pro(ise of an+ *ind, for the purpose of obtainin' votes. These should indicate the free will of the voters, and for such infractions his election for the office of (unicipal president of the town of Badoc (ust be considered ille'al. Therefore, it is declared b+ the court that the election of ?ilvestre Ar!adon for the office of president, held on the ";th da+ of Nove(ber last in the (unicipalit+ of Badoc, locos Norte, was not le'al, and another special election for the said office (ust be held at the e)pense of the said Ar!adon who shall not then be eli'ible, and an+ vote entered in his favor shall not countA the costs and e)penses of these proceedin's shall also be char'ed to hi(. n respect to that order the ?upre(e Court said0 @ t is our opinion that he has so e)ceeded his /urisdiction. The /urisdiction of Courts of First nstance hear election protests is conferred upon the( b+ the aforesaid section 7: of the Election 6aw, and neither the said section, nor an+ other le'al provision, authori!es the court, in decidin' such protests, to declare ineli'ible in future elections the person a'ainst who( the protests was presented, nor to sentence hi( to pa+ the e)penses of the new election to be held. -ence, the court below had no power to enter such rulin's in the case as 'ave rise to these proceedin's, and in conse&uence there of said rulin's (ust be entirel+ annulled.@ ?ee also &opacio vs. 'aredes 17$ Phil. Rep., 7$52. The case of 4angco vs. Rohde 1" Phil. Rep., 3432 was one relatin' to the allowance of ali(on+ pendin' the trial of an action for a divorce. The court below allowed ali(on+ althou'h the answer denied the (arria'e. Prohibition was brou'ht in this court, and after hearin', the lower court was en/o+ed fro( lev+in' and collectin' ali(on+. The court said at pa'e 3"30 @The court below had /urisdiction to tr+ the divorce suit, but he was without

/urisdiction to 'rant ali(on+ when the ri'ht to clai( ali(on+ had not accrued in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code. This code onl+ 'rants the ri'ht to ali(on+ to a ,ife. This status not appearin' b+ a final /ud'(ent, the court is without /urisdiction to (a*e an+ order in the (atter.@ ?ee also E. ?. vs. Crossfield 173 Phil. Rep., $7"2A 4oung )a!po vs. $ollector of $usto!s 1id., 3$"2. The reasons 'iven in these cases last cited for the allowance of the writ of prohibition are applicable onl+ to the class of cases with which the decisions deal and do not in an+ wa+ (ilitate a'ainst the 'eneral proposition herein asserted. Those which relate to election contests are based upon the principle that those proceedin's are special in their nature and (ust be strictl+ followed, a (aterial departure fro( the statute resultin' in a loss, or in an e)cess, of /urisdiction. The cases relatin' to receivers are based, in a (easure, upon the sa(e principle, the appoint(ent of a receiver bein' 'overned b+ the statuteA and in part upon the theor+ that the appoint(ent of a receiver in an i(proper case is in substance a ban*ruptc+ proceedin', the ta*in' of which is e)pressl+ prohibited b+ law. The case relative to the allowance of ali(on+ pendente lite when the answer denies the (arria'e is (ore difficult to distin'uish. The reasons in support of the doctrine laid down in that case are 'iven in the opinion in full and the+ see( to place the particular case to which the+ refer in a class b+ itself. t is not li'ht thin' that the law(a*ers have abolished writs of error and with the( certiorari and prohibition, in so far as the+ were (ethods b+ which the (ere errors of an inferior court could be corrected. As instru(ent to that end the+ no lon'er e)ist. Their place is now ta*en b+ the appeal. ?o lon' as the inferior court retains /urisdiction its errors can be corrected onl+ b+ that (ethod. The office of the writ of certiorari has been reduced to the correction of defects of #urisdiction solel+ and cannot le'all+ be used for an+ other purpose. t is trul+ an e)traordinar+ re(ed+ and, in this /urisdiction, its use is restricted to trul+ e)traordinar+ cases>cases in which the action of the inferior court is wholl+ voidA where an+ further steps in the case would result in a waste of ti(e and (one+ and would produce no result whateverA where the parties, or their privies, would be utterl+ deceivedA where a final /ud'(ent or decree would be nou'ht but a snare and a delusion, decidin' nothin', protectin' nobod+, a /udicial pretension, a recorded falsehood, a standin' (enace. t is onl+ to avoid such results as these that a writ ofcertiorari is issuableA and even here an appeal will lie if the a''rieved part+ prefers to prosecute it. A full and thorou'h e)a(ination of all the decided cases in this court touchin' the &uestion of certiorari and prohibition full+ support the proposition alread+ stated that, where a Court of First nstance has /urisdiction of the sub/ect (atter and of the person, its decision of an+ &uestion pertainin' to the cause, however erroneous, cannot be reviewed b+ certiorari, but (ust be corrected b+ appeal. t (ust be re(e(bered that the people of the Philippine slands (a+ 'o to the Court of First nstance to re&uire a public officer to perfor( his dutiesA and the+ have the ri'ht to have that court pass upon the whole case and upon ever+ phase thereof and upon ever+ &uestion arisin' therein. This ri'ht is conferred b+ statute. t would be respected b+ the courts as well as b+ others. t would be (anifestl+ ille'al, as it would be fla'rantl+ un/ust, so lon' as the court acts within its /urisdiction, to withdraw fro( the Court of First nstance the consideration of that caseunder color of an+ proceedin' whatever. As lon' as the court is considerin' that case, its ri'ht and the ri'hts of the liti'ants to continue to final deter(ination are inviolate.

The fact that another action (a+ have been pendin' involvin' the sa(e sub/ect (atter and even between the sa(e parties, which was not the fact in this case, does not touch the /urisdiction of the court to act. <e cannot leave the case without su''estin' that the applicant herein, before co(in' to this court, should, as the better practice, have (ade the proper application to the Court of First nstance for a dissolution or (odification of the (andator+ in/unction, and thereb+ 'iven that court an opportunit+, after full ar'u(ent of counsel and citation of authorities, to pass upon the &uestion of his power and /urisdiction and, even, the correctness and propriet+ of his action, should power and /urisdiction be found b+ the court to e)ist. Iuestions which Courts of First nstance are re&uired b+ law to decide should not be su((aril+ ta*en fro( the( and presented to this court without first 'ivin' the( an opportunit+ of deliberatel+ passin' on such &uestions the(selves. The (ost natural and proper thin' to do, when such court, in the /ud'(ent of one of the parties, has issued an in/unction erroneousl+, is i((ediatel+ to call the attention of that court to its supposed error and as* for its correction. The stron'est reasons of polic+ and courtes+ if not actual le'al ri'hts itself, re&uire such procedureA and we discoura'e all atte(pts to co(e to this court upon &uestions which a court below is entitled to decide without first invo*in' its /ud'(ent thereon. There are special reasons for followin' this course in cases where the court has acted e" parte. The writ is denied and the proceedin' is dis(issed. ?o ordered. -rellano, $.2., &orres and Mapa, 22., concur. &rent, 2., concurs in the result.