HERRERA vs BARRETTO25 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 justi6es 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