Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 139 views

    Herrera Vs Barretto25 Phil 245

    Uploaded by

    Lara Michelle Sanday Binudin
    The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari sought by Godofredo Herrera, the municipal president of Caloocan, against Judge Alberto Barretto. Herrera argued that Barretto exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory injunction requiring Herrera to grant a cockpit license to Constancio Joaquin. However, the Supreme Court found that while the injunction may have been irregular or erroneous, it was within the jurisdiction of the court to issue. Additionally, Herrera did not first seek reconsideration in the lower court before appealing directly to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the writ of certiorari was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Herrera Vs Barretto25 Phil 245

    Uploaded by

    Lara Michelle Sanday Binudin
    139 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari sought by Godofredo Herrera, the municipal president of Caloocan, against Judge Alberto Barretto. Herrera argued that Barretto exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory injunction requiring Herrera to grant a cockpit license to Constancio Joaquin. However, the Supreme Court found that while the injunction may have been irregular or erroneous, it was within the jurisdiction of the court to issue. Additionally, Herrera did not first seek reconsideration in the lower court before appealing directly to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the writ of certiorari was denied.

    Original Description:

    Herrera vs Barretto25 Phil 245

    Original Title

    Herrera vs Barretto25 Phil 245

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari sought by Godofredo Herrera, the municipal president of Caloocan, against Judge Alberto Barretto. Herrera argued that Barretto exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory injunction requiring Herrera to grant a cockpit license to Constancio Joaquin. However, the Supreme Court found that while the injunction may have been irregular or erroneous, it was within the jurisdiction of the court to issue. Additionally, Herrera did not first seek reconsideration in the lower court before appealing directly to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the writ of certiorari was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    139 views3 pages

    Herrera Vs Barretto25 Phil 245

    Uploaded by

    Lara Michelle Sanday Binudin
    The Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari sought by Godofredo Herrera, the municipal president of Caloocan, against Judge Alberto Barretto. Herrera argued that Barretto exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory injunction requiring Herrera to grant a cockpit license to Constancio Joaquin. However, the Supreme Court found that while the injunction may have been irregular or erroneous, it was within the jurisdiction of the court to issue. Additionally, Herrera did not first seek reconsideration in the lower court before appealing directly to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the writ of certiorari was denied.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    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

    You might also like