Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 Phil 346

    Uploaded by

    Bea Cape
    160 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case from 1915 regarding whether a judge who began trial of a case but was then transferred to another court due to a new law could be compelled to finish the trial. The key facts are that Judge Julio Llorente began trial of a case but was then transferred before rendering a decision. The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus for Judge Llorente to finish the trial. The court ruled that under Section 7 of the new Act 2347, Judge Llorente's position in that court was vacated, terminating his judicial authority in that court. Though the court itself continued under Section 24, the judge's authority was terminated, so he could not be compelled to finish the trial.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    1. 29 Phil 346

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from 1915 regarding whether a judge who began trial of a case but was then transferred to another court due to a new law could be compelled to finish the trial. The key facts are that Judge Julio Llorente began trial of a case but was then transferred before rendering a decision. The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus for Judge Llorente to finish the trial. The court ruled that under Section 7 of the new Act 2347, Judge Llorente's position in that court was vacated, terminating his judicial authority in that court. Though the court itself continued under Section 24, the judge's authority was terminated, so he could not be compelled to finish the trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    160 views2 pages

    29 Phil 346

    Uploaded by

    Bea Cape
    This document summarizes a court case from 1915 regarding whether a judge who began trial of a case but was then transferred to another court due to a new law could be compelled to finish the trial. The key facts are that Judge Julio Llorente began trial of a case but was then transferred before rendering a decision. The plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus for Judge Llorente to finish the trial. The court ruled that under Section 7 of the new Act 2347, Judge Llorente's position in that court was vacated, terminating his judicial authority in that court. Though the court itself continued under Section 24, the judge's authority was terminated, so he could not be compelled to finish the trial.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-10144
    January 27, 1915

    ANASTASIA PAMINTUAN, ET AL. vs. JULIO LLORENTE and CLEMENTE


    DAYRIT

    Facts:
    On August 3, 1910, the defendant (Clemente Dayrit) commenced an action in the Court of First
    Instance of the Province of Pampanga, under Judge Julio Llorente, against the Anastasia
    Pamintuan et. al. Trial ensued thereafter.
    On July 1, 1914, Before a decision was rendered, by virtue of Act 2347, said Judge was
    transferred to the Fifth Judicial District.
    Thus, the plaintiffs, filed a writ of mandamus directing, requiring, and compelling the said
    Honorable Julio Llorente to continue the trial of said cause No. 507 until its conclusion.

    Issue:
    Whether or not, under the provisions of Act No. 2347, a judge who had commenced the trial of
    a cause and who had ceased to be the judge of the particular court in which said cause was
    pending, before the termination of the same, may be compelled by mandamus to continue with
    the trial of the same.

    Ruling:
    NO.
    Section 7 of Act 2347, provides that the present judges (those appointed prior to July 1, 1914)
    shall vacate their positions on the 1st day of July, 1914. The language used in the phrase "shall
    vacate their positions" is very strong language for the purpose was to terminate the judicial
    authority of the "present judges."
    Section 24 of Act No. 2347 provisions discloses the fact, however, that said "criminal or civil
    cases," etc., "pending decision, shall remain under the jurisdiction of the courts," and not under
    the jurisdiction of the judges. The purpose of this provision was to clearly indicate that the
    existing Courts of First Instance were to continue; that the existing courts were not "vacated"
    or terminated or extinguished. Its purpose was simply to change the personnel of the judges, or
    at least to require all the judges to be reappointed under the new law and under new
    qualifications.
    There’s a difference between the word "judges" and "courts" although are used synonymously
    and interchangeably. The courts of the Philippine Islands were created and the judges were
    appointed thereto later.

    You might also like