Case Digest (G.R. No. L-27097)
Facts:
Co Kim Cham (alias Co Cham), petitioner, filed a petition for mandamus against Eusebio Valdez Tan Keh (defendant in the underlying civil suit) and Arsenio P. Dizon, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila (respondent), in G.R. No. L-5, decided November 16, 1945 by the Supreme Court En Banc, Feria, J., writing for the Court. This resolution is the denial of a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier decision in the same matter.During the Japanese occupation, petitioner instituted a civil action (filed November 17, 1944) in the Court of First Instance of Manila then operating under the Japanese-sponsored regime and deposited P12,500 in court as a condition precedent to relief. Hostilities and the Battle of Manila destroyed the record of that case. After liberation and reestablishment of the Commonwealth Government (Leyte landings October 20, 1944; General MacArthur’s October 23, 1944 proclamation annulling “all laws, regulations and processes of any other government in the Philippines than that of the said Commonwealth”), the reconstituted Commonwealth courts faced the question whether to recognize and continue proceedings begun under the Japanese regime.
Judge Dizon declined to proceed on the ground he lacked power or jurisdiction to continue the case. Petitioner sought mandamus to compel the judge to continue the proceedings (the petition sought not the reconstitution—the Court noted the record had been reconstituted by order of the court—but the continuation and adjudication of the case). The Supreme Court originally granted relief; respondents filed a motion for reconsideration. Two attorneys appeared as amici curiae. The Court, in this resolution on the motion for reconsideration, denied the motion and reaffirmed its ruling. Separate concurring and dissenting opinions we...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was mandamus the proper and adequate remedy to compel the Court of First Instance judge to proceed with the case?
- Did the facts constitute a belligerent occupation and thereby permit the occupying power’s courts to continue municipal judicial administration pursuant to the rules of international law (Hague Conventions), making judicial acts during occupation valid?
- Does General MacArthur’s October 23, 1944 proclamation’s phrase “processes” include judicial processes, thereby rendering proceedings und...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)