G.R. No. 248569 - Cabutaje vs. Cabutaje

Castor Custodio and three others were charged with malicious mischief before the Justice of the Peace Court of Mabini, Pangasinan.
The complaint was filed by Ladislava Balgua.
After trial, all accused were convicted.

The sentence was promulgated on June 20, 1955, and on that same day, the accused were committed to the municipal jail.

On June 24, 1955, counsel for the complainant filed a motion to lift the order of release, arguing that Custodio should be recommitted since he had begun serving his sentence on June 20, 1955.
Finding the motion well-taken, the justice of the peace set aside the earlier order of release.
An order of recommitment was issued on July 5, 1955, directed to the chief of police for execution.

Before the execution of the recommitment order, Custodio filed a petition for certiorari with a request for a preliminary injunction before the court of first instance.
He contended that the order of recommitment was issued in excess of the justice of the peace’s jurisdiction.
The court of first instance found a prima facie case and granted the preliminary injunction on the condition of a P200.00 bond.
Subsequently, on July 18, 1955, the clerk of the court issued the operative writ.

On August 5, 1955, respondents filed an answer asserting that the order of recommitment was legally proper since Custodio had already begun serving the sentence and he was obligated to serve the balance of his sentence.
On September 17, 1956, the court ordered Custodio to include, as parties-respondents, the complainants or persons interested in sustaining the action of the justice of the peace pursuant to Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, granting a 5-day period for amendment.

On October 1, 1956, Custodio submitted a "manifestation" by way of answer, arguing that only the justice of the peace and the chief of police should be included as respondents.

He maintained that the complainants were not the proper parties since the chief of police was responsible for signing the complaint that initiated the criminal case.

On October 11, 1956, finding Custodio’s response unconvincing and noting his failure to comply with the court’s order, the court dismissed the petition without costs.

Custodio filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied.
He then interposed the present appeal challenging the dismissal on the grounds that he was deprived of the opportunity to amend his petition.

Whether the trial court erred in requiring Custodio to amend his petition to include the complainants as respondents in the certiorari case.

The petitioner argued that the complainants were not the proper parties, contending that only the justice of the peace and the chief of police were directly responsible for the issuance and implementation of the recommitment order.

Whether the dismissal of Custodio’s petition on a technical ground—failure to include the complainants—resulted in the irreversible loss of his right to appeal and effective judicial relief.

The petitioner maintained that dismissal on such a technicality was harsh and would lead to irreparable damage by effectively nullifying his substantive right to challenge the recommitment order.

Whether the lower court's actions concerning the inclusion of additional parties were justified under Section 5, Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, and whether due process was afforded to Custodio by dismissing his case without allowing an amendment.