Title
Laquian vs. Baltazar
Case
G.R. No. L-27514
Decision Date
Feb 18, 1970
A defamation case involving conflicting jurisdiction between municipal and CFI courts, resolved in favor of exclusive CFI jurisdiction under Article 360, RPC.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 83896)

Timeline of Events

On May 16, 1963, Marcelo D. Mendiola filed a civil suit against Laquian, Civil Case No. 2312, to recover damages for an allegedly defamatory letter supposedly written by Laquian on May 21, 1962. Subsequently, on May 19, 1964, Mendiola initiated Criminal Case No. 4216 in the Municipal Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, alleging libel against Laquian based on the same letter. Laquian moved to dismiss the criminal complaint, arguing lack of jurisdiction, leading to multiple denials of his motions by the municipal court.

Legal Proceedings

Following the denials by the municipal court, Laquian sought a special civil action for certiorari in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, which was designated as Civil Case No. 2834. Laquian requested the annulment of the orders from the municipal court which dismissed his jurisdictional challenge. This action was dismissed by the Court of First Instance on May 18, 1966, asserting that both the municipal court and the Court of First Instance had concurrent jurisdiction over libel cases. Laquian's appeal against this decision was initiated thereafter.

Jurisdictional Disputes

The core of the legal debate centered around Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, which, as amended by Republic Act No. 1289, states that both civil and criminal actions for damages in cases of written defamation must be filed with the Court of First Instance and that the court first approached gains exclusive jurisdiction. The municipal court had been interpreting statutory changes to suggest that jurisdiction had become concurrent, while Laquian maintained that the law conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the Court of First Instance due to the filing of the civil case earlier than the criminal complaint.

Interpretation of Relevant Laws

The court queried whether subsequent amendments, specifically Rep. Act No. 3828, abrogated the provisions established under Rep. Act No. 1289 regarding jurisdiction. It concluded that while Section 87(c) of the Judiciary Act amplified the jurisdiction of municipal courts, it did not negate the exclusive jurisdiction previously

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.