G.R. No. L-2442

FACTS:
Petitioners Gregorio Cedre, et al., filed a petition for a writ of mandamus directed against respondent Judge James C. Jenkins of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The petition sought to compel the judge to settle and allow a bill of exceptions. In response to the court’s order to show cause why the writ should not be issued, Judge Jenkins filed a demurrer to the complaint.

ISSUE:
Whether a respondent judge, in a mandamus proceeding initiated under Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure to compel the settlement of a bill of exceptions, is authorized to file a demurrer to the petition.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court, through a per curiam resolution, refused to consider the demurrer filed by the respondent judge. The Court held that the remedy invoked by the petitioners under Section 499 of the Code of Civil Procedure (similar to the recurso de queja under Spanish law) is distinct from the ordinary mandamus actions governed by Sections 222 and 515 of the same Code. The procedure under Section 499 does not authorize the respondent judge to demur; instead, the judge’s duty is to state in writing the reasons for not certifying the bill of exceptions. The respondent judge was ordered to comply with the writ by following the specific provisions of Section 499.

Separate Opinion:
Justice Johnson dissented. He argued that under Rule 34 of the Court’s rules, which mandates that original jurisdiction proceedings like mandamus follow the procedure in ordinary civil actions, the respondent had the right to demur. He cited the case of Hoey vs. Baldwin (1 Phil. 551) as precedent where a demurrer in a mandamus case was allowed. He contended that a respondent should be able to challenge the sufficiency of the petition’s facts via demurrer, and the Court should not maintain two different classes of procedure for mandamus.