Layosa Vs Rodriguez

G.R. No.
L-46080 November 10, 1978 raffling of the cases between the two branches of the
court had been terminated. He was scheduled to hold
DOMINADOR LAYOSA, petitioner, sessions at Brooke's Point and the other Judge was to
vs. begin his one-month vacation. Respondent Judge
HON. JOSE P. RODRIGUEZ, Judge of the Court of pointed out that his action on the motion for
First Instance of Palawan, and FERNANDO M. suspension was sanctioned by Administrative Order
DILIG, City Fiscal of Puerto Princess, Palawan No. 6 of this Court dated July 1, 1975 which empowers
respondents. the Executive Judge to act on interlocutory matters
Carsi Cruz & Callanta Law Offices for petitioner. prior to the raffling of a case.
City Fiscal Fernando M. Dilig for the respondents. The case was eventually raffled to the sala of
respondent Judge. Layosa posted a bail bond. He was
arraigned on October 4, 1977. He was replaced by
AQUINO, J.: Carlos Razo as collector of customs. On September 29,
1977, the Office of State Prosecutors sustained the
This case is about the suspension of Dominador Layosa filing of the information against Layosa.
the collector of customs of Palawan and Puerto
Princess City, who on March 17, 1947 was charged by Layosa did not submit a memorandum. Respondent
the city fiscal in the Court of First Instance of Palawan fiscal in his memorandum alleged that the petitioner
with having violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt had abandoned his contention as to lack of jurisdiction
Practices Law (Republic Act No. 3019). The information over his person (based on the grounds that the case
was based on the complaint filed by the assistant was not raffled to respondent Judge and that no
director of the District Anti-Smuggling Action Center. It warrant of arrest was issued before the hearing on his
was one of the five cases filed against Layosa, aside suspension was held). The fiscal stressed that the case
from a malversation case (p. 85, Rollo). had been scheduled for trial at the instance of the
petitioner and that the latter had manifested his
The gravamen of the charge against Layosa is that willingness to proceed with the trial.
during the period from April to December, 1976 he
demanded and received from the patron of the M/V Under the circumstances recited above, we hold that
Lady Angelita I, whenever that vessel docked at the the petition for certiorari is devoid of merit and that the
Puerto Princesa wharf to unload and load cargoes of trial court did not act with grave abuse of discretion in
the San Miguel Corporation, two to three cases of beer issuing the order of suspension.
and soft drinks as the consideration for giving the There is no question that the lower court acquired
vessel preferential berthing facilities (Criminal Case jurisdiction over the case upon the filing of the
No. 1778). information. The offense charged is within its
On the following day, March 18, the fiscal, acting jurisdiction. The petitioner was notified of the pre-
pursuant to section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019, filed a suspension hearing. His counsel participated in that
motion for Layosa's suspension. A copy of that motion hearing. The requirements of due process were
and of the orders setting it for hearing were furnished observed. The law contemplates an expeditious
Layosa. The motion was heard on March 25, 1977. At hearing on the suspension of the accused. Public
the hearing, Layosa's counsel cross-examined the interest demands a speedy determination of that
prosecution's witness. Respondent Judge granted the question. (See Sugay vs. Pamaran, L-33877-79,
motion in his order dated April 11, 1977 at Brooke's September 30, 1971, 41 SCRA 260; Luciano vs. Wilson,
Point. He found that a valid information had been filed L-31347, August 31, 1970, 34 SCRA 638; Luciano vs.
against Layosa. Mariano,
L-23950, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 187; Oliveros vs.
On May 10, 1977, Layosa filed in this Court the instant Villaluz, L-33362, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 327; Luciano
petition for certiorari. He prayed that the order of vs. Provincial Governor, L-30306, June 20, 1969, 28
suspension be set aside. He contended that the court SCRA 517).
did not acquire jurisdiction over his person because no
warrant of arrest had as yet been issued when the It is true that petitioner was not yet arrested or taken
hearing on his suspension was held and the case was into custody when the pre-suspension hearing was
not raffled to respondent Judge, that the Chief State held. However, his voluntary appearance at that
Prosecutor in a telegram to the fiscal dated March 24, hearing through his counsel was a submission to the
1977 directed that the record of the case be elevated lower court's jurisdiction. (Note that in civil cases,
for review, and that respondent Judge gravely abused defendant's voluntary appearance is equivalent to
his discretion in issuing the suspension order. service of summons.)
Because Layosa defied the order of suspension, the Where a court has jurisdiction of the offense or subject
lower court in its order of June 15, 1977 adjudged him matter, the objection that it has no jurisdiction of the
in contempt of court and penalized him by person of the accused may be waived. One who
imprisonment for three months and a fine of P500. desires to object to the jurisdiction of the court over his
Layosa appealed from that order to the Court of person must appear in court for that purpose only, and
Appeals. if he raises other questions, he waives the objection.
(22 C.J.S., 1961 Ed. p. 418). In the instant case, Layosa
Respondent Judge in his comment on the petition waived the objection based on lack of jurisdiction over
explained that, to avoid delay, he acted on the motion his person when, as already noted, he appeared at the
for suspension because the case was filed after the pre-suspension hearing and his counsel cross-
examined the prosecution witness.
WHEREFORE, the petition is dismissed. Costs against
the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Fernando (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio, Concepcion,
Jr. and Santos, JJ., concur.

Layosa Vs Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Layosa Vs Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Layosa Vs Rodriguez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

You might also like