RODOLFO A. SCHNECKENBURGER vs. MANUEL V.

MORAN

G.R. No. L-44896, July 31, 1936

FACTS:

The petitioner was duly accredited honorary consul of Uruguay at Manila, Philippine Islands on
June 11, 1934. He was subsequently charged in the Court of First Instance of Manila with the
crime of falsification of a private document. He objected to the jurisdiction of the court on the
ground that both under the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
Philippines the court below had no jurisdiction to try him. His objection having been overruled,
he filed this petition for a writ of prohibition with a view to preventing the Court of First Instance
of Manila from taking cognizance of the criminal action filed against him.

In support of this petition counsel for the petitioner contend (1) That the Court of First Instance
of Manila is without jurisdiction to try the case filed against the petitioner for the reason that
under Article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court of the
United States has original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers,
and consuls, and such jurisdiction excludes the courts of the Philippines; and (2) that even under
the Constitution of the Philippines original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers, and consuls, is conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the
Philippines.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Supreme Court of the United States has original jurisdiction over the case
of consul

2. Whether or not jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and
consuls, is conferred exclusively upon the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

HELD:

1. No. The original jurisdiction granted to the Courts of First Instance to try criminal cases
was not made exclusively by any, law in force prior to the inauguration of the
Commonwealth, and having reached the conclusion that the jurisdiction conferred upon
this court by the Constitution over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers,
and consuls, is not an exclusive jurisdiction, the laws in force at the time of the adoption
of the Constitution, granting the Courts of First Instance jurisdiction in such cases, are not
 inconsistent with the Constitution, and must be deemed to remain operative and in force,
subject to the power of the National Assembly to amend alter, modify, or repeal the same.

2. No. The Constitution does not define the jurisdiction of this court in specific terms, but
merely provides that "the Supreme Court shall have such original and appellate
jurisdiction as may be possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine
Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution." It then goes on to provide that the
original jurisdiction of this court "shall include all cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers, and consuls."

The original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was derived from section 17 of Act No. 136,
which reads as follows: The Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction to issue writs
of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, and quo warranto in the cases and in the
manner prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, and to hear and determine the controversies
thus brought before it, and in other cases provided by law." Jurisdiction to issue writs of quo
warranto, certiorari, mandamus, prohibition, and habeas corpus was also conferred on the
Courts of First Instance by the Code of Civil Procedure. (Act No. 190, secs. 197, 217, 222, 226,
and 525.). It results that the original jurisdiction possessed and exercised by the Supreme Court
of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was not exclusive of, but
concurrent with, that of the Courts of First Instance.