This is a petition for a writ of prohibition to  compel the respondent to desist from further proceedings in civil case No. 6489  of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, in which case Isabelo and Emilia Alburo are the plaintiffs and Paulino Gullas, the defendant.

Case No. 6489  was  instituted in  the  beginning of  the month of April of the present year.   The distribution of cases among the various judges of the Cebu court is regulated by Administrative Order No.  16, issued by the Secretary of Justice February 27, 1925.  In accordance with this order the filing number of the case in question required its assignment to the second branch of the court, presided over by  Judge De la Kama,  who, being  unable to try it before the court vacation,  continued it to the  July  term of the court.  During the court vacation both Judge De la Rama and the Auxiliary Judge of the district were absent, the former on leave and the other on duty in Leyte,  leaving the Honorable Adolph Wislizenus, the judge of Branch I, as the  only judge on duty in Cebu.  On May 3d, Judge Wislizenus, in view of the fact that the defendant in the aforesaid case No. 6489 was a member of the Legislature and was anxious to have the case disposed of before the opening  of the legislative  session,  assigned the case for trial in his branch of the court on May 24, 1926.  A motion for continuance presented by the plaintiff was denied, and these proceedings were thereupon instituted.

The petitioner argues that the respondent judge exceeded his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of a case pertaining to another branch of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, There is, as far as we can see, no merit in this contention. Paragraph 4 of Administrative Order No. 16, supra, reads as follows:

"Where  any  of the  District Judges or  the  Auxiliary Judge having  official  station at Cebu  shall  have  been granted leave of absence or shall be  otherwise incapacitated to perform his official  duties for a considerable period of time,  the remaining judges shall forthwith proceed to the equitable distribution of the court business assigned to the judge  so absent or incapacitated,  in accordance  with the above rules."

In view  of the provision  quoted, it seems  clear that the respondent  being  the  only  judge on duty in the district and the  other  judges  being absent  for undetermined periods,  he had full power to try  any of the cases at that time pending in the court and did not  exceed his jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the case in question.  In these circumstances a writ of  prohibition  will not issue.

The petition is denied, and the present proceedings dismissed, with the costs against the petitioner.

Street, Villamor, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.