This is an original application made in this court,  praying for  a writ of  certiorari, directing the clerk of the Court of First Instance of the Moro Province to certify to this court for review the entire record of a certain case entitled "The United States of America vs. Edward Dworak," charged with the crime of illegal detention and  for a  preliminary injunction against the respondent, the Hon. Chas. A. Low, judge of the Court of First Instance for said province, during the pendency of this action.

The only question presented by the petition at this time is whether or not the petitioner is entitled to a  preliminary injunction; that is, whether the facts are sufficient to justify this court in restraining the respondent judge, by the extraordinary equitable remedy of certiorari,  from  proceeding with that criminal case which is pending before him.

From the petition presented and the exhibits  which form a part thereof the following facts appear:

In the month of June,  1910, Edward Dworak, Captain of Philippine Scouts, U. S.  Army, was stationed and in command of troops at the barrio of Isabela,  municipality of Zamboanga, Moro  Province,  and at the  same time acting councilman for said barrio.  On the 9th of that month Captain Dworak received from the wife of one Doroteo Saavedra a verbal complaint that she had been  illtreated by her husband.  Thereupon the captain ordered Saavedra to appear before him.   Saavedra declined to obey this order.  Captain Dworak  then  proceeded  to  Saavedra's house,  placed him under arrest, and took him to the captain's office where an investigation was made  which was followed by an  order given by the captain directing Saavedra to be confined in the local jail or guardhouse for the period  of fifteen days and to pay a fine of P15. This order was carried into effect by the troops under the captain's command.  After Saavedra had served the fifteen  days' confinement and  paid the fine he  was  released.  Subsequently thereto and on the 3d of August of the same year the said Saavedra filed in the Court of First Instance of the Moro Province a criminal complaint against  Captain Dworak, charging him with the crime of illegal detention.   A preliminary examination followed and the Hon.  Herbert  D.  Gale, then  judge of the Fourteenth Judicial District, issued on the 16th of December, 1910, an order holding the defendant, Dworak, in the sum of P3,000 to appear before the Court of First Instance to answer said charge.  In the same order, and upon his own motion, Judge Gale disqualified Connor,  the  provincial attorney, and Captain Ansell, assistant provincial attorney, from conducting the  prosecution against  Dworak,  and  appointed  Nicolas Nunez, a member of the  Zamboanga bar and petitioner in the  case under  consideration, special prosecuting attorney to represent the Government  in said criminal case.  On or about January 1, 1911, Judge Gale was relieved from duty as judge of the Fourteenth District and appointed judge at large, and Judge Low was  transferred to the Fourteenth District.  the prosecuting attorney presented  on the  27th of December, 1910, a motion asking the court to annul that part of the order of December 16th which disqualified him and  his assistant from conducting  the prosecution against Dworak.  This motion was heard by the respondent judge, who, by order dated January 20,  1911, amended  and  set aside that part of the order of December 16, 1910,  disqualifying Connor and his assistant, and directed them to proceed with the case according to law.

As to whether or not the  Court of First Instance was justified under the  facts then before it in issuing the two orders (dated December 16, 1910, and January 20, 1911), we can  not and do  not now determine.   The only question before us at this time  is one of law; that is, did the court exceed its jurisdiction in issuing the annulling order?  The determination of this question necessarily involves  the  validity of the order of December 16.  This order was based upon the provisions of section  11 of Act No. 83, as amended by section 1 of Act No. 223, section 1 of Act No. 1443, and section 1 of Act No. 1699, which section, as thus amended, provides:

*       *       *       *       *       *      *

"Whenever the provincial fiscal is absent from the province, or fails or refuses to e his duty by reason of illness  or other cause, or by reason of personal interest in a prosecution or other matter is disqualified to act therein as provincial fiscal, the judge of the Court of First Instance for  the province is  authorized and  required to appoint a temporary fiscal, who shall be paid out of the provincial
treasury the same compensation per day as that  provided by law for the regular provincial fiscal for the days actually employed.  The fiscal thus temporarily appointed shall discharge all the duties of the provincial fiscal as provided by law which the regular provincial fiscal  fails or is unable to perform.  *        *    *"

Judge Low was of the opinion  that the above provisions of law  are not applicable to the Moro Province and that the court was without authority to suspend the attorney and assistant attorney for that province and appoint a temporary fiscal to represent the Government in that criminal  case. In passing upon these questions he said:

'"The court is of the opinion that Act No. 83 does not apply to the Moro Province, which was established under Act No. 787  and which act fully provides how the said Moro Province shall be governed.   The entire scheme of  government for this  province is different from that provided by Act No. 83 for provinces in general.  Nowhere in said Act establishing the Moro Province can a provision be found similar to section 11 of Act No. 83, as amended by Act No. 223, conferring on the judge  of the Court of First Instance for the province authority to suspend  the attorney of the province or the assistant attorney,  and 'to appoint a, temporary provincial fiscal,' etc.  Moreover there  is no such officer in the Moro Province as the provincial fiscal.   There is an attorney and an assistant attorney for the  Moro Province.   The assistant attorneys are empowered to act as district fiscals under the supervision of the attorney for the Moro Province.  There is no  such officer as the 'provincial fiscal,' referred to in Act No. 83.   The powers and duties of the. attorney  and his assistants  are fully set forth in the Act and it not appearing that the judge of this court have the power or authority conferred on him by law to suspend either of the above-named officers or to appoint a special fiscal to act in these places, that portion of the  order is  hereby set aside and amended and the information herein signed by Sr. Nicolas Nunez, as special fiscal, ordered stricken from the files, and the attorney for the Moro Province,  and his assistants, are directed to proceed in this case according  to law."

It will be noted,  that the respondent  held that the Court of First Instance of the Moro Province is without authority to appoint, under any circumstances, a temporary prosecuting officer  to represent the Government in any criminal cause.  In this we  think he erred.

The provincial fiscal shall  represent the provincial and Insular governments in his province in all actions or  prosecutions in the Court of First Instance in the manner provided by law.  "He shall be  an  officer  of  the court and subject to officials directions in relation to official matters pending in the Court of First  Instance."   (Sec. 62, Organic Act No. 136.)

Act No. 787  is "An Act  providing for the organization and government of the Moro Province."   Section 9 of this Act,  as amended by section 2 of  Act  No, 1699, provides that the provincial attorney shall, when the public interests require it, appear and take charge of the prosecutions for the Government in any court within the province.

"Who shall prosecute crimes in the Moro Province. - The prosecution of criminal offenses in the Courts of First Instance of Jolo, Bongao, Zamboanga,  Cotabato,  and Davao, shall be conducted by the provincial  attorney for the Moro Province, until the legislative council shall, in its discretion, provide for the appointment of fiscals assigned to assist the provincial  attorney in  this  work in one  or more  of the districts of  the  province.  *   *  *"  (Sec.   21, Act  No. 867.)

"The prosecution of offenses held in Iligan,  in the district of Lanao, and Dapitan, in the subdistrict of Dapitan, of the Moro Province, shall be conducted by the provincial attorney for the Moro Province, or by the provincial  fiscal of Misamis, at the request and under the supervision  of the provincial attorney for the Moro Province.  *  *  *"   (Sec. 22, Act No. 867.)

The powers and duties of provincial fiscals and the  provincial attorney for the Moro Province, with  reference to criminal prosecutions,  are  of the same character.  They conduct and supervise the prosecution of criminal offenses in their respective  provinces.  In most of the provinces the provincial  fiscal, not having any  deputy, is required to personally direct the prosecution  of all cases, while in the Moro Province the attorney must appear and personally take charge of  the prosecution  of cases  when  the  public interests require  it, but otherwise the prosecution  of all such cases is under his supervision and control.  In these matters he, as well as the provincial fiscals, is  an officer of the court and subject to its discretion.

The provision of law authorizing and  directing the judge of the  Court of First Instance to appoint a temporary fiscal when the regular fiscals fail or refuse to discharge their duty, is not found in Act No. 83, known as "The  Provincial Government Act," except as has been added thereto by subsequent legislation.  This authority was granted  under Act No. 223, which  provided that the judge  of the  Court of First Instance for the province is authorized and required to appoint a temporary provincial fiscal under those circumstances.  The word "provincial" was dropped in the amendatory Act, No. 1699.  The phrase "The judge of the  Court of First Instance for the province is authorized and required to appoint a temporary fiscal," is general in its nature.  It applies, in the absence of explicit exceptions, to  all Courts of First  Instance outside of the city of  Manila with equal force.  There is no provision in Act No. 787, or its amendments, taking this power from the court.   If the  provincial      fiscal fails or refuses to discharge his duty in the prosecution of criminal cases, the judge of the Court of First Instance is not only authorized but is required to appoint a temporary fiscal to represent the Government in such cases. The attorney for the Moro Province and his assistant stand in the same position as a provincial fiscal with  reference to this matter.   If the Court of First Instance for the Moro Province did not have authority to  appoint a temporary fiscal when the exigencies of the  service demanded it,  it might occur that the whole court machinery, with reference to criminal cases, would be impeded on account of the refusal on the part of the attorney, or  his assistant,  to perform their duties.   The presiding judge of the Court  of First Instance for the Moro Province has the power to  cause the prosecution of criminal cases to go  forward,  and if the officer designated by law  to  prosecute such criminal cases fails  or refuses to perform his duty,  then  the  judge or court must relieve such officer temporarily and appoint a qualified person to take his place.

The motion presented by the attorney for the Moro Province on the 27th day of December,  asking the  court to annul that part of the order of December  16, 1910,  disqualifying  him from representing the  prosecution in the criminal, case against Edward Dworak was acted  upon on the 20th of the following month and granted.  The same court that issued the order annulled it. It is not a question of Judge Gale issuing the order and Judge Low annulling it; it is a question of the power of the Court of First Instance to issue and annul  said  order.   The fact that  different judges took part can not alter or diminish the power of the court - it was one and the same court.  The true test is, would Judge Gale have had authority to annul that order in case he had passed upon the motion?  We think he would have had such authority.  This being true, Judge Low  had exactly the same authority that Judge  Gale would have had. When the order of December 16 was issued the court  had certain facts before it upon which said order was based. When the court annulled this order on January 20 it might have had different and sufficient facts upon which to base this annulling order.   The special  attorney on his appointment became an officer of the court, subject to its direction. The court, if justified by the facts,  had authority, under the law, to relieve him and direct the  regular provincial attorney to take charge of the case.

The petitioner relies upon the doctrine enumerated' m the case of Orais vs. Escano (14 Phil. Rep., 208).  In this case the Court of First Instance, Hon.  Charles  E. Burritt presiding,  issued  on  the 21st of September,  1905, an order granting the administratrix permission to sell certain propn erty.   The same court, Hon. William F. Morris presiding, annulled and set aside the said order on the 24th of June, 1907.  From this  last order the defendant appealed.  The Supreme Court held that under the facts as presented the Court of First Instance erred  in setting aside said order. That part of the  opinion which refers  to  the facts is as follows (p. 212):

"It is not shown that the purchaser of the  property, Jacinta Escano, had  received any notice of the motion to set aside the sale.  Nearly two years had elapsed between the sale and the  motion.   The sale was made under an order of the court.   The purchaser  had  a  right  to believe that the court had complied with the law and that she had, therefore,  obtained  a good title.  Whether she had obtained  a good  title or not she certainly was  entitled to  notice before any action was taken by the court  by which she should be deprived of her title."

It is true that the court, continuing, said:

"Judges of coordinate jurisdiction, acting within the same jurisdiction, should not annul or set aside orders made by other judges  of equal  jurisdiction,  until  some new fact or condition  is presented.  The parties should  be  compelled to take their  exception and wait for a final decision, and if not then corrected, to  appeal  from alleged illegal orders. As a general rule, a judge has no power to review, on the same facts, the decisions of a coordinate judge, the remedy being by appeal."

The  decision of the  court rests upon the facts as above stated, and not upon these propositions of law.  The judge who issued the  annulling  order  succeeded the judge  who issued  the original order, as presiding judge of the court wherein the case was pending, and, therefore, had precisely the same authority and jurisdiction with regard  to  that case as his predecessor would have had in the event he had continued as  presiding judge until the  motion praying the issuance of the annulling order was submitted.   It was one and the  same court that issued both  orders.   If Judge Burritt and Judge Norris had been holding court in Leyte at the  same time,  and if one had issued the  order  and the other annulled it while they were both acting in the same province, then the question might have been different.

The  facts as alleged  in the petition in the case at bar are not sufficient  to justify this court  in issuing the preliminary injunction.  In reaching this conclusion we have unavoidably discussed and practically decided the petitioner's right to his principal remedy.  In other words, we have held  that under the law the Court of First Instance for the Moro Province has the  same power,  with reference to the questions under  consideration, as courts of  other provinces have, and that the court had authority, under the law, to issue the two orders  of December 16 and January 20.  The  allegations in the  complaint do not show such an abuse of discretion as would  warrant us in issuing an  order to show cause  and allow this case to go forward.

The  preliminary injunction prayed for is,  therefore, denied, and if  an  amended  petition is not filed within sixty days, the case will be dismissed, with  costs  de  oficio.   So ordered.

Arellano, C. J., Carson and Moreland, JJ., concur.