Case Name: Quiñones v. The District Court
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1906-12-07
Citations: 11 P.R. 415
Docket Number: No. 22
Parties: Quiñones v. The District Court.
Judges: 
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 11
Pages: 415–417

Head Matter:
Quiñones v. The District Court.
Application for a Writ of Certiorari.
No. 22.
Decided December 7, 1906.
CERTIORARI — Acts Performed by Marshal. — The wit of certiorari will issue only from a superior court to an inferior court and never against the marshal of the court to review the proceedings conducted by him, because only the proceedings of a court are subject to review by virtue of the writ of certiorari.
Id. — Gases in Weigh Petitioner Was Not a Party to the Proceeding.- — The writ of certiorari will not issue in a* case where the petitioner is not a party to the suit or proceeding the review of which is sought.
Id. — Ordinary Remedy. — The writ of certiorari will not issue where there is an ordinary remedy at law for the reparation of the injury suffered.
The facts are stated in the order.
Mr. José G. Torres for petitioner.

Opinion:
Order of the court:
With respect to the writ of certiorari applied for against the marshal of the Municipal Court of Vega Baja, such writ does not lie for the review of the proceedings had before the marshal of a court, as the act authorizing writs of certiorari only provides that said writs be issued by a superior to an inferior court, and the proceedings before a marshal in the discharge of his functions must not be confused with the proceedings had in a court, the latter only being subject to review by virtue of the writ of certiorari; nor does the writ of certiorari applied for lie against the first section of the District Court of San Juan to review proceedings had therein in the mandamus case to which the petition refers, because the petitioner in this case was not a party to said mandamus case, and, consequently, lacks legal capacity to apply to this court to review and correct under the-writ of certiorari the errors which may have been committed in said case; and, finally, the writ of certiorari being an extraordinary remedy, recourse should not be had thereto in cases, in which an adequate and legal remedy exists, and the inter-venor or petitioner in this case has such remedy against the-execution creditors, Messrs. Forteza, Alonzo & Co., who-furnished a bond in the sum of $600 as is deduced from the petition itself; and furthermore, as the decision rendered by the First Section of the District Court of San Juan in the-mandamus case referred to is a decision of a final character,, the marshal of the Municipal Court of Vega Baja could have; appealed therefrom to this court, thus providing another ordinary and legal remedy.
For the reasons stated the application for the writ of certiorari is denied.