Case Name: Santiago, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Municipal Court of Caguas et al., Respondents and Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1918-04-15
Citations: 26 P.R. 266
Docket Number: No. 1803
Parties: Santiago, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Municipal Court of Caguas et al., Respondents and Appellees.
Judges: Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, del Toro and Hutchison concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 26
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Santiago, Petitioner and Appellant, v. Municipal Court of Caguas et al., Respondents and Appellees.
Appeal from the District. Court of Humacao in Mandamus Proceedings.
No. 1803.
Decided April 15, 1918.
Mandaiius-Execution.-When a court has ordered a stay of execution of a judgment a writ of mandamus does not lie to command that execution be proceeded with, for the sole object of this extraordinary remedy is to enforce the performance of an act.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. Enrique Campillo for the appellant.
Messrs. Rafael Arce and M. Tons Soto for the appellees.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Aldrey
delivered the opinion of the court.
The most important and fundamental of the many reasons why the petition of appellant Miguel Santiago for a writ of mandamus to the Municipal Court of Caguas should not have been granted and why the judgment of the District Court of Humacao denying the petition should be affirmed is that.as the municipal judge disposed of the matter submitted to him, whether his decision was right or wrong it cannot be reviewed in the proceeding chosen by Santiago for the purpose of correcting the error committed by said judge, if indeed his decision was erroneous.
The municipal judge was ashed to stay the execution of a certain judgment and it was so ordered after hearing the adverse party. The purpose of the appellant by his petition for a writ of mandamus is to secure an order commanding the said judge to execute the judgment. In other words, to set aside his former order staying execution and enter another contrary in effect.
This is clearly not the province of a writ of mandamus, which is to compel a certain person to perform some act within Ms powers or duties.
The petition is so out of place that it is not necessary to say more or to refer to the jurisprudence in which the doctrine upon which we base this decision is clearly laid down.
The judgment appealed from should be
Affirmed.
Chief Justice Hernández and Justices Wolf, del Toro and Hutchison concurred.