Legados vs. de GuzmanFacts:Before the passage of BP 129, in 1911 a case was decided which does not grant jurisdictionto MTC on cases involving simple seduction (even thougharresto menor !ecauseof thelia!ilit" imposed to the o#ender to support the o#spring without ta$ing into account variouspossi!ilities (e%g% &'( there will !e an o#spring, etc%%)nthecaseat !ar, long!eforethepassageof B%P% Big% 129, 5 acomplaint for simpleseduction 6 was*ledwiththethenCit"Court of +ipolog(Branch11, I believeMTCni) against ,ilmor )cao% Thecomplaint was presented!"theo#endedgirl, Cora-egados, represented!"hermother, .osa, andwassu!se/uentl"madethe!asisof aninformation*led!"the0irst1ssistant Cit" 0iscal% 8 1fter entering a plea of not guilt" on arraignment, Icao moved toquash the informationon the ground that the Cit" Court had no jurisdiction to tr" theo#ense, and the *scal who *led the information !ad no authorit" to do so% Motion denied% )cao thereupon instituted an action of prohi!ition 9 with the then Court of 0irst )nstance of2am!oanga Cit" 10 which, in due course,granted the petitionand permanentl" enjoinedtheproceedingsintheCit" Court% )tisthis'rderwhichis now assailed in thisCourtashaving !een rendered with grave a!use of discretion amounting to lac$ of jurisdiction%Issue: &hether or not the .TC ma" enjoin MTC from proceeding with the case due to lac$ ofjurisdiction%Held: (o more, !ecause of BP 129 (remem!er remedial laws are curative% Thewrit of prohi!itionwas, of course, correctl"issued!"therespondent 3udge, !eingconsistent withthedoctrineo!tainingat thetime, i%e%, that aninferior court hadnojurisdiction over the crime of simple seduction% But, as alread" pointed out, the doctrine hassince !een changed% (ow, the o#ense is e4plicitl" declared !" law to !e within the e4clusiveoriginal jurisdiction, no longer of Courts of 0irst )nstance (since a!olished and replaced !".egional Trial Courts, !ut of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, and MunicipalCircuit Trial Courts%