Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 113 views

    People Vs Labao

    Uploaded by

    Daf Mariano
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the validity of a judgment signed and promulgated by a judge after retirement. The Court ruled the judgment null and void as a judge loses all authority to decide cases upon retirement. It remanded the case to the lower court for a new decision to be prepared and promulgated by a sitting judge. The key issues were whether a retired judge could validly sign or promulgate a decision after leaving the bench.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Labao

    Uploaded by

    Daf Mariano
    113 views5 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the validity of a judgment signed and promulgated by a judge after retirement. The Court ruled the judgment null and void as a judge loses all authority to decide cases upon retirement. It remanded the case to the lower court for a new decision to be prepared and promulgated by a sitting judge. The key issues were whether a retired judge could validly sign or promulgate a decision after leaving the bench.

    Original Title

    People vs Labao

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the validity of a judgment signed and promulgated by a judge after retirement. The Court ruled the judgment null and void as a judge loses all authority to decide cases upon retirement. It remanded the case to the lower court for a new decision to be prepared and promulgated by a sitting judge. The key issues were whether a retired judge could validly sign or promulgate a decision after leaving the bench.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    113 views5 pages

    People Vs Labao

    Uploaded by

    Daf Mariano
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the validity of a judgment signed and promulgated by a judge after retirement. The Court ruled the judgment null and void as a judge loses all authority to decide cases upon retirement. It remanded the case to the lower court for a new decision to be prepared and promulgated by a sitting judge. The key issues were whether a retired judge could validly sign or promulgate a decision after leaving the bench.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 5
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key takeaways from the case are that a judge loses authority to decide cases after retirement and that a decision signed and promulgated after retirement is null and void.

    The issue in the case was the validity of a decision penned by a judge over two months after he had retired.

    The Supreme Court ruled that the decision penned by the retired judge was null and void as he lost authority to decide cases after retirement.

    G.R. No.

    102826 11/3/20, 12:37 PM

    G.R. No. 102826

    Republic of the Philippines


    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    FIRST DIVISION

    G.R. No. 102826. March 17, 1993.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO LABAO


    alias KA RUDY, and CESAR VILLANUEVA Y MIGUEL, accused-appellants.

    SYLLABUS

    1. REMEDIAL LAW; JUDGMENT; REQUISITE FOR VALIDITY THEREOF. —


    We have consistently ruled that for a judgment to be valid, it must be duly
    signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who signed it.
    Thus, a decision penned by a judge after his retirement cannot be validly
    promulgated; it cannot acquire a binding effect as it is null and void.

    DECISION

    BELLOSILLO, J p:

    It is settled doctrine long cherished since 1917 1 that a decision cannot be validly
    prepared and signed, much less promulgated, by a judge after he has retired.
    This notwithstanding, Judge Florentino F. Calica of the Regional Trial Court of

    https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_102826_1993.html Page 1 of 5
    G.R. No. 102826 11/3/20, 12:37 PM

    Tuao, Cagayan, Br. 11, rendered the judgment under review two and a half (2-1/2)
    months after he left the Bench and his successor-in-office, Judge Hilarion L.
    Aquino, promulgated the same two (2) months thereafter.

    In the case before Us, accused-appellants Rodolfo Labao and Cesar Villanueva
    were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Tuao, Cagayan, with the crime
    of robbery with homicide. After pleading not guilty on arraignment, the case
    was tried until it was submitted for decision before Judge Calica on 30 April 1991
    (Crim. Case No. XI-202-T).

    Earlier on 12 April 1991, Judge Calica applied for optional retirement under R.A.
    910, as amended by R.A. 5095 and P.D. 1438. As required under S.C. Circular No.
    16 dated 2 December 1986, he specified in his application 16 June 1991 as the date
    of effectivity of his retirement. For the guidance of all members, officials and
    employees of the judiciary, We quote hereunder pertinent portions of S.C.
    Circular No. 16 in filing applications for optional retirement:

    "1. All applications for optional retirement shall specify the date of effectivity
    thereof and not leave the same effective 'upon approval of the Court.'

    "2. All such applications, together with all the necessary documents in support
    thereof, shall be filed with the Office of the Court Administrator at least two (2)
    months prior to its effective date, either personally or by special delivery.

    "3. Within one (1) month following the filing of his application, the applicant
    must inquire and verify from the Court Administrator as to the status of his
    application.

    "4. When the specified date of retirement is reached, without the applicant
    receiving any notice of approval or denial of his application, he shall cease
    working and discharging his functions, unless directed otherwise" (emphasis
    supplied).

    https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_102826_1993.html Page 2 of 5
    G.R. No. 102826 11/3/20, 12:37 PM

    On 30 May 1991, We approved the retirement of Judge Calica effective 16 June


    1991, the date he had earlier indicated in his application. Whether he received
    Our resolution approving his optional retirement prior to its effectivity is of no
    moment considering that under Circular 16 he was supposed to inquire and
    verify the status of his application for retirement from the Court Administrator
    within one (1) month following the filing of his application (par. 3), and that
    should he not receive any notice of approval or denial of his application on the
    requested date of effectivity of his retirement, he should have automatically
    ceased working or discharging his functions unless directed otherwise (par. 4).

    Strangely, on 4 September 1991 or about two and a half (2-1/2) months after the
    effectivity of his retirement, Judge Calica decided Crim. Case No. XI-202-T
    finding accused-appellants guilty of robbery with homicide and sentencing
    them to reclusion perpetua. On 5 November 1991, Judge Hilarion L. Aquino,
    who was designated Acting Presiding Judge of Br. 11 vacated by the retiring
    Judge under Administrative Order No. 87-91, promulgated the decision of 4
    September 1991 written by Judge Calica.

    The only issue to be resolved in the instant appeal by the accused is the validity
    of the decision penned by Judge Calica on 4 September 1991 after he had retired
    from office on 16 June 1991. A corollary issue may also be raised: assuming that
    Judge Calica signed his decision before his effective date of retirement, could it
    have been validly promulgated afterwards by his successor in office? In this
    regard, even the Solicitor General prays in his "Manifestation in Lieu of
    Appellee's Brief" that the decision of the retired judge be set aside and that the
    record of the case be remanded to the trial court for the preparation and
    promulgation of a new decision.

    We have consistently ruled that for a judgment to be valid, it must be duly


    signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge who signed it 2 .
    Thus, a decision penned by a judge after his retirement cannot be validly

    https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_102826_1993.html Page 3 of 5
    G.R. No. 102826 11/3/20, 12:37 PM

    promulgated; it cannot acquire a binding effect as it is null and void 3 . Verily,


    when Judge Calica optionally retired on 16 June 1991 he ceased to be a judge of
    the court where he sat in judgment. Consequently, with him also "retired" all his
    authority to decide any case, i.e., to write, sign and promulgate the decision
    thereon. In other words, he had lost entirely his power and authority to act on
    all cases assigned to him prior to his retirement.

    WHEREFORE, the decision of Judge Florentino F. Calica in Crim. Case No XI-


    202-T is declared null and void having been issued and promulgated after his
    retirement. This case is ordered remanded to the court of origin for
    adjudication and promulgation of a new decision.

    SO ORDERED.

    Cruz, Griño-Aquino and Quiason, JJ., concur.

    Footnotes

    1. See Luna v. Rodriguez, 37 Phil. 186 (1917). While the Luna case may have lost its
    earlier relevance due to the much later case of Valentin v. Sta. Maria, No. L-
    30158, 17 January 1974, 55 SCRA 4, which formally abandoned the doctrine laid
    down in People v. Soria, No. L-25175, 1 March 1968, 22 SCRA 948; Ong Siu v.
    Paredes, No. L-21638, 26 July 1966, 17 SCRA 661; and, Garchitorena v. Crescini, 37
    Phil. 675, which dealt principally with the question of whether a judge
    permanently transferred to a court of equal jurisdiction may still decide cases
    heard by him in his former sala, there is no deviation from the authoritative
    norm that a judge who has retired has no legal authority to promulgate a
    decision, let alone write one as in the present case.

    2. Lao v. To-Chip, G. R. No. 76597, 26 February 1988, 158 SCRA 243; People v. So,
    101 Phil. 1257 (1957); Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Intermediate
    Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 73777-78, 12 September 1990, 189 SCRA 433.

    https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_102826_1993.html Page 4 of 5
    G.R. No. 102826 11/3/20, 12:37 PM

    3. See Jandayan v. Ruiz, No. L-37471, 28 January 1980, 95 SCRA 562; Jimenez v.
    Republic, No. L-24529, 17 February 1968, 22 SCRA 622; Solis v. Court of Appeals,
    Nos. L-29777-83, 26 March 1971, 38 SCRA 53.

    The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

    https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/mar1993/gr_102826_1993.html Page 5 of 5

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy