G.R. No. 111610
February 27, 2002
CASE PRINCIPLE
A decision penned by a judge after his retirement cannot be validly promulgated. In like manner, a decision penned by a judge during his incumbency cannot be validly promulgated after his retirement.
A void judgment never acquires finality since a void judgment is no judgment at all.
FACTS
Petitioner Romeo Nazareno and his wife, Eliza Nazareno, were charged with Serious Physical Injuries. After trial on the merits, the said court set the promulgation of judgment for April 24, 1986, but the same was postponed due to petitioner’s filing of a motion to re-open the case on the ground of non-presentation of a vital witness. However, the said motion was denied. Petitioner brought the matter to the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, on April 15, 1988, Acting Municipal Trial Court Judge Icasiano, Jr. promulgated the decision dated November 8, 1985 of Judge Manuel C. Diosomito acquitting Eliza Nazareno but convicting the petitioner as charged. In this petition, petitioner alleged mainly that the decision is void since at the time of the promulgation of the decision, Judge Diosomito who signed the subject decision, had already retired from office.
ISSUE
Whether or not a decision penned by the Judge during his incumbency but was promulgated after his retirement is valid.
RULING
No.
In the 1917 case of Luna v. Rodriguez and Angeles, the Supreme Court provides that a judgment promulgated after the judge who signed the decision has ceased to hold office is not valid and binding. The doctrine was reiterated in the case of People v. Labao which states 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.
In like manner, a decision penned by a judge during his incumbency cannot be validly promulgated after his retirement. When a judge retired all his authority to decide any case, i.e., to write, sign and promulgate the decision thereon also “retired” with him. In other words, he had lost entirely his power and authority to act on all cases assigned to him prior to his retirement.
In the instant case, therefore, Judge Icasiano, Jr., could not validly promulgate the decision of another judge, Judge Diosomito, who has long “retired” from the service. The decision dated November 8, 1985 of Judge Diosomito, as promulgated by Judge Icasiano, Jr., in Criminal Case No. 2335 of the Municipal Trial Court of Naic, Cavite is a void judgment.
Hence, the decision was a void judgment.