Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12945)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-12945)
Facts:
Andres Garchitorena v. Manuel Crescini, G.R. No. 12945, February 16, 1918, the Supreme Court En Banc, Johnson, J., writing for the Court. The parties are Andres Garchitorena (petitioner and appellee) and Manuel Crescini (respondent and appellant). The case arose from an election contest for Governor of the Province of Ambos Camarines.On June 6, 1916 a gubernatorial election was held; after canvass the provincial board of canvassers declared Crescind elected on June 21, 1916. Garchitorena filed a protest in the Court of First Instance of Ambos Camarines on July 1, 1916. The protest was tried: notice was given, issues were joined, the parties presented evidence, and the cause was submitted. A decision was prepared and filed with the clerk of the Court of First Instance on April 27, 1917, and notice was given to the parties on April 30, 1917.
During the pendency of the appeal to this Court, Garchitorena moved that the bond given by the protestant below be increased to P10,000 to cover extraordinary costs incurred during the protest. Crescind moved to have the lower-court decision declared null and the cause remanded for a lawful judgment on the ground that the judge who prepared and filed the April 27, 1917 decision was not, at that time, a judge either de jure or de facto. The contested factual background supporting that motion was that the judge who filed the decision had earlier been an auxiliary judge of the Court of First Instance but had been appointed Director of the Bureau of Lands (appointment dated January 27, 1917), took the oath as Director on March 31, 1917, and began to draw salary as Director from March 28, 1917; meanwhile Candelario Borja was appointed auxiliary judge for the Fourth Group (including Ambos Camarines), took the oath March 16, 1917, and entered upon duty March 28, 1917. The parties submitted the motions to this Court while the appeal was pending.
The Court considered whether the judge who promulgated the April 27, 1917 decision had vacated his judicial office and therefore lacked authority to render the judgment, and whether the bond increase motion should be decided by this Court or referred back. The appeal was resolved by this Court's decision announced February 16, 1918.
Issues:
- Was the decision of the Court of First Instance filed April 27, 1917 void because the judge who promulgated it had ceased to be a judge de jure or de facto?
- Should the petition to increase the bond to P10,000 be granted by this Court or otherwise disposed of?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)