Case Summary (G.R. No. 113296)
Judicial reorganization and subsequent assignments
During the judiciary reorganization under the Aquino administration, Judge Agton was transferred to a different RTC branch within the same judicial region (assigned to Branch 6, Mati, Davao Oriental). Judge Romeo Marasigan assumed office as presiding judge of Branch XVI on February 3, 1987. Records indicate Judge Agton’s appointment history and subsequent designation to another branch and eventual retirement, as well as Judge Marasigan’s assumption of Branch XVI.
Submission for decision and the contested judgment
The record shows that the parties filed memoranda and that the case was submitted for decision in March 1987, a time at which Judge Marasigan was already presiding in Branch XVI. Nonetheless, a decision bearing the signature of Judge Agton was rendered in favor of petitioner on June 9, 1987. Private respondent moved for reconsideration; Judge Marasigan denied the motion in an order dated March 1, 1988. Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which nullified Judge Agton’s decision on the ground that at the time he rendered judgment he was neither judge de jure nor judge de facto of RTC Branch XVI, and remanded the case to the trial court.
Issue before the Supreme Court
The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether Judge Agton’s decision was valid despite his reassignment at the time of promulgation.
Rule on submission for decision and initial assessment of validity
The Court recognized the controlling rule that a case is deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the rules or by the court. Records reflected that submission occurred in March 1987 after memoranda were filed, when Judge Marasigan was already presiding in Branch XVI. On that basis, the Court acknowledged that prima facie the case had been submitted to Judge Marasigan and not to Judge Agton, which initially suggested that Judge Agton’s later promulgation could be tainted with impropriety.
Curing of any incipient defect and presumption of regularity
Despite the initial impropriety, the Supreme Court emphasized that Judge Marasigan thereafter acted on the motion for reconsideration (filed against Judge Agton’s decision) and denied it, thereby adopting Judge Agton’s decision in toto. The Court treated this subsequent action by the incumbent presiding judge as curing any incipient defect in Judge Agton’s promulgation. The ruling also relied on the presumption that magistrates regularly perform their official duties, a presumption which was not rebutted by contrary evidence in the record.
Signature and promulgation requirement; effect of reassignment
The Court reiterated the rule that for a judgment to be binding it must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge whose signature appears thereon. In line with the Court En Banc resolution implementing B.P. Blg. 129 (February 10, 1983), the Court observed that it is sufficient that the judge who pens the decision remains an incumbent judge of the same court at the time the decision is promulgated, even if assigned to a different branch. The decision also stressed
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 113296)
Case Citation and Panel
- Reported at 348 Phil. 240, Third Division, G.R. No. 113296, January 16, 1998.
- Decision authored by Francisco, J.
- Concurrence by Narvasa, C.J. (Chairman), Romero, and Panganiban, JJ.
- The Court reviewed a decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had nullified a trial court decision and remanded the case to the lower court.
Parties
- Petitioner: ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. (also referred to as petitioner or DASUDECO's creditor).
- Private respondent: Abundio T. Merced, doing business under the name and style of Southern Engineering Works.
- Respondent: Court of Appeals (as the appealed-from tribunal).
Nature of the Action and Relief Sought
- Original action filed: Complaint for a sum of money, attorney's fees and damages.
- Primary legal question presented to the Supreme Court: Whether the decision penned by Judge Roque A. Agton is valid.
Facts — Procedural Origins and Trial Court Proceedings
- On October 6, 1980, petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money, attorney's fees and damages before the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Davao City; the case was raffled to Branch XVI.
- Pre-trial activity:
- Pre-trial was conducted initially by Judge Pacita Canizares-Nye and later by Judges Alejandro Siazon and Cristeto Dinopol.
- The pre-trial ended on January 20, 1983 while Judge Nye was still presiding.
- A pre-trial order dated August 16, 1984 was issued by Judge Dinopol.
- Trial hearings and judge participation:
- On November 20, 1984 Judge Renato Fuentes heard the evidence for petitioner and private respondent.
- Cross-examination of the private respondent was heard on August 28, 1985, and presentation of parties’ rebuttal and surrebuttal evidence were heard by Judge Roque Agton, who assumed office on August 1, 1985.
- Judicial reorganization and transfers:
- During the judicial reorganization under the Aquino administration, Judge Agton was transferred to another branch of the RTC but remained within the same Judicial Region (assigned to RTC Branch 6 in Mati, Davao Oriental).
- Judge Romeo D. Marasigan assumed office on February 3, 1987 and was assigned to Branch XVI.
- Submission and decision:
- The case was submitted for decision sometime in March 1987 after the parties filed their memoranda as required; at that time Judge Marasigan was already presiding in Branch XVI.
- On June 9, 1987, a decision penned by Judge Agton was rendered in favor of petitioner.
- Private respondent moved for reconsideration; the motion was denied in an order dated March 1, 1988 issued by Judge Marasigan.
- Appeal to Court of Appeals:
- Private respondent appealed to the CA, which nullified Judge Agton’s decision on the ground that at the time he rendered the judgment he was neither judge de jure nor judge de facto of RTC Branch XVI, and remanded the case to the lower court.
- Petition to the Supreme Court:
- The Supreme Court considered a petition raising the sole issue whether Judge Agton’s decision was valid.
Factual Particulars Concerning the Underlying Claim (Footnote Material)
- Background commercial transaction:
- DASUDECO (Davao Sugar Central Company) contracted respondent Merced to repair its trailers.
- Merced purchased vehicular parts on credit from petitioner ABC with agreed payment terms: payments within 30 days after each purchase, 12% interest on amounts due, and a 25% attorney’s fee in case of default.
- Private respondent admitted an outstanding balance of P99,217.15 arising from those purchases.
- Upon demand for payment, private respondent refused, claiming the accounts had not yet matured. (Rollo, p. 16).
Records Concerning Judicial Appointments and Assignments (Office of the Court Administrator Material)
- Judge Roque A. Agton:
- Appointed Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 16, Davao City on July 19, 1985; took oath July 25, 1985; assumed duties August 1, 1985.
- During the judicial reorganization on November 3, 1986, he was reappointed; took oath February 1, 1987; assumed duties February 4, 1987.
- Later designated Executive Judge and Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 7, Baganga, Davao Oriental pursuant to Administrative Order #26 dated March 3, 1988.
- Retired (compulsory) on December 25, 1995.
- Judge Romeo D. Marasigan:
- Appointed during the judicial reorganization on November 3, 1986 as judge of RTC Branch 16, Davao City; assumed office February 3, 1987.
- Held the position at the time of the Supreme Court decision “up to the present” as recorded.
- Previously served as Municipal Judge of Matanao, Davao (appointed July 3, 1967).
Procedural Rule Applied — Submission for Decision
- Controlling submission rule:
- A case is deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules or by the court.
- Records show submission occurred sometime in March 1987 after the parties filed their memoranda, at which time Judge Marasigan was presiding in Branch XVI.