Title
Garchitorena vs. Crescini
Case
G.R. No. L-12945
Decision Date
Feb 16, 1918
Election protest decided by a judge who had vacated office; Supreme Court ruled decision void due to lack of authority, remanding for new ruling.
election contest
governor
null and void judgment
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-12945)

Factual Background

An election for governor of the Province of Ambos Camarines was held on June 6, 1916. After canvass, the provincial board of canvassers declared the respondent elected on June 21, 1916. The petitioner filed a protest against the election in the Court of First Instance on July 1, 1916. The trial proceeded with notice, joinder of issue, presentation of evidence, and a final submission to the trial court. A decision was prepared and filed with the clerk on April 27, 1917, and notice of its filing was given to the parties on April 30, 1917.

Procedural History

The Court of First Instance rendered a decision adverse to the petitioner and that decision was appealed. During the pendency of the appeal the appellee moved to increase the bond given by the protestant in the lower court to P10,000 to cover extraordinary costs and expenses incurred during the protest. The appellant moved to declare the lower court decision null and to remand the cause to the court below for the rendition of a lawful and valid judgment. Both motions were submitted to the Supreme Court for resolution.

The Parties' Contentions

The appellant contended that the decision filed on April 27, 1917 was void because the judge who prepared and filed it was neither a judge de jure nor a judge de facto at that time. The appellant relied on the fact that the judge had accepted appointment as Director of the Bureau of Lands and had taken the oath of that office on March 31, 1917, while a successor auxiliary judge had qualified and entered upon performance of duties on March 28, 1917. The appellee sought an increase of the bond to P10,000 to cover the claimed extraordinary expenses.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court framed and addressed whether the decision filed April 27, 1917 by the judge who had accepted another public office and whose successor had qualified was valid. The Court also considered the procedural consequence of that determination upon the motion to increase the bond.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Court examined the chronological facts showing that the judge who filed the decision had accepted appointment as Director of Lands, had taken the oath on March 31, 1917, and had begun to draw the salary of that office from March 28, 1917. The record also showed that Candelario Borja had been appointed auxiliary judge, had taken the oath March 16, 1917, and had actually entered upon the duties of auxiliary judge of the province on March 28, 1917. The Court reasoned that, because another judge was actually acting in the office for nearly a month before the promulgation of the questioned decision, the judge who filed the decision could not be considered a judge de jure. The Court further held that he could not be considered a judge de facto because a de jure judge was actually discharging the functions of the office. The Court cited authority supporting the proposition that there cannot be a judge de facto when a de jure judge is in actual performance of duties and that a person who has vacated judicial office by accepting another office and entering upon its duties acts without color of right in attempting subsequently to dispose of unfinished business. The Court relied on prior Philippine authority, notably Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, and on numerous foreign precedents, including McCahon vs. Leavenworth County Commissioners, Powers vs. Commonwealth, Hallgren vs. Campbell, Baker vs. Hobgood, and others, to state the controlling principle that a judgment rendered by a judge after he has ceased to be judge and who has vacated his office will be set aside. The Court further observed that where the term of office has terminated and the successor has qualified and ceased the predecessor's actions to dispose of unfinished business are void, citing authorities such as Cain vs. Libby, State vs. Perkins, and United States vs. Alexander.

Ruling of the Court

The Supreme Court revoked, annulled, and set aside the decision and

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms