Title
Lopez vs. Ferdez
Case
A.M. No. 2124-MJ
Decision Date
Sep 11, 1980
Judge Fernandez reprimanded for ignorance of law after modifying judgment post-appeal perfection; administrative complaint dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 2124-MJ)

Background of the Case

The original judgment rendered by Judge Fernandez on January 8, 1979, convicted Carlos Lopez of grave threats, sentencing him to 1 month and 21 days of arresto mayor and a fine of P50. Following this, a motion for reconsideration was filed by the private prosecutor, claiming that the penalty set was incorrect and requesting a modification to increase it in accordance with Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code. The judge issued a modification order on January 22, 1979, increasing the penalty to 2 months and 1 day of arresto mayor after a hearing and prior to resolving Lopez’s appeal, which had been filed that same day.

Legal Issues

The central issue revolves around the timing and validity of the modification of the judgment. Lopez contends that the judge acted with "grave abuse of discretion" by modifying the penalty after the appeal had been perfected. Respondent Judge Fernandez argued that the appeal was not perfected until January 29, 1979, thereby maintaining that he retained jurisdiction to modify the judgment.

Applicable Laws

The Revised Rules of Court specifies that a judgment may be modified or set aside before it has become final or an appeal has been perfected. Per Section 3, Rule 122, an appeal is deemed perfected upon the filing of a notice of appeal and service to the opposing party. The Supreme Court has established precedent indicating that a trial court loses jurisdiction over a case upon the perfection of an appeal.

Findings

The Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the notice of appeal was effectively served on the adverse party or his attorney as required. Consequently, it upheld the view that Judge Fernandez did not violate any procedural rules grossly enough to warrant severe disciplinary action. The principle that a judge cannot be held administratively accountable for an isolated erroneous ruling was reinforced, relying on established jurisprudence indicating that such errors are correctabl

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.