Lao v. To-Chip
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Leticia Abianda To-Chip filed a complaint against petitioner Tomas Lao for violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 (squatting). The Provincial Fiscal dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. Petitioner Lao filed an action for damages against the To-Chips, alleging he was publicly shamed by the filing of the complaint. The trial court awarded Lao moral damages and attorney's fees. Procedural History: Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On August 1, 1986, the CA reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed the complaint. Petitioner Lao moved for reconsideration, arguing the CA decision was invalid because two of the three justices who rendered it had been "effectively disempowered to sit thereon as of July 31, 1986" due to the court's reorganization. The CA denied the motion, stating the justices held office in a hold-over capacity until their replacements took their oath on August 1, 1986, at 2:00 PM. The questioned decision was promulgated at 11:45 AM on August 1, 1986. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning the CA's jurisdiction to promulgate the decision on August 1, 1986, alleging there was no existing quorum.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to promulgate its decision on August 1, 1986, given the reorganization of the court and the status of two of its justices. Whether the justices who were not re-appointed in the reorganization could validly act in a hold-over capacity until their replacements took their oath of office.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, declared the Court of Appeals' decision of August 1, 1986, null and void, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for adjudication and promulgation of a new decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals to promulgate the decision on August 1, 1986: The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioner that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction. Executive Order No. 33, issued on July 28, 1986, amended sections of the Judiciary Act of 1980 and renamed the Intermediate Appellate Court as the Court of Appeals. Section 6 of this order amended Section 11 of the Judiciary Act, specifying that three members constitute a quorum for a division and their unanimous vote is necessary for a decision. The records showed that President Corazon C. Aquino accepted the resignations of the justices of the Court of Appeals on July 30, 1986. Justices Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr. and Ma. Rosario Quetulio-Losa were informed of the acceptance of their resignations on July 31, 1986, and August 1, 1986, respectively. Therefore, at the time the decision was promulgated at 11:45 AM on August 1, 1986, these two justices had already ceased to be members of the Court of Appeals. Their authority to act as justices had been lost due to the presidential acceptance of their resignations. The fact that their replacements took their oath of office later that afternoon was immaterial. The crucial point was that the necessary quorum of three members was no longer present. To uphold the CA's position would abet, rather than avoid, a disorderly administration of justice. The Supreme Court reiterated its consistent ruling that a judgment must be signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge or justice who signed it; otherwise, it is null and void. This principle, applied to lower court judges, should be applied with equal force to higher court justices who have resigned. The promulgation of a decision after a justice has effectively resigned is considered null and void. On whether the justices who were not re-appointed in the reorganization could validly act in a hold-over capacity until their replacements took their oath of office: The Supreme Court held that the authority of Justices Gaviola, Jr. and Quetulio-Losa to act as justices had been lost due to the presidential acceptance of their resignations. The fact that their replacements took their oath of office later that afternoon was immaterial. The crucial point was that the necessary quorum of three members was no longer present.
Main Doctrine
A decision promulgated by a division of the Court of Appeals is null and void if, at the time of promulgation, two of the three justices constituting the division had already ceased to be members of the court due to the acceptance of their resignations, even if their replacements had not yet taken their oath of office.