Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Intermediate Appellate Court
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute involved a decision by a division of the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The IAC had previously rendered a decision in cases involving Philippine Knitting Mills, Inc., et al. and Spouses Carlos C. Cruz, et al. The petitioner, The Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Solidbank), is challenging a subsequent resolution by the IAC. 2. Procedural History: The IAC rendered a decision, purportedly signed by its ponente, the late Justice Simeon M. Gopengco, and concurred in by other justices. This decision was initially indicated as promulgated on July 19, 1985. However, subsequent records, including the Division Clerk of Court's certification and logbook entries, revealed that the decision was actually promulgated on July 23, 1985, three days after Justice Gopengco's death on July 20, 1985. A resolution by the same IAC division declared the decision void due to tardy promulgation, citing precedent that a judgment must be promulgated during the incumbency of the judge whose signature appears thereon. 3. The Petition: The petitioner, Solidbank, filed a petition for review, arguing that the rule regarding promulgation after the ponente's death should not apply to collegiate courts. Solidbank contended that even with Justice Gopengco's death, the decision retained the support of the remaining three members of the division, constituting a majority. The petition sought to overturn the IAC's resolution that declared its earlier decision void.
Issue(s)
Whether a decision promulgated after the death of the ponente is valid in a collegiate court. Whether the resolution of the respondent court declaring the decision void was proper.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The resolution of the respondent court declaring the decision void is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of a decision promulgated after the death of the ponente in a collegiate court: The Supreme Court held that there is no reason to adopt a different rule for collegiate courts compared to single courts. A decision becomes binding only upon valid promulgation. The Court reiterated the principle that a judge who is no longer a member of the court at the time a decision is signed and promulgated cannot validly take part in it. The true decision of the Court is that which is signed by the Justices and duly promulgated. Before promulgation, there is no decision of the Court to speak of, and any vote cast is subject to confirmation at the time of signing. The ponente must remain a member of the collegiate court at the time of promulgation because, prior to that moment, the ponente has the privilege of changing his opinion for the consideration of his colleagues. This privilege cannot be exercised if the ponente is no longer in office. Therefore, the ponencia in this case died with the ponente and could not be validly promulgated thereafter. On the propriety of the respondent court's resolution: The respondent court correctly declared the decision void because it was promulgated after the death of the ponente, Justice Simeon M. Gopengco. The Court found that the promulgation on July 23, 1985, occurred after Justice Gopengco's death on July 20, 1985. The internal rules of the respondent court, specifically Article V, Section E, of its Rules of Internal Operating Procedures, mandate that promulgation must be done not later than the next working day after a decision or resolution has been signed and filed by all concerned Justices. The date of promulgation must be annotated and signed by the division clerk. The fact that the decision was signed by other justices does not cure the defect of promulgation after the ponente's demise, as the ponente's continued incumbency at the time of promulgation is crucial for the exercise of his privilege to modify his opinion.
Main Doctrine
A decision promulgated after the death of the ponente is void, even in collegiate courts, as the ponente must be incumbent at the time of promulgation to exercise the privilege of changing his opinion.