Marchadesch v. Yepes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Juanita Cinco Vda. de Yepes filed a complaint against Spouses Jose and Ester Marchadesch, Felix Villamor, and Fr. Manuel Gomez for ownership, possession, and annulment of documents concerning a parcel of land. Respondent alleged she acquired the land in 1966. Petitioners Marchadesch occupied a portion of the land from 1977 to 1980, paying rentals. When they failed to pay rentals from July 1980, respondent asked them to vacate, but they refused, claiming Felix Villamor owned the land. Villamor also claimed ownership and sold the land to Fr. Manuel Gomez, who in turn sold a portion to the Marchadesches. Respondent's claims of ownership were alleged to be illegal and without basis. Procedural History: The case was filed with the RTC of Palo, Leyte. Petitioners filed an Answer, asserting Fr. Gomez was a buyer in good faith and that respondent's acquisition was from an illegal source. The case was submitted for decision to Judge Godofredo P. Quimsing. Due to political upheavals in 1986, Judge Quimsing resigned. Judge Getulio M. Francisco replaced him. Judge Quimsing was later re-appointed as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 33, Calbiga, Samar. In July 1991, records of undecided cases from Branch 6, RTC, Tacloban City, were sent to Judge Quimsing for decision. On December 12, 1991, Judge Quimsing rendered a decision in Civil Case No. 6822 in favor of the respondent, declaring her the owner and nullifying any titles of the defendants, and ordering them to pay damages and litigation expenses. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), raising the issue of Judge Quimsing's authority to decide the case after his resignation and re-appointment. The CA affirmed the RTC decision, citing Section 9, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court and a Supreme Court En Banc Resolution. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, questioning the authority of Judge Quimsing to decide the case after his termination from the judiciary and subsequent re-appointment to another branch, without explicit Supreme Court authority or requests from parties or the incumbent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Godofredo P. Quimsing had the authority to decide Civil Case No. 6822 after his resignation and subsequent re-appointment to another branch of the RTC. Whether the decision rendered by Judge Quimsing was null and void due to alleged lack of authority.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Authority of Judge Quimsing to Decide the Case: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that Judge Godofredo P. Quimsing had the authority to decide Civil Case No. 6822. The Court anchored its decision on Section 9, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, which allows a judge who has left a province or branch to decide cases totally heard by him, provided he is still an incumbent judge. The Court also cited its En Banc Resolution dated February 10, 1983, which states that cases submitted for decision shall be decided by the judge to whom they were submitted, except in specific circumstances not applicable here. Although Judge Quimsing resigned, he was subsequently re-appointed as Presiding Judge of the RTC in Calbiga, Samar, making him an incumbent judge at the time he rendered the decision. The Court's Resolution in A.M. No. 91-11-2014-RTC further affirmed his request to remain in Tacloban City to decide cases heard in his previous sala before proceeding to General Santos City. This resolution implicitly sanctioned his authority to decide those cases. On the Validity of the Decision: Consequently, since Judge Quimsing was found to have the authority to decide the case, the decision rendered by him was not null and void. The petitioners' argument that he lacked authority was based on a misinterpretation of the rules and resolutions governing the disposition of cases by judges who have been transferred or have resigned and been re-appointed. The fact that Judge Francisco, the successor judge, gave due course to the appeal from Judge Quimsing's decision indicated his acquiescence to the rendition of judgment by the latter. The core principle is that a judge who has heard a case entirely remains competent to decide it, even if transferred to another court of equal jurisdiction, as long as they are an incumbent judge at the time of promulgation.
Main Doctrine
A judge who resigned after a case was submitted for decision, but was subsequently re-appointed as a judge of a court of equal jurisdiction, retains the authority to decide the case previously heard by him, provided he is an incumbent judge at the time of promulgation.