Garchitorena v. Crescini
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An election for the office of governor of the Province of Ambos Camarines was held on June 6, 1916. The appellant was declared elected on June 21, 1916. The appellee filed a protest on July 1, 1916, in the Court of First Instance. Procedural History: After trial and submission, a decision was filed by the judge on April 27, 1917, with notice given on April 30, 1917. The appellant moved to declare the decision null and void and to remand the case, contending that the judge who rendered the decision was no longer a judge, either de jure or de facto, at the time of promulgation. The Petition: The appellant's motion was based on the fact that the judge who filed the decision had been appointed Director of the Bureau of Lands on January 27, 1917, took his oath of office as such on March 31, 1917, and began drawing his salary as Director of Lands from March 28, 1917. Concurrently, a successor, Candelario Borja, was appointed auxiliary judge for the province, took his oath on March 16, 1917, and began performing his duties on March 28, 1917. There was no law providing for two auxiliary judges for the province.
Issue(s)
Whether the decision rendered by the judge was null and void. Whether the judge who rendered the decision was a judge de jure or de facto at the time of promulgation.
Ruling
The decision and judgment of the lower court are revoked, annulled, and set aside. The record is ordered to be returned to the court of origin with directions to render a decision and judgment upon the evidence adduced. The motion for an increase of the bond is referred to the lower court for decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the validity of the decision: The Court held that the decision rendered by the judge was null and void. The judge who filed the decision on April 27, 1917, had, prior to that date, accepted another office, that of Director of the Bureau of Lands, and had taken his oath of office for that position on March 31, 1917. Furthermore, his successor as auxiliary judge had already qualified and entered upon the performance of his duties on March 28, 1917. Since there was no law allowing for two auxiliary judges in the province, the judge who rendered the decision had effectively ceased to be an auxiliary judge and had vacated his office. Therefore, he was without authority to promulgate decisions in said province. On whether the judge was de jure or de facto: The Court concluded that the judge could not be considered a judge de jure because another judge was actually acting in his place and stead for nearly a month prior to the promulgation of the decision. Neither could he be considered a judge de facto, as there was a de jure judge actually discharging the functions of the office. The existence of a de jure judge performing the duties of the office precludes the existence of a de facto judge. A judge de facto must act under some color of right, which was absent in this case, as the judge had already vacated the office by accepting another position and entering upon its duties.
Main Doctrine
A judgment rendered by a judge who has ceased to be judge and has vacated his office will be set aside on motion. There cannot be a de facto judge when there is a de jure judge actually discharging the functions of the office.