G.R. No. L-26079. September 30, 1969
PORFIRIO COMIA AND CHIEF OF POLICE ANTONIO S. GABA, SR., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. JUDGE NICANOR P. NICOLAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS JUDGE CFI OF ORIENTAL MINDORO, (CALAPAN BRANCH); THE…
MAKALINTAL, J.:
This is an original petition for certiorari and/or prohibition
with mandatory preliminary injunction.
On December 8, 1960 Estanislao Garachico (private respondent in the instant case) and
fourteen other former members of the police force of the municipality of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, filed
in the Court of First Instance of said province a petition for mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, and damages, with preliminary
injunction (Civil Case No. R-979) against Porfirio Comia, who was then the incumbent municipal mayor of Naujan, and the policemen who had replaced them. They prayed inter alia
that judgment be rendered commanding respondent Porfirio
Comia to reinstate them as members of the police
department of Naujan and ordering all the respondents
to pay, jointly and severally, the unpaid salaries due them since January 1, 1960.
While the case was pending, the court became vacant with the
retirement of the presiding Judge. By
virtue of Administrative Order No. 184, dated August 4, 1961, of the Secretary of Justice, Hon. Juan de Borja was authorized to hold court in Oriental and
Occidental Mindoro for a period of not more than
three (3) months beginning September
3, 1961. Judge de Borja terminated the hearing of the case but before he
could decide it the period of his temporary assignment expired, and he had to
return to his permanent judicial station in San Jose,
Antique.
Honorable Andres Sta. Maria took over as presiding Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro. On June
25, 1963 a motion to submit the case for decision was filed by
Atty. Nestor M. Andrada, one of the counsel of record
for the petitioners. When the motion was
heard on June 27, 1963,
Atty. Jose Rodrigo, one of the lawyers for the respondents, who happened to be
in court in connection with another case, manifested that Judge de Borja had already rendered a decision, of which a copy had
been received by them. He also verbally
opposed the motion on the ground that he had not been furnished a copy thereof,
but he was required by the court to present his opposition in writing and to
submit evidence later to show that the case had indeed been decided. On July
12, 1963 the motion was again heard. Atty. Rodrigo failed to bring a copy of the
supposed decision of Judge de Borja. However, Atty. Manuel Gaba,
another lawyer of record for the respondents, assured the court that he had a
copy of the decision, but that it was in Naujan,
Oriental Mindoro.
In its desire to be enlightened on the matter, the court reset the
hearing of the motion for the next day and ordered Atty. Gaba
to produce the copy of the decision referred to.
When the petitioners’ motion was again heard on January 9, 1964, Atty. Andrada called the attention of the court to the fact that
a copy of an unsigned decision of Judge de Borja
appeared to have been attached to the records of the case but that there was
nothing to indicate how it was forwarded to the court. He added that when the counsel for the
respondents tried to submit the unsigned copy he suggested that the submission
be held in abeyance until a signed copy was produced in court. He therefore asked the court that the
unsigned copy “be either stricken out or taken from the records as having
been without any basis.” Upon the court’s inquiry as to how it came to be
attached to the records, the Clerk of Court explained that he was verbally
instructed by the presiding Judge to so attach it when it was shown to the
latter by the Chief of Police (evidently of Naujan,
Oriental Mindoro).
Thereupon the presiding Judge asked the Clerk for proof that he had
given such instruction, and forthwith ordered that the copy of the decision be
detached.
During the same hearing of January 9, 1964, Atty. Rodrigo was
allowed by the court to withdraw as counsel for the respondents upon his
representation that he was no longer on speaking terms with his clients by
reason of his change of party affiliation during the local elections of
1963. The principal counsel for the
respondents, Atty. Gaba, also asked the court that he
be substituted by another lawyer in view of his appointment as Assistant
Director of the Patent Office. At first
the court tried to dissuade him from withdrawing his appearance, stating
“that the case has dragged to a point where the appearance of other
counsel would prejudice the early disposition of this case considering that it
is a special remedy filed in 1960 and until now it has remained undecided.”
However, Atty. Gaba assured the court that he would
look for a substitute, and there and then recommended Atty. Alfredo Nieva, who was then present. When Atty. Nieva expressed
his willingness to handle the case, the court granted Atty. Gaba’s
verbal petition and ordered that “the appearance of Atty. Nieva be entered as counsel for the respondents in
substitution of all the lawyers who have heretofore appeared for the
respondents.” The substitution of counsel having been effected, Atty. Andrada immediately presented a verbal motion that he be
allowed to file a memorandum. The court
granted the motion and ordered that:
x x x. The counsel for the petitioner, Atty. Nestor
Andrada, is hereby given fifteen days within which to
file a supplemental memorandum, and Atty. Alfredo Nieva,
counsel for the respondent, is likewise given the same period of time after the
receipt of said supplemental memorandum to file any responsive pleading if he
so desire, after which this case shall be considered submitted for
decision.”
The foregoing proceedings took place before Judge Sta.
Maria. But before he could render a
decision, he was transferred to another judicial station. In July 1964 Hon. Nicanor
P. Nicolas assumed office as presiding Judge of the same court. Finding that the case was still undecided
although already submitted, he rendered a decision on September 8, 1964, the dispositive
portion of which he amended in an order dated September 9, 1964, to read as follows:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the
respondents and against the petitioners except Estanislao
Garachico declaring valid and lawful the termination
of the services and removal of the petitioners Ben de los
Reyes, Paulino Conte, Francisco Villegas, Honorio Hernandez, Ludovico Gupit, Jose Alvarez, Hugo Fajardo,
Alfonso de la Torre, Romulo
Gozar, Pacifico de los Reyes, Jose Mendoza, Lauro
Gutierrez, Felicisimo Labaguis
and Robinson Robles from the positions of lieutenant, sergeant, corporals and
patrolmen of the Police Department of Naujan, this
province, and consequently, their claim for salaries and damages is hereby
denied. The court hereby declares
invalid and illegal the termination of services and removal of the petitioner Estanislao Garachico who is a
civil service eligible from the position of patrolman of the police department
of Naujan. The
Court hereby orders the respondent Municipal Mayor of Naujan
or any one acting in his place as Municipal Mayor of said municipality
to reinstate immediately said petitioner Estanislao Garachico and, correspondingly, it is hereby ordered that
the salary of the said petitioner Estanislao Garachico at the rate of P130.00 a month to be paid to him
from January 1, 1960 up to the time of his actual reinstatement; his claim for
the damages is hereby denied.
(Underscoring supplied)
“The counterclaim for damages filed by the respondents is also
hereby dismissed.”
Evidently the amendment, which consists of the insertion of the
phrase “or any one acting in his place as Municipal Mayor of said
municipality” in the last sentence, first paragraph, of the dispositive portion, was made in order to bind anyone
acting as Municipal Mayor in place of respondent Porfirio
Comia, who resigned in January 1962. Atty. Nieva, who
had been substituted as counsel of record for respondents, was not served with
copies of the decision and of the amendatory order. Instead, Atty. Rodrigo, the former lawyer for
the respondents, was furnished with a copy of the decision itself, and Mayor
Manuel Marcos of Naujan, with a copy of the
amendatory order, the latter receiving it on September 14, 1964.
On October 12, 1964
the respondents, through their then newly engaged counsel, Attys. Mascardo, Calupitan and Ferrer, filed with the lower court a motion to set aside
judgment on the ground that the case had already been dismissed by Judge de Borja. Attached to
and in support of the motion were: (1) a
certification by the said Judge stating that on February 13, 1962 he dismissed the petition and that he
sent his decision to the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro on or about the same date, and (2) a copy of the
decision itself. Before the motion to
set aside the judgment (of Judge Nicolas) could be resolved, the petitioners
filed their first motion for the execution thereof on October 22, 1964.
On November 27, 1964
the court denied the motion to set aside judgment “for being
unmeritorious.” Said the Court:
x x x. The respondents, thru their new counsel,
cannot and should not be allowed to seek the setting aside of the decision
rendered after the parties had submitted the case for decision; and after they
have led the Court to believe that the case was submitted for decision. The decision of the Court cannot be set aside
on the allegation of the existence of another decision which was not brought to
its attention by the remedy provided for by law. This is not to impugn the merit of the
decision of Judge de Borja, much less His Honor’s certification
to the effect that he rendered a decision on February 13, 1962 which was sent to the Clerk of Court of
Oriental Mindoro.
The merit of the decision of Honorable Juan de Borja
and his certification are not in issue.
What is pivotal in this case is the inaction for so long a time of the
respondents in not taking the necessary legal steps to bring to the attention
of the Court the existence of that decision of Judge de Borja. This inaction amounting to latches produced
consequences the legal effects of which must necessarily be assumed by the
respondents. They created it and hence
they must suffer for it. x x x
“Under Section 1, Rule 26 of the New Rules of Court, the
decision must be (1) signed by the Judge and (2) filed with the Clerk of Court.
“As adverted to above, the decision of Judge de Borja was not filed with the Clerk of Court, and hence,
lacking in that requisite, the Court cannot validly consider said
decision. This circumstance probably
induced respondents to submit the case for decision on January 9, 1964.
For if they had in their possession copies of the decision or if they
knew its existence, they would not have submitted this case for decision.”
On December 4, 1964
Atty. Calupitan, who had not been served with a copy
of the aforesaid order, filed an opposition to the motion for execution,
alleging that the reglementary period for appeal had
been interrupted by the motion to set aside judgment.[1]
On January 27, 1965 the petitioners again filed a motion for execution, which
was granted by the lower court in an order dated February 3, 1965.
Manifesting that they had not received a copy of the order denying the
motion to set aside judgment and intimating that they would appeal, counsel for
the respondents filed on February 8,
1965 a belated opposition to the second motion for execution.
Pursuant to the order of February
3, 1965, a writ of execution signed by Clerk of Court Arthur B. Panganiban was issued and thereafter served by the
Provincial Sheriff on Mayor Manuel Marcos of Naujan. On May
3, 1965 Assistant Provincial Fiscal Añonuevo
of Oriental Mindoro filed a motion to suspend the
execution. The petitioners opposed the
motion and asked the court to cite Mayor Marcos for contempt. Fiscal Añonuevo
filed his reply and opposition to the petitioners’ motion for contempt. On May
21, 1965 he was furnished with a copy of the order of the trial
court dated November 27, 1964,
denying the motion to set aside judgment.
With the expiration of the lifetime of the original writ of
execution, a first alias writ was issued on July 15, 1965 against “defendant
Municipality of Naujan,
thru its Municipal Mayor or anyone acting in his place as Municipal Mayor of
said municipality”. On August 10, 1965 Fiscal Añonuevo again filed a motion to stay execution of
judgment, but was turned down for lack of merit.
On October 22, 1965
Mayor Manuel Marcos personally filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari against Judge Nicanor Nicolas, raising the
issue of the invalidity of the decision rendered on September 8, 1964, as amended by the order of September 9, 1964. The petition was dismissed outright by the
appellate court on November 3, 1965. The motion for reconsideration was likewise
denied on November 17, 1965.
On November 19, 1965
a second alias writ of execution was issued by the Clerk of Court, and by
virtue thereof the Provincial Sheriff levied on the properties of the municipality
of Naujan,
among which were one jeep, several typewriters and other office equipment. The sale of the said properties was scheduled
to be held on December 14, 1965.
On December 8, 1965
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Narciso D. Salcedo, who had been designated under Department of
Justice Administrative Order No. 360 to assist the Provincial Fiscal of
Oriental Mindoro in handling the case, filed an urgent
motion to stay execution and for clarification of the dispositive
portion of the decision dated September
9, 1964. In support thereof,
the respondents submitted a memorandum raising, among other questions, the
nullity of the decision dated September
8, 1964 as amended by the order dated September 9, 1964.
To prove the existence of the decision of February 13, 1962, penned by Judge de Borja,
its transmittal to and receipt by the Clerk of the Court of First Instance of
Oriental Mindoro, and its service upon the counsel of
both parties, numerous records and documents were annexed to the memorandum and
to the motion itself. Without passing
upon the questions of fact raised by the respondents, the lower court in its order
of March 31, 1966 denied the motion for lack of merit, but granted the
respondents a period of 45 days from receipt of the order within which to
comply with the decision of September 8, 1964, as amended by the Order of
September 9, 1964.
With the denial of their motion, Porfirio
Comia and Chief of Police Antonio Gaba,
Sr., two of the respondents in the court below, filed the instant petition,
praying inter alia that pending the
final disposition of the issues raised a preliminary injunction be issued
enjoining the respondents, Hon. Judge Nicanor P.
Nicolas and the Provincial Sheriff and/or his deputies, from enforcing the
decision dated September 8, 1964, as amended by the order of September 9, 1964,
and the other orders of the respondent Judge in Civil Case No. R-979; that said
decision, as amended, and the other orders be all declared null and void; and
that after due hearing, all the respondents be permanently enjoined from
enforcing the same. Mayor Manuel R.
Marcos, as Mayor of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, and the municipality
of Naujan
itself, filed a motion for intervention which this Court granted in a
resolution of May 23, 1966. Upon petitioners’ filing of a bond, a writ of
preliminary injunction was issued on June
18, 1966.
The principal issue posed in this case concerns the jurisdiction
of the respondent Judge in rendering the decision of September 8, 1964, as well as the amendatory order
of September 9, 1964, and,
of course, the validity thereof.
The petitioners and intervenors contend
that since the case had been decided by Judge de Borja
on February 13, 1962, which
decision had already become final, the decision of respondent Judge on September 8, 1964 was an absolute
nullity, as was also the amendatory order of September 9, 1964.
On the other hand, private respondent Garachico
denies the existence of the decision of Judge de Borja
and therefore maintains that the respondent Judge acted within his jurisdiction
in deciding the case.
The questions of fact raised by herein petitioner have a decisive
bearing on the instant petition, but were not passed upon by respondent
Judge. The numerous annexes to the
Urgent Motion dated December 8, 1965 and the memorandum in support thereof,
particularly the deposition of Hon. Juan de Borja
taken on February 12, 1966 in the sala of the Court
of First Instance of Bulacan, Valenzuela Branch,
clearly show that on February 13, 1962 said Judge de Borja
penned a decision in Case No. R-979 of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro; that on February 14, 1962, under a transmittal
letter of the same date, he sent the said decision and the records of the case,
together with other records and decisions, to the Clerk of the Court of First
Instance of Oriental Mindoro, via the Philippine Air
Lines under its Airway Bill No. P-00351; and that the aforementioned decisions
and records, including the decision and records of Case No. R-979, were
received by the then Clerk of Court, Cristino Paras, on February
17, 1962. The inconsistency
noted by the private respondent here between the statement in the affidavit of
Clerk of Court Paras to the effect that he received
the decision by registered mail, and the statement of Judge de Borja in his deposition that he sent it by the Philippine
Air Lines, does not alter the fact that the decision in the case was in fact
received by the Clerk of Court.
Under the circumstances, the decision of Judge de Borja was validly rendered in accordance with Section 1,
Rule 36[2]
in relation with Section 9, Rule 135[3],
of the Revised Rules of Court. It is to
be noted that it is the filing of the judgment with the Clerk of Court that constitutes
rendition thereof. If the judgment is
signed outside the province by reason of the expiration of the temporary
assignment of the trial judge who terminated the hearing of the case, it is
considered filed with the Clerk of Court as of the date when the same is
received by him.
That Judge de Borja’s decision was
received by the Clerk of Court is indubitably established by the
following: (1) The monthly reports submitted
by the then Clerk of Court (Cristino Paras) to the Department of Justice for December 1961 and
January 1962 show that Case No. R-979 was pending decision; the monthly report
for Feburary 1962 shows that it had been
decided. (2) The annexes also clearly
show that both parties were served with copies of the decision of Judge de Borja. In his
affidavit, the former Clerk of Court declared that he effected the service by
registered mail addressed to the respective attorneys of the parties. (3) His allegation is supported by the
photographs of the registry receipt stubs of the Calapan
post office and by the certification of the postmaster that “registered
letters Nos. 2497, 2502 and 2503 were sent by the Court of First Instance of
Oriental Mindoro on February 28, 1962 to Attys.
Manuel Gaba, Jose Rodrigo and Romeo Comia, respectively, all residents of Naujan,
Oriental Mindoro“; (4) Receipt of said letters
by the respective addressees is shown by the photographs of the corresponding
entries in the Registry Book of the Naujan post
office and by the certification of the postmaster to the effect that on March
2, 3 and 5, 1962, Attys. Gaba, Rodrigo and Comia received registered letters Nos. 2497, 2502 and 2503,
respectively. Atty. Comia
has not denied that he received his copy; and since, as pointed out by the
petitioners herein in their memorandum in support of their motion of December
8, 1965 (Annex “P” of the petition), the petitioners in the court
below filed their petition jointly and were represented by several lawyers, one
of whom was Atty. Comia, service upon him may be
deemed to be the service upon the others.[4]
No appeal having been perfected nor any motion for reconsideration filed within
the thirty-day period from March 5,
1962, the decision of Judge de Borja became
final on April 4, 1962. The case, therefore, was removed from power
or jurisdiction of the court a quo to decide anew.[5]
And the decision rendered by the respondent Judge on September 8, 1964, as amended by the order of September 9, 1964, is null and
void. “A void judgment is in effect
no judgment. By it no rights are
divested. From it no rights can be
obtained. Being worthless in itself, all
proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. It neither binds nor bars any one. All acts performed under it and all claims
flowing out of it are void. The parties
attempting to enforce it may be responsible as trespassers. x x x.”[6]
WHEREFORE, the decision dated September 8, 1964, as amended by the order dated September 9, 1964, and the other
orders of the respondent judge in Civil Case No. R-979 are hereby declared null
and void, and the preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents from
enforcing said decision and orders is made permanent. No costs.
Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee, and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Reyes, JBL, and Sanchez,
JJ., on leave.
[1]
On page 25 of the Memorandum In Support of Defendants’ motion dated December 8,
1965 (Annex “P” of the Petition) there is an allegation that
“up to February 8, 1966, Atty. Calupitan was
never furnished a copy of the order of denial dated November 27, 1964, and
during the hearing on February 8, 1966, the attention of the trial court was
invited to the fact that on page 274 of the Records a copy of the order,
properly sealed and addressed to Atty. Calupitan and
a prepared Registry Return Card are still attached to the records BUT never
mailed to Atty. Calupitan.”
[2]
Section 1. Rendition of judgments. – All judgments determining the merits of
cases shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge,
stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based,
signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court.
[3]
Section 9. Signing judgments out of
province. – Whenever a judge appointed
or assigned in any province or branch of a Court of First Instance in a province
shall leave the province by transfer or assignment to another court of equal
jurisdiction or by expiration of his temporary assignment, without having
decided a case totally heard by him and which was argued or an opportunity
given for argument to the parties or their counsel, it shall be lawful for him
to prepare and sign his decision in said case anywhere within the Philippines. He shall send the same by registered mail
to the clerk of the court where the case was heard or argued to be filed
therein as of the date when the same was received by the clerk, in the same
manner as if he had been present in court to direct the filing of the judgment. x x x. (Underscoring
supplied)
[4] Sy It vs. Tiangco, G. R.
No. L-18376 February 27, 1962,
4 SCRA 436.
[5]
Samson vs. Montejo, G. R. No. L-18605, October 31, 1963, 9SCRA 419; Ocampo vs. Caluag, G. R.
No. L21113, April 27, 1967,
19 SCRA 971.
[6]
Chavez vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. L-29169 August 19, 1968, 24 SCRA 663, 685. Gomez vs.
Concepcion, 47 Phil. 717, 722, citing Freeman on Judgments,
Sec. 117.