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…

Comia versus Nicolas

The Case

This is an original petition for certiorari and prohibition, with a prayer for a mandatory preliminary injunction, brought by Porfirio Comia and Chief of Police Antonio Gaba, Sr. against Judge Nicanor Nicolas of the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, Calapan Branch. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to declare null and void the decision Judge Nicolas rendered in a long-pending case for mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, and damages, together with his amendatory order, and to stop their enforcement. The case matters because it fixes a rule every reviewee must carry: a judgment is rendered not when it is written or signed, but when it is filed with the clerk of court, and once a decision becomes final the trial court loses all power to decide the case anew.

Procedural History

The action began in the Court of First Instance of Oriental Mindoro, where Estanislao Garachico and fourteen other former policemen sued the incumbent mayor of Naujan and the policemen who replaced them, praying for reinstatement and unpaid salaries. The presiding judge retired while the case was pending, and Judge Juan de Borja, temporarily assigned to the province, terminated the hearing but left before deciding. Judge Andres Sta. Maria later took over, and during hearings on the motions of the parties the existence of a decision by Judge de Borja was discussed; the case was eventually submitted for decision. Before Judge Sta. Maria could decide, he was transferred, and Judge Nicanor Nicolas assumed office and rendered the challenged decision, later amended by an order.

The respondents below moved to set aside the judgment, invoking the earlier decision of Judge de Borja; the trial court denied the motion, and later granted execution. A petition for certiorari filed by the municipal mayor with the Court of Appeals was dismissed outright, and reconsideration was denied. After further motions to stay execution were denied, the petitioners came to the Supreme Court by this original petition, and a preliminary injunction was issued upon their filing of a bond. The municipality of Naujan and its mayor were later allowed to intervene.

Facts

In December 1960, Estanislao Garachico and fourteen other former members of the police force of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro, filed a petition for mandamus, quo warranto, prohibition, and damages against Porfirio Comia, then municipal mayor, and the policemen who had replaced them, praying for reinstatement and for unpaid salaries since January 1960. The case was heard by Judge de Borja under a temporary assignment, but the period of that assignment expired before he could decide, and he returned to his permanent station.

Judge de Borja prepared and signed his decision in the case, and sent it, together with the records, to the Clerk of Court of Oriental Mindoro, who received it in February 1962. Copies were served on the lawyers of the parties by registered mail, and receipts show that counsel received them in early March 1962. No appeal was perfected and no motion for reconsideration was filed within the thirty-day period, so the decision became final in April 1962. Yet the case remained undecided on the court's records, and the parties, through new counsel, later submitted it for decision.

Judge Nicolas, finding the case still undecided although already submitted, rendered a decision in September 1964, amended the next day, ordering the reinstatement of Garachico alone and denying the claims of the others. When the respondents below moved to set aside that judgment on the ground that Judge de Borja had already decided the case, the trial court denied the motion, holding that the earlier decision had not been filed with the clerk of court and could not be validly considered. Execution was ordered, and after the Court of Appeals dismissed a petition for certiorari, the petitioners brought this action.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge de Borja validly rendered a decision in the case, such that it became final and removed the case from the jurisdiction of the trial court.
• Whether or not Judge Nicolas had jurisdiction to render the decision of September 1964, as amended, and whether that decision and the amendatory order are valid.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

This is the provision that fixes when a judgment is rendered, and the Court holds that it is the filing with the clerk of court that constitutes rendition.

Section 9 of Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

This provision authorizes Judge de Borja to sign his decision outside the province and treats it as filed upon receipt by the clerk of court.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that Judge de Borja did validly render a decision. The evidence, particularly his deposition and the records of transmittal, showed that he penned the decision in February 1962, sent it with the records to the Clerk of Court, and that the clerk received it days later. The Court held that it is the filing of the judgment with the clerk of court that constitutes rendition, and that if the judgment is signed outside the province because the temporary assignment of the trial judge has expired, it is considered filed with the clerk as of the date the clerk receives it. Service on counsel was established by the registry receipts, and since no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed within thirty days, the decision became final in April 1962.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the case had been removed from the power of the trial court to decide anew, and that the decision of Judge Nicolas, as amended, is null and void. The Court quoted with approval the rule that a void judgment is in effect no judgment, that by it no rights are divested, that from it no rights can be obtained, and that all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless. The Court rejected the trial court's reliance on the supposed failure to file the decision with the clerk, since the evidence showed the decision was in fact received by the clerk.

Doctrine

A judgment is rendered when it is filed with the clerk of court, not when it is written or signed. Where a judge signs a decision outside the province after his temporary assignment has expired, the decision is deemed filed as of the date the clerk of court receives it. Once a decision becomes final, the trial court loses jurisdiction to decide the case anew, and any judgment it later renders is void. A void judgment is in effect no judgment; it divests no rights, confers no rights, and all proceedings founded upon it are equally worthless.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition, declared the decision of September 1964, as amended, and the other orders of the respondent judge null and void, and made the preliminary injunction permanent.

Remember This

Memorize this line: it is the filing of the judgment with the clerk of court that constitutes rendition. Examiners use this case to test rendition and finality of judgments, the signing of decisions outside the province, and the nullity of a judgment rendered after the case has already been decided with finality.