1. De Facto vs.

De Jure Public Officers: judgment of the lower court, for having been
made by another judge after the incumbency of
1) Solis vs. CA, 38 SCRA 53; the judge who rendered it had ceased.

The Solicitor-General's brief, in the Court of

G.R. Nos. L-29777-83 March 26, 1971 Appeals, agreed that the promulgation was illegal
and void.
GREGORIO SOLIS, petitioner,
vs. Nevertheless, on 20 November 1965, the Court of
THE COURT OF APPEALS and the PEOPLE Appeals promulgated its decision, modifying
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. petitioner's sentence in CA-G.R. No. 14811-R,
acquitting him in CA-G.R. No. 14812-R and CA-
Mario R. Silva for petitioner. G.R. No. 14813-R, and affirming the lower court's
decision in CA-G.R. Nos. 14814-R to 14817-R;
Office of the Solicitor General for but petitioner's new counsel were not served a
respondents. copy of the appellate court's decision. What they
received was a notification, almost three (3) years
REYES, J.B.L., J.: later, that is, on 25 August 1968, from the
bondsman of petitioner, informing them that the
Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur had
Petition of Gregorio Solis for review
issued an order for petitioner Solis to appear
on certiorari of the decision and orders rendered
therein for execution of judgment in the criminal
by respondent Court of Appeals, in its Cases CA-
cases.
G.R. Nos. 14811-R to 14817-R entitled, "People
of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Solis, et al.,"
affirming his conviction by former Judge Jose N. It was only on 5 September 1968 that petitioner's
Leuterio of the Court of First Instance of counsel received a copy of the Court of Appeals'
Camarines Sur. decision.

Petitioner Gregorio Solis and several other co- On 29 August 1968, petitioner filed an urgent
accused were indicted, tried and found guilty of motion with the Court of Appeals asking it to
malversation of public funds in Criminal Cases restrain the lower court from executing the
Nos. 2510-2516 of the Court of First Instance, of decision, to order the recall of the records, and to
Camarines Sur. The judgment was penned and cause the service of the decision of the Court of
signed on 19 June 1954 by the Honorable Jose Appeals on petitioner's counsel. Acting thereon,
N. Leuterio, then Judge-at-Large assigned to the Court of Appeals directed its Deputy Clerk of
Camarines Sur. Court to send a telegram to the lower court to
suspend execution of sentence, required its
Judgment Section to immediately serve a copy of
All the accused were summoned to appear for
the decision, and to explain within ten (10) days
promulgation of the judgment on 19 June 1954,
why no copy had been served on petitioner's
but no court proceeding was had on that day, as
counsel; but the Court of Appeals did not order
the President of the Philippines had declared it a
the recall of the records.
special public holiday.
On 21 September, the Court of Appeals denied
On 20 June 1954, Republic Act No. 1186, which
petitioner's motion for the recall of the records but
abolished all existing positions of Judges-at-
granted him a period of twenty (20) days to file his
Large, took effect without Executive approval.
motion for reconsideration of the decision.
Thereupon, notwithstanding the absence of the
On 21 June 1954, the defendants appeared records in the Court of Appeals, petitioner
before the court; this time, the court was presided submitted his motion for reconsideration. It was
over by Honorable Perfecto R. Palacio, judge of denied on 28 October 1968.
another sala of the court. Judge Palacio
promulgated the judgment of Judge Leuterio,
Hence, on 11 November 1968, appellant Solis
against the objections of herein petitioner.
interposed in this Court the present petition for
review, squarely presenting the issue of the
Petitioner Solis appealed the judgment to the invalidity of the decision of the Court of First
Court of Appeals and the cases were docketed Instance and of the legality of the actuation
therein as CA-G.R. Nos. 14811-R to 14817-R. In petitions of the Court of Appeals in remanding the
said appellate court, he raised in issue and records even before service of copy of its
attacked the validity of the promulgation of the decision on petitioner's counsel and in arbitrarily
refusing to have the record recalled while the the officer he assumes to be and yet is not a good
case was still pending before it. officer in point of law because there exists some
defect in his appointment or his right to exercise
The present case of certiorari was considered judicial functions at the particular time (37 Phil. on
submitted for decision without respondents' page 192); but it is "essential to the validity of the
brief,1 as the Office of the Solicitor General acts of a de facto judge, that he is actually
manifested that "the only consistent stand that the acting under some color of right" (case cit. on
People can adopt is to agree with petitioner's page 190). In the present case, Judge Leuterio
posture."2 did not actually act or perform or exercise the
duties of judge when his decision was
Upon the facts heretofore stated, the judgment of promulgated as he had ceased to be one, and the
trial judge Jose N. Leuterio was promulgated (on decision was promulgated under another
21 June 1954) one (1) day after his position as presiding judge. The other cases cited by the
Judge-at-Large was abolished (on 20 June 1954) Court of Appeals (Regala v. Judge of the Court of
by Republic Act 1186. The judgment is, therefore, First Instance of Bataan, 77 Phil. 684; U.S. v.
void, for it is now firmly established in our Abalos, 1 Phil. 73) were similarly misapplied, as
jurisprudence that a decision is void if said decisions refer to the acts of a de
promulgated after the judge who rendered it had facto judge, not to a case where he did not act.
permanently ceased to be a judge of the court
where he sat in judgment. Thus, a judgment is a It follows that the Court of Appeals' decision can
nullity if it had been promulgated after the judge not stand, there being no validly promulgated
had actually vacated the office and accepted judgment of the trial court from which an appeal
another office;3 or when the term of office of the could be taken. This conclusion renders it
judge has ended;4 or when he has left the unnecessary to pass upon the alleged error of the
Bench;5 or after the judge had vacated his post in Court of Appeals in prematurely remanding the
view of the abolition of his position as Judge-at- records to the court of origin and later refusing to
Large under Republic Act 1186;6 or after the recall the same.
cessation or termination of his incumbency as
such judge. Section 6 of Rule 116 of the old FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the decision
Rules of Court, allowing the dispensing with the of the respondent Court of Appeals and the
presence of the judge in the reading of a decision of the Court of First Instance of
sentence, applies only to the physical absence of Camarines Sur are hereby voided and set
the judge, being construed to mean that the aside.lâwphî1.ñèt The record of the criminal
decision of the judge may be promulgated even cases are hereby ordered returned to the Court of
without his presence, as long as he is still a judge First Instance of Camarines Sur, for new
of that court.7 A sentence has been set aside adjudication by the judge presiding therein, in
where the judge who presided in the Court of First accordance with the evidence already introduced,
Instance of Nueva Ecija had been extended and for further proceeding conformable to law. No
an ad interim appointment to the Court of First costs.
Instance of Manila, to which position he qualified
before the judgment was filed with the Clerk of Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar,.
the former court.8 Nullity likewise attached to a Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Villamor
dismissal order when the temporary assignment and Makasiar, JJ., concur.
of the judge that rendered it had been terminated
before the order was issued, because a new
judge for the same court qualified.9

The main ground upon which the Court of

Appeals held the contested judgment of the Court
of First Instance to be valid is that "since the
approval of Republic Act 1186, effective 20 June
1954, was not yet publicly or generally known on
21 June 1954, Judge Leuterio should be
considered as a judge de facto of said court and
the promulgation of his appealed decision on said
date is valid and legally effective." 10 This is a
misapplication of the doctrine laid down in the
very case cited by the Court of Appeals. In Lino
Luna vs. Rodriguez, supra, a judge de facto was
defined as one who has the reputation of being
Case Digest: 7. November 20, 1965: Court of Appeals
promulgated its decision, modified petitioner's
SOLIS V CA GR NOS L-29777-83 sentence and affirmed the lower court's decision;
but petitioner's new counsel were not served a
Petitioner: Gregorio Solis  copy of the appellate court's decision. What they
received was a notification, almost 3 years later,
Respondents: The Court of Appeals and that is, on August 25, 1968, from the bondsman
People of the Philippines of petitioner, informing them that the Court of First
FACTS: Instance of Camarines Sur had issued an order
Petition of Gregorio Solis for review on certiorari for petitioner Solis to appear therein for execution
of the decision and orders rendered by of judgment in the criminal cases.
respondent Court of Appeals, in its Cases CA- 8. It was only on 5 September 1968 that
G.R. Nos. 14811-R to 14817-R entitled, "People petitioner's counsel received a copy of the Court
of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Solis, et al.," of Appeals' decision.
affirming his conviction by former Judge Jose N.
Leuterio of the Court of First Instance of 9. August 29, 1968: petitioner filed an urgent
Camarines Sur. motion with the Court of Appeals asking it to
restrain the lower court from executing the
1. Petitioner Gregorio Solis et al. were indicted, decision, to order the recall of the records, and to
tried and found guilty of malversation of public cause the service of the decision of the Court of
funds at the Court of First Instance, of Camarines Appeals on petitioner's counsel. Acting thereon,
Sur. The judgment was penned and signed on the Court of Appeals ordered the lower court the
June 19, 1954 by the Honorable Jose N. Leuterio, suspension of the execution of sentence,
then Judge-at-Large assigned to Camarines Sur. immediate service of a copy of the Judgment
Section of the decision, and to explain within 10
2. All the accused were summoned to appear for days why no copy had been served on petitioner's
promulgation of the judgment on June 19, 1954, counsel; but the Court of Appeals did not order
but no court proceeding was had on that day, as the recall of the records.
the President of the Philippines had declared it a
special public holiday. 10. September 21,1968: the Court of Appeals
denied petitioner's motion for the recall of the
3. June 20, 1954: RA No. 1186, which abolished records but granted him a period of 20 days to file
all existing positions of Judges-at-Large, took his motion for reconsideration of the decision.
effect without Executive approval. Thereupon, notwithstanding the absence of the
4. June 21, 1954: the defendants appeared records in the Court of Appeals, petitioner
before the court; this time, the court was presided submitted his motion for reconsideration. October
over by Honorable Perfecto R. Palacio, judge of 28, 1968: MR was denied.
another sala of the court. Judge Palacio 11. November 11, 1968: appellant Solis filed a
promulgated the judgment of Judge Leuterio, petition for review, presenting the issue of the
against the objections of herein petitioner. invalidity of the decision of the Court of First
5. Petitioner Solis appealed the judgment to the Instance and of the legality of the actuation
Court of Appeals. Petitioner attacked the validity petitions of the Court of Appeals in remanding the
of the promulgation of the judgment of the lower records even before service of copy of its
court, for having been made by another judge decision on petitioner's counsel and in arbitrarily
after the incumbency of the judge who rendered it refusing to have the record recalled while the
had ceased. case was still pending before it.

6. The Solicitor-General's brief, in the Court of 12. The present case of certiorari was considered
Appeals, agreed that the promulgation was illegal submitted for decision without respondents' brief,
and void. as the Office of the Solicitor General manifested
that "the only consistent stand that the People
can adopt is to agree with petitioner's posture."
ISSUE: considered as a judge de facto of said court and
WON the promulgation of the judgment of the the promulgation of his appealed decision on said
lower court was valid, for having been made by date is valid and legally effective." This is a
another judge after the incumbency of the judge misapplication of the doctrine laid down in the
who rendered it had ceased (NO) very case cited by the Court of Appeals. In Lino
Luna vs. Rodriguez, supra, a judge de facto was
HELD: defined as one who has the reputation of being
NO. Upon the facts heretofore stated, the the officer he assumes to be and yet is not a good
judgment of trial judge Jose N. Leuterio was officer in point of law because there exists some
promulgated (on 21 June 1954) one (1) day after defect in his appointment or his right to exercise
his position as Judge-at-Large was abolished (on judicial functions at the particular time; but it is
20 June 1954) by Republic Act 1186. The "essential to the validity of the acts of a de facto
judgment is, therefore, void, for it is now judge, that he is actually acting under some color
firmly established in our jurisprudence that a of right". In the present case, Judge Leuterio did
decision is void if promulgated after the judge not actually act or perform or exercise the duties
who rendered it had permanently ceased to be of judge when his decision was promulgated as
a judge of the court where he sat in judgment. he had ceased to be one, and the decision was
Thus, a judgment is a nullity if it had been promulgated under another presiding judge. The
promulgated after the judge had actually other cases cited by the Court of Appeals were
vacated the office and accepted another similarly misapplied, as said decisions refer to the
office; or when the term of office of the judge acts of a de facto judge, not to a case where he
has ended; or when he has left the Bench; or did not act.
after the judge had vacated his post in view of
the abolition of his position as Judge-at-Large
under Republic Act 1186; or after the
cessation or termination of his incumbency as
such judge. Section 6 of Rule 116 of the old
Rules of Court, allowing the dispensing with the
presence of the judge in the reading of a
sentence, applies only to the physical absence of
the judge, being construed to mean that the
decision of the judge may be promulgated even
without his presence, as long as he is still a judge
of that court.

A sentence has been set aside where the judge

who presided in the Court of First Instance of
Nueva Ecija had been extended an ad interim
appointment to the Court of First Instance of
Manila, to which position he qualified before the
judgment was filed with the Clerk of the former
court. 8 Nullity likewise attached to a dismissal
order when the temporary assignment of the
judge that rendered it had been terminated before
the order was issued, because a new judge for
the same court qualified.

The main ground upon which the Court of

Appeals held the contested judgment of the Court
of First Instance to be valid is that "since the
approval of Republic Act 1186, effective 20 June
1954, was not yet publicly or generally known on
21 June 1954, Judge Leuterio should be