GR 111610; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 111610 ; February 27, 2002
ROMEO P. NAZARENO, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Romeo Nazareno was convicted of Serious Physical Injuries by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naic, Cavite, in a decision dated November 8, 1985, penned by Judge Manuel C. Diosomito. The promulgation was delayed due to procedural motions. On April 15, 1988, Acting Judge Aurelio Icasiano, Jr. promulgated the decision, convicting Nazareno. At that time, Judge Diosomito had already retired. Nazareno challenged the validity of this promulgation through various petitions, culminating in a denied petition before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 97812) for being filed late.
Upon finality of the denial of his Supreme Court petition, Nazareno filed a notice of appeal with the MTC on October 3, 1991. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), presided by Judge Enrique M. Almario, dismissed the appeal as filed out of time, counting the period from the original 1988 promulgation. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s dismissal, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the RTC correctly dismissed Nazareno’s appeal for having been filed out of time.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and declared the MTC decision null and void. The legal logic centers on the validity of the judgment being appealed. A judgment is void if rendered by a court without jurisdiction or through a void proceeding. The retirement of Judge Diosomito before the promulgation of his decision rendered the subsequent promulgation by Acting Judge Icasiano, Jr. a nullity. A judge who has retired or ceased to hold office loses all authority to promulgate a decision; nor can another judge validly promulgate it for him. Consequently, the decision sought to be appealed never attained finality as it was void from the beginning.
Since the decision was void, the reglementary period to appeal never commenced to run. Nazareno’s appeal, filed after his Supreme Court petition was resolved, was therefore timely. The Court emphasized that the right to appeal, while statutory, should not be denied on a technicality when the judgment assailed is intrinsically void. The interest of justice and the petitioner’s liberty warranted a resolution on the merits, leading to the remand of the case to the MTC for proper adjudication and promulgation of a new decision.