G.R. No. 113296 January 16, 1998
ABC DAVAO AUTO SUPPLY, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ABUNDIO T. MERCED, doing business under the name and style of SOUTHERN ENGINEERING WORKS, respondents.

FACTS

On October 6, 1980, petitioner ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. filed a complaint for a sum of money against private respondent Abundio T. Merced. The case was raffled to Branch XVI of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Davao City. Several judges presided over pre-trial and trial proceedings. Judge Renato Fuentes heard the evidence for both parties on November 20, 1984. Judge Roque Agton, who assumed office on August 1, 1985, heard the cross-examination and presentation of rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidence. Following the judicial reorganization, Judge Agton was transferred to another branch within the same Judicial Region. Judge Romeo Marasigan assumed office as presiding judge of Branch XVI on February 3, 1987. In May 1987, Judge Marasigan acted on a motion for extension to file a memorandum. Subsequently, on June 9, 1987, a decision penned by Judge Agton was rendered in favor of the petitioner. Private respondent moved for reconsideration, which was denied in an order dated March 1, 1988, issued by Judge Marasigan. Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which nullified Judge Agton’s decision on the ground that he was neither the judge de jure nor de facto of Branch XVI at the time he rendered the judgment, and remanded the case to the lower court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the decision penned by Judge Roque Agton is valid.

RULING

Yes, the decision is valid. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of Judge Agton. The Court held that the case was deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last required memorandum, which occurred in March 1987, at which time Judge Marasigan was already presiding. While Judge Agton’s decision appeared improper as the case was submitted to Judge Marasigan, any defect was cured when Judge Marasigan subsequently acted upon and denied the motion for reconsideration, thereby subscribing to and adopting Judge Agton’s decision in toto. Furthermore, the presumption of regular performance of official functions by both judges was not rebutted. The Court also ruled that for a judgment to be binding, it need only be signed and promulgated while the judge who penned it is still an incumbent judge of the same court, even if assigned to a different branch. Branches of a trial court are not distinct and separate tribunals. Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge. The continuity of the court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by a change in the presiding judge. Remanding the validly decided case would prolong the proceedings and run counter to the policy of a just, speedy, and inexpensive disposition of actions.