G.R. No. L-31218 February 18, 1970
JUAN VERA, EXPEDITO SERRANO and ROMEO PLANTADO, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, COURT OF APPEALS and COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES SUR, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Juan Vera, Expedito Serrano, and Romeo Plantado were convicted of homicide by the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur in a decision dated July 25, 1966, which was affirmed with modification by the Court of Appeals on February 13, 1969. The petitioners filed a special proceeding for certiorari to set aside these decisions as null and void. They alleged that the trial court’s decision was promulgated and read to them on August 23, 1966, by Judge Jose T. Surtida, who had already retired from office as of July 31, 1966. They relied on jurisprudence stating that a decision promulgated by a judge after leaving the bench is without binding effect. The respondents, including the Solicitor General, manifested agreement with the petitioners’ view that the promulgation was null and void. Intervenor Alfredo Oliveros, a co-accused, also sought to join in nullifying the judgment.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners and intervenor can still raise the jurisdictional question that the decision is null due to its promulgation after the judge’s retirement, considering they did not raise this issue in their appeals to the Court of Appeals or in their prior petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied the motion for intervention. The Court held that the petitioners and intervenor are barred from raising the jurisdictional question at this late stage. While the legal principle cited by petitioners—that a decision promulgated by a judge after leaving office is void—is valid, the doctrine of estoppel by laches as enunciated in Tijam v. Sibonghanoy applies. The petitioners had multiple opportunities to raise the jurisdictional defect: during their appeal to the Court of Appeals, in their initial petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ decision, and in their motions for reconsideration. At all these stages, they only raised errors on the merits and never questioned the trial court’s jurisdiction based on the judge’s retirement. By invoking the jurisdiction of the courts for affirmative relief and submitting their cases for adjudication on the merits without raising the jurisdictional issue, they are now estopped from doing so. The Court emphasized that the trial court was one of competent jurisdiction when it rendered the decision on July 25, 1966, while Judge Surtida was still in office. The ends of justice would not be served by annulling the proceedings after the petitioners had fully availed themselves of the judicial process, and no denial of due process occurred as they were given every opportunity to defend themselves.