A.M. No. RTJ-04-1849. September 20, 2004. RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT IN RTC-BRANCH 15, OZAMIZ CITY (JUDGE PEDRO L. SUAN; JUDGE RESURRECTION T. INTING OF BRANCH 16, TANGUB CITY).
FACTS

This administrative matter arose from a judicial audit of RTC Branch 15, Ozamiz City, presided by Judge Pedro L. Suan. The audit revealed a significant backlog, including 39 cases submitted for decision. The Court granted Judge Suan an extension to resolve these cases. However, upon his compulsory retirement on May 29, 2002, 24 cases remained unresolved. The Court subsequently directed him to decide specific cases and resolve pending motions. After his retirement, Judge Suan promulgated decisions in three civil cases on dates beyond his retirement. Furthermore, decisions in seven criminal cases, which he had penned and signed while in office, were promulgated after his retirement by Judge Resurrection T. Inting, who was designated as acting presiding judge.

ISSUE

Whether Judges Pedro L. Suan and Resurrection T. Inting are administratively liable for their actions related to the promulgation of decisions after Judge Suan’s retirement.

RULING

Yes, both judges are administratively liable. The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that a judge who has retired or otherwise ceased to hold office loses all authority to perform official judicial acts. This includes both writing and promulgating decisions. A decision is valid only if both penned and promulgated by a judge who is still in office at the time of promulgation. Judge Suan violated this rule by personally promulgating three decisions after the effective date of his retirement. His claim that he was merely finishing work from his incumbency is unavailing; the act of promulgation is a critical judicial function requiring current authority, which he no longer possessed.
Judge Inting, in turn, erred by promulgating decisions penned by Judge Suan. A successor judge cannot promulgate the decision of a predecessor who has left office. The proper course for Judge Inting was to re-hear the cases or consider them submitted for new decision. His good faith belief that he was merely assisting does not excuse the act, as it constitutes ignorance of a settled procedural rule. Consequently, Judge Suan was found guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and fined P40,000, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. Judge Inting was found guilty of Simple Ignorance of the Law and fined P20,000. The Court declared all subject decisions void and of no legal effect, without prejudice to the filing of appropriate actions to revive the cases.