GR 73777 78; (September, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. Nos. 73777-78 September 12, 1990
THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION (SOLIDBANK), petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, PHILIPPINE KNITTING MILLS, INC., SPOUSES LUIS CHENG, SPOUSES TOMAS CHENG, SPOUSES CARLOS CRUZ & CHENG KIEM HUEN CRUZ, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Solidbank, assails a resolution of the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) dated January 10, 1986, which set aside a prior decision of one of its divisions. The original decision, penned by the late Justice Simeon M. Gopengco, was signed by him and concurred in by Justices Patajo, Racela, and Purisima. The first page of the decision indicated promulgation on July 19, 1985. However, court records, including a certification from the Division Clerk of Court, established that the ponencia was received from Justice Gopengco’s office and was actually promulgated on July 23, 1985. Justice Gopengco had died on July 20, 1985. The IAC, in its assailed resolution, declared the July 23 promulgation void, citing the rule that a decision cannot be promulgated after the death of the judge who wrote it.
ISSUE
Whether a decision of a collegiate court, penned by a ponente who died before its promulgation, remains valid and can be lawfully promulgated.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the IAC’s resolution declaring the decision void. The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the rule on post-vacancy promulgation, established for single-judge courts, should not apply to collegiate bodies. The Court held that a decision becomes binding only from the moment of its valid promulgation, not from the date of signing. Before promulgation, any member of the court, including the ponente, retains the privilege to change their vote or opinion. This principle applies equally to collegiate courts. The ponente, having made a special study of the case, must remain a member of the court at the time of promulgation to exercise this last-minute prerogative. Since Justice Gopengco died before the July 23 promulgation, his vote was automatically withdrawn. Consequently, his ponencia “died with him” and could not be validly promulgated thereafter. The Court emphasized that its practice of deferring promulgation when a ponente is on official leave supports this rationale, as it affords the author a final opportunity to propose changes.