G.R. No. L-21889; July 26, 1966
TEODORA V. PALISOC, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, respondent.

FACTS

Teodora V. Palisoc was convicted of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Manila and appealed to the Court of Appeals. Her case was initially assigned to the Sixth Division, composed of Justices Emilio Peña, Fernando Hernandez, and Rafael Amparo, before whom the case was submitted for decision after oral argument. Justice Peña died on April 20, 1961. Five days later, on April 25, 1961, Palisoc’s counsel wrote to the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, expressing her desire to orally argue the case anew before the division to which it might be reassigned. Despite this manifestation, the case was reassigned to the Fifth Division, composed of Justices Juan Lanting, Eugenio Angeles, and Gustavo Victoriano. On May 25, 1963, the Fifth Division rendered a decision affirming the lower court’s judgment without first hearing Palisoc’s oral arguments. Palisoc received the decision on June 4, 1963, and on the same day filed a motion to set aside the decision and to calendar the case for hearing, alleging she was deprived of her day in court. This motion was denied. She then filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied, leading to the present certiorari action.

ISSUE

Whether the Justices of the Fifth Division of the Court of Appeals could validly decide the case despite not being present during its oral argument and not being the original members of the division to which the case was submitted for decision.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. It held that under Section 1 of Rule 53 of the Old Rules of Court, all justices who are members of the Court of Appeals at the time a case is taken up for consideration and adjudication may participate in its decision, regardless of whether they were members of the court or present at the date of submission. The only exception is if a party files a written manifestation at the date of submission expressing a desire that only the justices present during the oral argument participate. In this case, Palisoc filed no such manifestation at the time of submission; her request for a new oral argument came after the submission and the death of a justice. The Court further ruled that the denial of a second oral argument did not constitute a denial of due process, as Palisoc had already been afforded the right to argue her case orally, and there was no statutory right to a second hearing. The decision of the Fifth Division was therefore valid.