G.R. No. L-76597 February 26, 1988
Tomas Lao, petitioner, vs. Leticia Abianda To-Chip, Ramon To-Chip and Court of Appeals, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Leticia Abianda To-Chip filed a letters-complaint with the Bureau of Lands, leading to a criminal complaint for squatting against petitioner Tomas Lao. The Provincial Fiscal dismissed the charges. Petitioner, alleging public shame as a prominent businessman, filed a damages suit against the private respondents under Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. The trial court awarded him damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the complaint in a decision promulgated on August 1, 1986.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, challenging the validity of the appellate court’s decision. He argued that on August 1, 1986, the Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction as two of the three members of the division that rendered the decision—Justices Gaviola and Quetulio-Losa—had been effectively disempowered due to a court reorganization. The Court of Appeals denied the motion, reasoning that justices not reappointed held office in a hold-over capacity until the newly appointed justices took their oath on the afternoon of August 1, 1986, and thus were validly performing functions when the decision was promulgated at 11:45 A.M. that day.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals decision promulgated on August 1, 1986, is valid, given the reorganization of the court and the status of the justices who signed it.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared the decision null and void. The legal logic centers on the loss of judicial authority and the requirement for a valid quorum. Executive Order No. 33 mandated that three members constitute a quorum for a division, requiring a unanimous vote for a decision. Crucially, the records showed that President Aquino accepted the resignations of the Court of Appeals justices, including Gaviola and Quetulio-Losa, on July 30, 1986. Notices of this acceptance were received by their offices on the evening of July 31 and the morning of August 1, 1986, prior to the 11:45 A.M. promulgation.
Therefore, at the time of promulgation, Justices Gaviola and Quetulio-Losa had ceased to be members of the court by virtue of the accepted resignations. Their authority terminated upon notification of the presidential acceptance, not upon the oath-taking of their successors. Consequently, the division lacked the requisite quorum of three actual, incumbent justices to validly promulgate a decision. The Court rejected the hold-over capacity argument, as endorsing it would abet disorder in judicial administration. It applied the settled doctrine that a judgment must be promulgated during the signing judge’s incumbency; a decision promulgated after a judge’s retirement or loss of authority is void. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals for a new adjudication.