G.R. No. RTJ-88-246; May 15, 1991
IN RE: UNAUTHORIZED REASSUMPTION OF OFFICE BY DISMISSED JUDGE MARCELO G. GARCIA

FACTS

In a July 19, 1990 en banc decision in A.M. No. RTJ-88-246, respondent Judge Marcelo G. Garcia, then presiding judge of Branch 51, RTC, Puerto Princesa City, was found guilty of serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and knowingly rendering an unjust order. He was ordered dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits. Judge Filomeno Vergara took over as pairing judge. Despite this dismissal, on December 10, 1990, Judge Garcia reassumed his former post. He based his action on an alleged motion for reconsideration he claimed was given due course and a telegram from a Supreme Court administrative officer instructing him to submit his certificate of service.
From December 10 to 14, 1990, Judge Garcia actively performed judicial functions. He decided multiple criminal and civil cases, ordered cases archived, conducted hearings, and issued interlocutory orders. Notably, he acquitted several individuals accused of serious crimes, leading to their release from jail. This prompted an inquiry from the pairing judge, and subsequently, Executive Judge Sabas R. Acosta requested Judge Garcia to present his authority to reassume office. Judge Garcia failed to produce any valid authorization.

ISSUE

Whether the judicial acts performed by Judge Marcelo G. Garcia during his unauthorized reassumption of office from December 10, 1990, are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court declared all judicial acts, decisions, orders, and processes performed by former Judge Garcia during his reassumption null and void. The Court’s legal logic is clear: a dismissal order from the Supreme Court is immediately executory. Judge Garcia’s dismissal in the July 19, 1990 decision had become final and executory long before his reassumption. His claim of a pending motion for reconsideration was unfounded, as the records showed no such filing in the correct case. The Court noted that even if he had not physically received the decision, his counsel’s October 1990 manifestation admitted knowledge that the case had been decided. This imposed a duty on him to verify the decision’s contents before reassuming office; his failure to do so demonstrated bad faith.
The Court applied the precedent set in the Maddela case, where acts performed by a judge after separation from service are void for lack of authority. Consequently, Judge Garcia had no legal power to act as a judge from the moment his dismissal took effect. His successors were directed to take all necessary measures to implement this resolution, including recalling his judgments and issuing appropriate new ones. The matter was also referred to the Department of Justice for investigation.