G.R. No. 113296.

 January 16, 1998. *

administration, Judge Agton was transferred to another branch of the
ABC DAVAO AUTO SUPPLY, INC., petitioner, vs. COURT OF Regional Trial Court,  (RTC) but within the same Judicial Region.
3

APPEALS, ABUNDIO T. MERCED, doing business under the name Meanwhile, Judge Romeo Marasigan, who assumed office on
and style of SOUTHERN ENGINEERING WORKS, respondents. February 3, 1987,  was assigned to Branch XVI.
4

_____________________

Actions; Judgments; Any incipient defect in the decision of a judge

credit some vehicular parts from petitioner ABC, provided that payments are made
who was already transferred to another branch of the court when he rendered within 30 days after each purchase with 12% interest on the amount due and a 25%
the same is cured when the new judge denied the motion for reconsideration attorney’s fees in case of default. Out of the purchases, private respondent admittedly had
of said decision, indicating therein that he subscribed with and adopted in an outstanding balance of P99,217.15. Upon demand, private respondent refused payment
toto the previous judge’s decision.—It is a rule that a case is deemed of the balance on the ground that the said accounts had not yet matured. (Rollo, p. 16).
submitted for decision upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or 2
 The pre-trial ended on January 20, 1983 when Judge Nye was still presiding. The
memorandum required by the rules, or by the court. Records disclose that this pre-trial order dated August 16, 1984 was issued by Judge Dinopol.
case was submitted for decision sometime on March 1987 after the parties’
3
 Judge Agton was assigned to RTC Branch 6 in Mati, Davao Oriental, which is
within the same Judicial Region as Davao City.
submission of their memoranda as required by the court, at which time Judge 4
 Records furnished by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reveal that:
Marasigan was already presiding in Branch XVI. Thus, the case was “A. Judge Roque A. Agton was appointed presiding judge of the Regional Trial
submitted for decision to Judge Marasigan and not to Judge Agton who by Court, Branch 16, Davao City on July 19, 1985, took his oath of office on July 25, 1985
then was already transferred to another branch. Judge Agton’s decision, and assumed his duties on August 1, 1985. During the judicial reorganization on
therefore, appears to be tainted with impropriety. Nevertheless, the subsequent November 3, 1986, he was one of those reappointed. His appointment was for the
motion for reconsideration of Judge Agton’s decision was acted upon by Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Mati, Davao Oriental. He took his oath on February 1,
Judge Marasigan himself and his denial of the said motion indicates that he 1987 and assumed his duties on February 4, 1987. He was concurrently designated
Executive Judge and Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Baganga,
subscribed with and adopted in toto Judge Agton’s decision. Any incipient Davao Oriental, pursuant to Administrative Order #26 dated March 3,
defect was cured. Besides, the presumption that both magistrates (Agton and
Marasigan) have
_____________________
221
VOL. 284, JANUARY 16, 1998 221
*
 THIRD DIVISION.
ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. vs.
219
Court of Appeals
Sometime on May 1987, Judge Marasigan acted on private
VOL. 284, JANUARY respondent’s motion for extension of time to file memorandum. On
16, 1998 19 June 9, 1987 a decision penned by Judge Agton was rendered in
favor of petitioner. Private respondent moved to reconsider said
ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. decision, but the same was denied in an order dated March 1, 1988,
vs. Court of Appeals issued by Judge Marasigan. Private respondent appealed to the Court
regularly performed their official functions, have not at all been of Appeals (CA) which nullified Judge Agton’s decision on the
rebutted by contrary evidence. ground that at the time he rendered the judgment, he was neither the
Same;  Same; Courts; Jurisdiction;  Branches of the trial court are not judge de jure nor the judge de facto of RTC Branch XVI, and
distinct and separate tribunals from each other; Jurisdiction does not attach correspondingly remanded the case to the lower court.  Hence, this 5

to the judge but to the court.—Moreover, for a judgment to be binding, it must petition on the sole issue of whether or not the decision of Judge
be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge whose
signature appears thereon. This is in line with the Court’s En Banc Resolution
Agton is valid.
of February 10, 1983 implementing B.P. 129 which “merely requires that the It is a rule that a case is deemed submitted for decision upon the
judge who pens the decision is still an incumbent judge, i.e., in this case, a filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the
judge of the same court, albeit now assigned to a different branch, at the time rules, or by the court. Records disclose that this case was submitted
the decision is promulgated.” Branches of the trial court are not distinct and for decision sometime on March 1987 after the parties’ submission of
separate tribunals from each other. Hence, contrary to private respondent’s their memoranda as required by the court, at which time Judge
allegation, Judge Agton could not have possibly lost jurisdiction over the case, Marasigan was already presiding in Branch XVI. Thus, the case was
because jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court. The submitted for decision to Judge Marasigan and not to Judge Agton
continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the
death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the judge presiding over it.
who by then was already transferred to another branch. Judge
To remand a validly decided case to the incumbent Presiding Judge of Branch Agton’s decision, therefore, appears to be tainted with impropriety.
XVI, as what the CA suggests, would only prolong this rather simple Nevertheless, the subsequent motion for reconsideration of Judge
collection suit and would run counter to the avowed policy of the Court to Agton’s decision was acted upon by Judge Marasigan himself and his
accord a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition for every action. denial of the said motion indicates that he subscribed with and
adopted in toto Judge Agton’s decision. Any incipient defect was
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of cured. Besides, the presumption that both magistrates (Agton and
Appeals. Marasigan) have regularly per-
_____________________

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1988, x x x. He retired (compulsory retirement) last December 25, 1995.
     J.V. Yap Law Office for petitioner. B. Judge Romeo D. Marasigan was appointed during the judicial reorganization on
     Bienvenido D. Cariaga for private respondent. November 3, 1986 as judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Davao City, and
assumed office on February 3, 1987. He holds the same position up to the present. Prior
to this, he was Municipal Judge of Matanao, Davao (July 3, 1967).”
FRANCISCO, J.: 5
 CA decision penned by Justice F. Martin with Justices A. Gutierrez and R.
Mabutas, Jr., concurring; Rollo, pp. 15-23.
On October 6, 1980, a complaint for a sum of money, attorney’s fees
222
and damages  was filed by petitioner before the
1

___________________ 22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

 DASUDECO (Davao Sugar Central Company) contracted respondent Merced to
1
2 ANNOTATED
repair its trailers. The latter then bought on ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. vs.
220 Court of Appeals
22 SUPREME COURT REPORTS formed their official functions,  have not at all been rebutted by
6

contrary evidence.
0 ANNOTATED Moreover, for a judgment to be binding, it must be duly signed
ABC Davao Auto Supply, Inc. vs. and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge whose signature
appears thereon.  This is in line with the Court’s En Banc Resolution
Court of Appeals
7

of February 10, 1983 implementing B.P. 129  which “merely requires

8

Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Davao City that the judge who pens the decision is still an incumbent judge, i.e.,
which was raffled to Branch XVI. The pre-trial was conducted by in this case, a judge of the same court, albeit now assigned to a
Judge Pacita Canizares-Nye and later by Judges Alejandro Siazon different branch, at the time the decision is promulgated.”  Branches 9

and Cristeto Dinopol.  During the trial on November 20, 1984, Judge
2

of the trial court are not distinct and separate tribunals from each
Renato Fuentes heard the evidence for petitioner and private other.  Hence, contrary to private respondent’s allegation, Judge
10

respondent, but the latter’s cross examination on August 28, 1985 and Agton could not have possibly lost jurisdiction over the case,
the presentation of the parties’ rebuttal and sur-rebuttal evidences because jurisdiction does not attach to the judge but to the court.  The 11

were heard by Judge Roque Agton, having assumed office on August continuity of a court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not
1, 1985. When the judiciary was reorganized under the Aquino affected by the death, resignation, or cessation from the service of the
judge presiding over it. To remand a validly decided case to the
incumbent Presiding Judge of Branch XVI, as what the CA suggests,
would only prolong this rather simple collection suit and would run
_______________

6
 Rule 131, Section 3(m) Rules of Court.
7
 People v. Labao, 220 SCRA 100 (1993); Lao v. To-Chip, 158 SCRA 243 (1988)
citing among others Jimenez v. Republic, 22 SCRA 622 (1968); Siazon v. Judge of CFI
Cotabato, 26 SCRA 664 (1969); Solis v. CA, 38 SCRA 53 (1971); People v. So, 101 Phil.
1257 (unrep. 1957) citing Luna v. Rodriguez, 37 Phil. 186; Garchitorena v. Crescini, 37
Phil. 675; People v. CA, 99 Phil. 786.
8
 “1. Cases already submitted for decision shall be decided by the Judge to whom
they were submitted, except cases submitted for decision to judges who were promoted to
higher courts or to those who are no longer in the service.”
9
 People v. CFI of Quezon, Branch X, 227 SCRA 457, 461 (1993).
10
 People v. CFI of Quezon, supra; People v. Gorospe, 129 SCRA
233 citing Lumpay v. Moscoso, 105 Phil. 968.
11
 People v. CFI of Quezon, supra, at 461.

223
VOL. 284, JANUARY 16, 1998 223
People vs. Bato
counter to the avowed policy of the Court to accord a just, speedy and
inexpensive disposition for every action. 12

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals appealed

from is hereby SET ASIDE and the decision of Judge Agton is
REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
     Narvasa (C.J.,
Chairman), Romero, Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

Court of Appeals’ decision set aside; Decision of trial court

judge reinstated.