Garchitorena vs Crescini
judge who filed the said decision, and there being no
Facts:
An election was held for the office of the governor of
the Province of Ambos Camarines. After the close of
said election the votes were canvassed, and on the
21st day of June, 1916, the Respondent was declared
elected governor by the provincial board of
canvassers. That a protest against said election was
duly filed on the 1st day of July, 1916, in the Court of
First Instance of said province by the Petitioner. That
notice of said protest was duly given, issue was joined,
a trial was had, the respective parties were duly heard
and presented their proof; that the trial was closed,
and the cause was finally submitted to the court for
decision, and a decision was filed with the clerk on
the 27th day of April, 1917, notice of which was duly
given to the parties on the 30th day of April, 1917.
Respondent contends that at the time said decision
was filed with the clerk the judge who prepared and
filed it was not a judge of the court, neither de jure nor
de facto.
This is because sometime prior to the 31st day of
March, 1917, the judge who filed said decision was one
of the auxiliary judges of the Court of First Instance of
the Province of Amboe Camarines. That said judge, on
the 31st day of March, 1917, have been appointed as
Director of Lands.
That Candelario Borja, having been appointed
auxiliary judge of the Courts of First Instance of the
Fourth Group, including the Province of Ambos
Camarines, took the oath of office on the 16th day of
March, 1917, and entered upon the performance of his
duty as such auxiliary judge of said province on the
28th day of March, 1917.
Issue:
WON the decision made by the judge after his
appointment as director of lands, null and void?
Held: Yes.
The judge, who filed the decision in question upon the
27th day of April, 1917, had taken the oath of office as
Director of Lands on the 31st day of March, 1917, and
began to draw his salary as such Director of Lands
from the 28th day of March, 1917.
Also, his successor was appointed and had entered
upon the performance of his duties as auxuliary judge
on the 28th day of March, 1917, in substitution of the
law providing for two auxiliary judges of the Court of
First Instance of said province, we must conclude that,
prior to the 27th day of April, 1917, said judge had
ceased to be auxiliary judge of said province and was,
therefore, without authority to promulgate decisions
in said province.
The judge who filed the decision cannot be considered
a judge de jure, for the reason that another judge was
actually acting in his place and stead and had been for
nearly a month prior to the promulgation of the
decision in question on the 27th day of April, 1917.
Neither can he be considered a judge de facto, for the
reason that there was a de jure judge actually
discharging the functions of the office in question.
There cannot be a de facto judge when there is
a de jure judge in the actual performance of
the duties of the office.
In order to be a de facto judge he must still be acting
under some color of right. He cannot be actually acting
under any color of the right when he has ceased to be
judge and has actually vacated the office by the
acceptance of another office and by actually entering
upon the duties of the other office.
A judgment rendered by a judge after he has ceased to
be judge and who has vacated his office, will be set
aside on motion.
Where the term of office of a judge has terminated and
his successor has qualified and he has ceased to act as
judge his subsequent acts in attempting to dispose of
business left unfinished by him before the expiration
of his term are void.