G.R. No. L-2080

FACTS:
On June 3, 1903, a complaint for estafa was filed against Miguel A. Soler and Felix Melliza in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Sorsogon (Eighth Judicial District). Trial commenced and concluded in June 1903, after which the judge reserved his decision. On April 30, 1904, the same trial judge, who was by then already the judge of the CFI for the Eleventh Judicial District, signed the judgment of conviction and an order admitting the defendants’ appeal in the City of Manila. These documents were then sent to the clerk of the CFI of Sorsogon for notification to the defendants. The appellants contended that the judgment was void because the judge who signed it was no longer the judge of the Sorsogon court at the time of signing, and there was no showing he was authorized to act for that court.

ISSUE:
Whether a judgment is valid if it is signed by a judge who, at the time of signing, is no longer the presiding judge of the court where the case is pending and has not been duly authorized to act for that court.

RULING:
No. The judgment is void and must be set aside.
The Supreme Court held that under the applicable laws (Sections 51 and 52 of Act No. 136 ), a judge may only hold court or act in a province outside his own district upon direction of the Supreme Court or the Chief Executive, or at the request of the judge thereof. At the time the judgment was signed, the judge was the presiding judge of a different judicial district (the Eleventh) and was not authorized to act in cases pending in the CFI of Sorsogon (the Eighth District). The provisions of Act No. 575 (later Sections 13 and 14 of Act No. 867 ), which allow a judge to sign a judgment outside his province, presuppose that the signing judge remains the judge of the court where the case is pending or is otherwise duly authorized. Since no such authority existed here, the judgment was rendered without jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the lower court for a new trial, with the evidence already on record preserved.