Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO P. NAZARENO v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 218536 2016-01-26	ROLANDO P. TOLENTINO v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Thus, the MTCC had already lost complete jurisdiction of the case when it issued the writ of execution pending appeal. At this point, the proper forum that could have granted execution pending appeal was the Commission itself which already acquired jurisdiction over the case. It is a fundamental legal tenet that any order issued without jurisdiction is void and without legal effect - a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain on sight.[12]
	AM No. MTJ-07-1683 2013-09-11	OCA v. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO CARPIO, J.
Furthermore, the Court finds Judge Soriano guilty of gross ignorance of the law. As found by the OCA, Judge Soriano decided 12 cases on 25 July 2006, which was the day his compulsory retirement took effect. Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution[15] states that judges shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Thus, Judge Soriano was automatically retired from service effective 25 July 2006, and he could no longer exercise on that day the functions and duties of his office, including the authority to decide and promulgate cases.[16]
	GR No. 194168 2013-02-13	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. SPS. PLACIDO PERALTA, J.
Accordingly, a void judgment is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final, and any writ of execution based on it is void: "x x x it may be said to be a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."[30]
	GR No. 192945 2012-09-05	CITY OF IRIGA v. CAMARINES SUR III ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Considering that RA 9282 was already in effect when the RTC rendered its decision on February 7, 2005, CASURECO III should have filed its appeal, not with the CA, but with the CTA Division in accordance with the applicable law and the rules of the CTA. Resort to the CA was, therefore, improper, rendering its decision null and void for want of jurisdiction over the subject matter. A void judgment has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place.[20] Hence, the fact that petitioner's motion for reconsideration from the CA Decision was belatedly filed is inconsequential, because a void and non-existent decision would never have acquired finality.[21]
	GR No. 145817 2011-10-19	URBAN BANK v. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA SERENO, J.
A void judgment never acquires finality.[307] In contemplation of law, that void decision is deemed non-existent.[308] Quod nullum est, nullum producit effectum.[309] Hence, the validity of the execution pending appeal will ultimately hinge on the court's findings with respect to the decision in which the execution is based.
	GR No. 161220 2008-07-30	BENATIRO v. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Nazareno v. Court of Appeals,[39] we stated the consequences of a void judgment, thus:A void judgment never acquires finality. Hence, while admittedly, the petitioner in the case at bar failed to appeal timely the aforementioned decision of the Municipal Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, it cannot be deemed to have become final and executory. In contemplation of law, that void decision is deemed non-existent. Thus, there was no effective or operative judgment to appeal from. In Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System vs. Sison, this Court held that:
	GR NO. 170232 2006-12-05	VETTE INDUSTRIAL SALES CO. v. SUI SOAN S. CHENG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
We have repeatedly warned against the injudicious and often impetuous issuance of default orders.[33] While it is desirable that the Rules of Court be faithfully observed, courts should not be so strict about procedural lapses that do not really impair the proper administration of justice. If the rules are intended to ensure the proper and orderly conduct of litigation, it is because of the higher objective they seek which is the attainment of justice and the protection of substantive rights of the parties. Thus, the relaxation of procedural rules, or saving a particular case from the operation of technicalities when substantial justice requires it, as in the instant case, should no longer be subject to cavil.[34]
	AM NO. MTJ-02-1397 2005-06-28	REPORT ON ON-THE-SPOT JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT QUISUMBING, J.
As held in Nazareno v. Court of Appeals,[8] there is no valid judgment entered in a criminal case when the judge who signed the decision was no longer the judge of the court at the time of the promulgation of the decision because he had already retired.[9] It is settled that once retired, a judge could no longer decide cases. Neither may he, or his successors, promulgate the decisions written by him while he was still in office.[10] A violation of this rule would make a judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.
	AM RTJ-04-1849 2004-09-20	RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT IN RTC-BRANCH 15 PANGANIBAN, J.
The foregoing circumstances put into question the validity of the foregoing Decisions. Well-established is the rule on the invalidity of decisions issued and promulgated after the judge who has signed them ceases to hold office.[5]