4.ABC DAVAO v CA transferred to another branch.

Nevertheless, the subsequent motion for

GR # 113296 reconsideration of Judge Agton's decision was acted upon by Judge Marasigan
DATE: Janury 16, 1998 himself and his denial of the said motion indicates that the subscribed with and
Atmos adopted in toto Judge Agton's decision. Any incipient defect was cured. Moreover,
Topic: Doctrine of non-interference and judicial stability for a judgment to be binding, it must be duly signed and promulgated during the
Petitioners: ABC DAVAO AUTO SUPPLY, INC incumbency of the judge whose signature appears thereon. This is in line with the
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS, ABUNDIO T. MERCED, doing business under the Court's Resolution implementing B.P. 129 which merely requires that the judge who
name and style of SOUTHERN ENGINEERING WORKS pens the decision is still an incumbent judge, i.e., in this case, a judge of the same
Ponente: Francisco, J. court, albeit now assigned to a different branch, at the time the decision is
promulgated. Branches of the trial court are not distinct and separate tribunals from
Doctrine: The judge who pens the decision is still an incumbent judge, i.e., in this each other. Hence, contrary to private respondent's allegation, Judge Agton could
case, a judge of the same court, albeit now assigned to a different branch, at the not have possibly lost jurisdiction over the case, because jurisdiction does not attach
time the decision is promulgated. Branches of the trial court are not distinct and to the judge but to the court.
separate tribunals from each other.

FACTS:

A complaint for sum of money, attorney’s fees, and damages was filed by
ABC before CFI Davao which was raffled to Branch XVI. During trial, Judge
Fuentes heard the evidence, but the cross-examination and the presenta-
tion of rebuttals/sur-rebuttals were heard by Judge Agton. When the judi-
ciary was reorganized, Judge Agton was transferred to another branch, but
was still within the same judicial region. Judge Marasigan was then as-
signed to Branch XVI. Judge Marasigan acted on private respondent’s mo-
tion for extension of time, however, a decision penned by Judge Agton was
rendered in favor of petitioner. Private respondent moved to reconsider
said decision, but the same was denied in an order issued by Judge Marasi-
gan. Private respondent then appealed to the CA which nullified Judge Ag-
ton’s decision as he was neither the judge de jure or judge de fact of
Brach XVI when he rendered the judgment.

ISSUE: Whether Judge Agton’s decision is valid (YES)

HELD: A case is deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief or memorandum required by the rules, or by the court. Records disclose that
this case was submitted for decision sometime on March 1987 at which time Judge
Marasigan was already presiding in Branch XVI. Thus, the case was submitted for
decision to Judge Marasigan and not to Judge Agton who by then was already