SC deems valid sacked judge’s decisions

The Supreme Court (sc) has declared the approximately 1,200 orders and decisions issued by a suspended Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge in Paniqui, Tarlac, as valid.

The high court stated that its decision aims to protect the rights of parties involved and uphold the administration of justice.

In a resolution dated 29 October 2024 but was only made public this week, the SC en banc reasoned that retroactively nullifying the rulings of RTC Judge Liberty Castañeda would necessitate the reopening of numerous cases.

It said that such a reopening of cases would cause significant harm to the litigants and undermine the stability and integrity of the judicial process.

Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, who penned the ruling, stated that invalidating Castañeda’s judicial acts retroactively would disrupt the orderly administration of justice.

The Supreme Court applied the de facto officer doctrine and the analogous operative fact doctrine in this case.

The ruling was issued following requests for clarification on the status of Castañeda’s decisions made during her suspension, particularly from parties in annulment cases amid civil registrars questioning their validity.

Records indicated that Castañeda was suspended from office from 12 January 2010 until her dismissal on 9 October 2012. During this period, she ruled on 1,237 cases.

In good faith

The de facto officer doctrine recognizes the actions of an improperly serving official to protect public rights.

The SC noted that Castañeda continued to perform her duties as a judge with public acceptance of her authority, and there was no indication that the public was aware of her suspension.

The SC also found that Castañeda did not act in bad faith by continuing her judicial functions, as she believed she was entitled to resume her duties based on her understanding of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which provide for automatic reinstatement after a 90-day suspension if no final decision is rendered.

The court further stated that even if bad faith were assumed, good faith possession is not always the determining factor in applying the de facto officer doctrine.

Beyond the legal basis, the Supreme Court emphasized the broader implications of invalidating Castañeda’s decisions.

It warned that such an action could plunge the legal system into disorder, potentially reopening numerous cases, setting aside judgments and undermining the integrity of the judicial process.