Transfer or re-raffle of cases explained. - G.R. No. 192737

G.R. No. 192737

"x x x.

A case, once raffled to a branch, belongs to that branch unless re-raffled or otherwise transferred to another branch in accordance with established procedure.[22]The primary responsibility over the case belongs to the presiding judge of the branch to which it has been raffled/re-raffled or assigned.

          The records bear out that on January 26, 2004, Spouses Guevarra filed a motion for reconsideration of the December 22, 2003 Decision and two days later, moved for a re-raffle of Civil Case No. 2187-00, allegedly to ensure the early resolution of the motion as there was no certainty as to when a new judge would be appointed to replace Judge Español. The motion to re-raffle was granted by the Executive Judge on January 28, 2004. Civil Case No. 2187-00 was later raffled to RTC-Br. 22, presided by Judge Mangrobang.  In the absence of clear and convincing proof that irregularity and manipulation attended the re-raffle of Civil Case No. 2187-00, the Court holds that said civil case was properly assigned and transferred to RTC- Br. 22, vesting Judge Mangrobang with the authority and competency to take cognizance, and to dispose, of the case and all pending incidents, such as Spouses Guevarra’s motion for reconsideration of the December 22, 2003 Decision.

          It bears to stress that while the RTC is divided into several branches, each of the branches is not a court distinct and separate from the others.[23] Jurisdiction is vested in the court, not in the judge, so that when a complaint is filed before one branch or judge, jurisdiction does not attach to the said branch of the judge alone, to the exclusion of others.[24] Succinctly, jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 2187-00 does not pertain solely to Branch 90 but to all the branches of the RTC, Cavite, including Branch 22 to where the case was subsequently re-raffled. The continuity of the court and the efficacy of its proceedings are not affected by the death, retirement or cessation from service of the judge presiding over it.[25] Evidently, the argument, that the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order and all orders subsequently issued by Judge Mangrobang were invalid for want of jurisdiction because of alleged undue interference by one branch over another, holds no water.

          At any rate, it is too late in the day for Castro to question the soundness and legality of the December 15, 2004 Omnibus Order, which has already attained finality.

The Court notes that Castro never questioned the said Omnibus Order at the first opportunity by filing a motion for reconsideration within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof. Neither did she elevate it to the CA via a petition for certiorari within sixty (60) days from notice of said Order, pursuant to Section 4 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Castro kept her silence on the matter, indicating that she slept on her rights. Her failure to seasonably avail of these remedies effectively closed the door for a possible reconsideration or reversal of the subject Omnibus Order. Thus, if there was indeed error in the disposition of Spouses Guevarra’s motion for reconsideration of theDecember 22, 2003 Decision, Castro was not entirely without blame.

x x x."