Laud vs. People, G.R. No. 199032, November 19, 2014 ISSUE: ISSUE: Havi Havin ng been been div dives este ted d as Vic Vice e Exec Execu utive tive Ju Judge dge pur pursuant uant to to Sect Sectiion 5, 5, Chapter III of A.. !o. "#$%$"&$SC, 'as the issuance of Search (arrant !o. ")$*++" b- Judge era/ta an issuance b- a de facto o0cer1 22etitioner3s contention: Citing Section 5, Chapter III of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC which provides that !t"he i#position $pon an %&ec$tive %&ec$t ive '$d '$dge ge or (ic (ice-%& e-%&ec$ ec$tiv tive e '$d '$dge ge of an ad# ad#ini inistr strat ative ive pen pena)t a)t* * of at )ea )east st a rep repri#a ri#and nd sha sha)) )) a$to#atica))* operate to divest hi# of his position as s$ch,+ s$ch,+ a$d c)ai#s that '$dge era)ta had had no a$thorit* to act as (ice-%&ec$tive (ice-%&ec$tive '$dge and according)* according)* iss$ iss$e e Searc Search h a arran rrantt No. 0/-110 in view of the Co$rts 4eso)$tion in Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. v. Judge Peralta wherein he was ad#inistrative)* pena)ied with fines of 5,000.00 and 5,000.00.
RULING: RULING: 4ES. Iposition of adinistrative pena/ties did operate to divest Judge era/ta3s authorit- to act as Vice$Executive Judge, it ust be 6ua/i7ed that the abstraction of such authorit- 'ou/d not, b- and of itse/f, resu/t in the inva/idit- of Search (arrant !o. ")$*++" considering that Judge era/ta a- be considered to have have ade ade the issua issuance nce as a de facto facto o0cer o0cer 'hose 'hose acts acts 'ou/d, 'ou/d, noneth nonethe/e e/ess ss,, reain va/id. 8he treatent of a de facto o0cer3s acts is preised on the rea/it- that third persons cannot a/'a-s investigate the right of one assuing to ho/d an iportant o0ce and, as such, have a right to assue that o0cia/s apparent/- 6ua/i7ed and in o0ce are /ega//- such. ub/ic interest deands that acts of persons ho/ding, under co/or of tit/e, an o0ce created b- a va/id statute be, /i9e'ise, deeed va/id insofar as the pub/ic as distinguished fro the o0cer in 6uestion is concerned. Indeed, it is far ore cogent/- ac9no'/edged that the de facto doctrine has been foru/ated, not for the protection of the de facto o0cer principa//-, but rather for the protection of the the pub/ pub/ic ic and and indi indivi vidu dua/ a/s s 'ho 'ho get get invo invo/v /ved ed in the the o0ci o0cia/ a/ acts acts of pers person ons s discharging the duties of an o0ce 'ithout being /a'fu/ o0cers.