what is a sin perjuicio judgment? is it valid?

What respondent did in this case was to render what is known as a "sin perjuicio" judgment, which is a judgment without a statement of the facts in support of its conclusion to be later supplemented by the final judgment.1 That is why, in answer to complainant's charge that the dispositive portion of the judgment read to him did not impose a fine, respondent contends that the addition of the fine of P5,000.00 was within her power to do even if no such fine had been included in the oral sentence given on April 22, 1993. As respondent judge states, because the decision was not complete it could be modified and cites in support of her contention the case of Abay, Sr. v. Garcia.2Respondent only succeeds in showing that the judgment promulgated on April 22, 1993 was a "sin perjuicio" judgment which was incomplete and needed a statement of the facts and law upon which the judgment was based. As early as 1923, this Court already expressed its disapproval of the practice of rendering "sin perjuicio" judgments, what with all the uncertainties entailed because of the implied reservation that it is subject to modification when the decision is finally rendered.3 This Court has expressed approval of the practice of some judges of withholding the dispositive portion from their opinions until the very last moment of promulgation of their judgment in order to prevent leakage,4 but that refers to the preparation of their decision, not its promulgation. What must be promulgated must be the complete decision. There would be no more reason to keep the dispositive portion a secret at the stage of promulgation of judgment.

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ-96-1338 September 5, 1997

[Formerly OCA IPI-95-21-RTJ]

ENGINEER FERNANDO S. DIZON, complainant, 
vs.
JUDGE LILIA C. LOPEZ, Regional Trial Court, Branch 109, Pasay City, respondent.