Writ of Prohibition enjoining Judge Capistrano from making cognizance of

civil & criminal election cases.

J. Capistrano was judge of CFI Oriental Negros although he was already 65
years of age and falling under the age of mandatory retirement for judges.
J. De la Costa was designated as auxiliary judge of the CFI of Oriental Negros.
J. De la Costa had an understanding with J. Capistrano that the former would
hear and take cognizance of all election protests and criminal actions then
filed/pending arising from the last general election.
J. Capistrano would hear and try the ordinary cases pending
But notwithstanding said agreement, J. Capistrano still tried to take
cognizance of the election protests and criminal actions in the court.
He also allegedly actively participated in the filing of the cases against
petitioners by appointing a deputy fiscal to file the information when the
provincial fiscal refused to do so.

Issue: WON Judge Capistrano can still continue holding his position

Held: YES

Although J. Capistrano is no longer a judge de jure pursuant to the mandatory

retirement provision under the Administrative Code, he is still a judge de
facto.
A de facto judge is one who exercises the duties of a judicial office under
color of an appointment or election thereto.
o He differs from a mere usurper who undertakes to act officially without
any color or right.
A judge de jure who is in all respects legally appointed and qualified and
whose term of office has not expired.
There seems to be a general rule of law that an incumbent of an office will
hold over after the conclusion of his term until the election and qualification
of a successor.
When a judge in good faith remains in office after his title has ended, he is a
de facto officer.