Can a clerk's failure to issue remittitur result in the loss of jurisdiction or void the judgment?

The court in Combs v. Haddock (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 627, 631, 26 Cal.Rptr. 252, characterized the issuance of remittitur as a ministerial act. Petitioners point to no case wherein the failure to perform a ministerial act resulted in the loss of jurisdiction or operated to void the judgment. And, without denigrating the inappropriateness of the clerk's dereliction, petitioners summon no arguments as to why, as a matter of policy, such tardiness on the clerk's part should void the judgment.

We agree that promotion of the orderly administration of justice and prompt disposition of cases are laudable goals. (See Wallace v. Municipal Court (1983) 140 Cal.App.3d 100, 105, 189 Cal.Rptr. 886.) However, we do not see how voiding the judgment of the court because of the tardiness of the clerk will promote either goal. If we declared here the transference of jurisdiction from the reviewing court to the one reviewed by operation of law rather than issuance of remittitur, without any statutory provision or guidance of the rules, only disorder could follow. Formal notice would become secondary to the performance of a ministerial act. Consequences could accrue without anticipation of intervention. Neither do we see how [221 Cal.App.3d 14] dismissing a criminal conviction because of a clerical failure would promote prompt disposition--dismissal of the case will not "punish" the offender.