Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREME COURT
Manila
On September 9, 2004, the RTC received another letter from Mr. Hunt,
reiterating the request for a copy of the decision in Special Proceedings
Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of Presumptive
Death of Rey Laserna.2
EN BANC
A.C. No. 6732
Judge Penuela instructed the civil docket clerk to retrieve the records of
Special Proceedings Case No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration
of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna. It was then discovered that the RTC
had no record of Special Proceedings No. 084 wherein Shirley Quioyo was
the petitioner. Instead, the court files revealed that Judge Penuela had
decided Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rolando Austria, whose petitioner was
one Serena Catin Austria.
Informed that the requested decision and case records did not exist, 3 Mr.
Hunt sent a letter dated October 12, 2004 attaching a machine copy of the
purported decision in Special Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of
the Declaration of Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna that had been
presented by Shirley Quioyo in court proceedings in the UK. 4
After comparing the two documents and ascertaining that the document
attached to the October 12, 2004 letter was a falsified court document,
Judge Penuela wrote Mr. Hunt to apprise him of the situation. 5
The discovery of the falsified decision prompted the Clerk of Court to
communicate on the situation in writing to the NBI, triggering the
investigation of the falsification.6
In the meanwhile, Dy Quioyo, a brother of Shirley Quioyo, executed an
affidavit on March 4, 2005,7 wherein he stated that it was the respondent
who had facilitated the issuance of the falsified decision in Special
Proceedings No. 084 entitled In the Matter of the Declaration of
Presumptive Death of Rey Laserna for a fee of P60,000.00. The allegations
against the respondent were substantially corroborated by Mary Rose
Quioyo, a sister of Shirley Quioyo, in an affidavit dated March 20, 2005. 8
The NBI invited the respondent to explain his side, 9 but he invoked his
constitutional right to remain silent. The NBI also issued subpoenas to
Shirley Quioyo and Dy Quioyo but only the latter appeared and gave his
sworn statement.
After conducting its investigation, the NBI forwarded to the Office of the
Ombudsman for Visayas the records of the investigation, with a
recommendation that the respondent be prosecuted for falsification of
public document under Article 171, 1 and 2, of the Revised Penal Code,
and for violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act).10 The NBI likewise recommended to the Office of
the Court Administrator that disbarment proceedings be commenced
against the respondent.11 Then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr. (now a Member of the Court) officially endorsed the recommendation to
the Office of the Bar Confidant.12
Upon being required by the Court, the respondent submitted his counteraffidavit,13 whereby he denied any participation in the falsification. He
insisted that Dy Quioyo had sought his opinion on Shirleys petition for the
annulment of her marriage; that he had given advice on the pertinent laws
involved and the different grounds for the annulment of marriage; that in
June 2004, Dy Quioyo had gone back to him to present a copy of what
appeared to be a court decision;14 that Dy Quioyo had then admitted to
him that he had caused the falsification of the decision; that he had
advised Dy Quioyo that the falsified decision would not hold up in an
investigation; that Dy Quioyo, an overseas Filipino worker (OFW), had
previously resorted to people on Recto Avenue in Manila to solve his
documentation problems as an OFW; and that he had also learned from
Atty. Angeles Orquia, Jr. that one Mrs. Florencia Jalipa, a resident of
Igbalangao, Bugasong, Antique, had executed a sworn statement before
Police Investigator Herminio Dayrit with the assistance of Atty. Orquia, Jr.
to the effect that her late husband, Manuel Jalipa, had been responsible for
making the falsified document at the instance of Dy Quioyo.15
Thereafter, the Court issued its resolution16 treating the respondents
counter-affidavit as his comment, and referred the case to the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation.
The IBPs Report and Recommendation
In a report and recommendation dated June 14, 2006, 17 Atty. Lolita A.
Quisumbing, the IBP Investigating Commissioner, found the respondent
guilty of serious misconduct and violations of the Attorneys Oath and Code
of Professional Responsibility , and recommended his suspension from the
practice of law for one year. She concluded that the respondent had forged
the purported decision of Judge Penuela by making it appear that Special
Proceedings No. 084 concerned a petition for declaration of presumptive
death of Rey Laserna, with Shirley Quioyo as the petitioner, when in truth
and in fact the proceedings related to the petition for declaration of
presumptive death of Rolando Austria, with Serena Catin Austria as the
petitioner;18 and that the respondent had received P60,000.00 from Dy
Quioyo for the falsified decision. She rationalized her conclusions thusly:
Respondents denials are not worthy of merit. Respondent contends that it
was one Manuel Jalipa (deceased) who facilitated the issuance and as
proof thereof, he presented the sworn statement of the widow of Florencia
Jalipa (sic). Such a contention is hard to believe. In the first place, if the
decision was obtained in Recto, Manila, why was it an almost verbatim
reproduction of the authentic decision on file in Judge Penuelas branch
except for the names and dates? Respondent failed to explain this.
Secondly, respondent did not attend the NBI investigation and merely
invoked his right to remain silent. If his side of the story were true, he
should have made this known in the investigation. His story therefore
appears to have been a mere afterthought. Finally, there is no plausible
reason why Dy Quioyo and his sister, Mary Rose Quioyo would falsely
implicate him in this incident. 19
In its Resolution No. XVII-2007-063 dated February 1, 200, 20 the IBP
Board of Governors adopted and approved, with modification, the report
and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner by suspending the
respondent from the practice of law for six years.
On December 11, 2008, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No.
XVIII-2008-70921 denying the respondents motion for reconsideration and
affirming Resolution No. XVII-2007-063. The IBP Board of Governors then
forwarded the case to the Court in accordance with Section 12(b), Rule
139-B22 of the Rules of Court.
On January 11, 2011, the Court resolved: (1) to treat the respondents
comment/opposition as his appeal by petition for review; (2) to consider
the complainants reply as his comment on the petition for review; (3) to
require the respondent to file a reply to the complainants comment within
10 days from notice; and (4) to direct the IBP to transmit the original
records of the case within 15 days from notice.
Ruling
principles that the privilege to practice law confers upon him. 27 Verily, no
lawyer is immune from the disciplinary authority of the Court whose duty
and obligation are to investigate and punish lawyer misconduct committed
either in a professional or private capacity.28 The test is whether the
conduct shows the lawyer to be wanting in moral character, honesty,
probity, and good demeanor, and whether the conduct renders the lawyer
unworthy to continue as an officer of the Court. 29 WHEREFORE, the Court
FINDS AND PRONOUNCES ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N.
PE, JR. guilty of violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, and Rule 7.03 of Canon 7
of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and DISBARS him effective upon
receipt of this decision.
The Court DIRECTS the Bar Confidant to remove the name of ASST.
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SALVADOR N. PE, JR. from the Roll of
Attorneys.
This decision is without prejudice to any pending or contemplated
proceedings to be initiated against ASST. PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR N. PE, JR.
Let copies of this decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant
the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all courts of the
country and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
SO ORDERED.
Re: FAKE DECISION ALLEGEDLY in G.R. No 75242
RESOLUTION
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The instant administrative matter arose when Dario G. Silvestre,
Senior Manager, Credit and Appraisal Management OPS of the
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), furnished the Court with a
photocopy of an alleged certified true copy of a two-page decision of the
Second Division of the Court composed of and duly signed by Chief Justice
Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Associate Justices Josue N. Bellosillo, Jose O. Vitug,
Santiago M. Kapunan, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Artemio V. Panganiban,
Arturo B. Buena and Minerva P. Gonzales-Reyes (sic). The decision
entitled University of the Philippines, et al., Petitioner, vs. St. Mary
Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc.
THE PUBLISHER
SCRA, Annotated
Re: Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation
vs. UP 144 SCRA 763 (1999)
By virtue of the authority vested upon me, it is hereby
ordered that the attached Resolution en banc, duly concurred and
attested by the parties concerned, be included and compiled in the
publication of the SCRA, Annotated books.
The inclusion in the publication is deemed necessary in the
light of major developments in appellate jurisdiction and
procedures on the basis of judicial decisions and administrative
circulars of the Supreme Court bearing in the administration of
justice.
The accessibility of other legal publication, notwithstanding
the intent in the inclusion in the SCRA, Annotated books, is still to
publish a purely textual or topical treatment of judicial proceedings
and to contribute to the enrichment of Philippine legal literature.
(Sg
d.)
LUZVIMINDA D.
PUNO
Clerk of
Court
Sir/Madam:
Clerk of
Court
The records of the Court revealed, however, that the docket number
(G.R. No. 75242) of the alleged Court decision was assigned to the case
of Manila Resource Development Corporation, Petitioner vs.
National Labor Relations Commission and Ruben Manahan,
Respondents, which was promulgated on September 4, 1992. The
Decision of the Court in this case became final and executory and Entry of
Judgment was made of record on September 28, 1992.
Thus, in a Resolution dated September 24, 2002, the Court ordered
the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct a
discreet investigation of the matter and to thereafter submit a report
thereon. Mr. Silvestre was, likewise, directed to submit to the Court the
names of the party or parties who furnished his office with the spurious
decision and a detailed narration of the events surrounding the delivery
thereof.
In his Sworn Statement dated November 25, 2002, Mr. Silvestre
narrated that sometime in June 2002, a certain Ms. Teodora N. Villanueva
came to their office at the DBP Building, Sen. Gil Puyat corner Makati
Avenues, Makati City. She claimed to be the duly-authorized representative
of the Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc.
whom she alleged to be the owner of a track of land in Quezon City. She
then inquired if the bank could finance the alleged Housing Project of the
Foundation, or if there could be a local and foreign funder who would be
willing to finance the same. Mr. Silvestre informed Ms. Villanueva that the
bank would first have to conduct the proper verification and investigation
of the property, and that it was a long process. She then presented and
handed over to Mr. Silvestre the following photocopies of documents
proving the alleged ownership of the properties:
(a) Authorization dated May 28, 2002 issued by Jaime B. Borjal,
President and Chairman of the Board of the Foundation and attested by
Felicisimo C. Arellano, Corporate Secretary, vesting upon Ms. Teodora N.
Villanueva & Associates the authority to transact business and to negotiate
for the acquisition of local/foreign funding assistance to finance the
Housing and other relevant projects of the Foundation; [1]
(b) Secretarys Certificate dated May 25, 2002 issued by Felicisimo
C. Arellano of B-9 L-5 Sunnyville 4 Subd., Ampid I, San Mateo, Rizal,
stating that on May 25, 2002, the Board of Directors of the Foundation,
with address at Unit 627 Cityland Shaw Towers, Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong
City, issued Board Resolution No. 02.009 manifesting the authority of
Teodora N. Villanueva & Associates, to transact business and to negotiate
for the acquisition of local/foreign funding assistance for housing and other
relevant projects of the Foundation, and to act as negotiator for and in
behalf of the Foundation and directing that copies of the Resolution be
furnished the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other
concerned offices/agencies for their information and guidance. [2]
(c) A Resolution dated March 2, 2000 allegedly issued by the
Second Division of this Court and signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr. and Associate Justices Josue N. Bellosillo, Jose O. Vitug, Santiago M.
Kapunan, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Artemio V. Panganiban, Arturo B.
Buena and Minerva P. Gonzales-Reyes (sic) in LRC Case No. Q-90-021
entitled Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation,
Inc., Applicant, quoted above;[3]
(d) An Order dated December 28, 1999 issued in LRC Case No. Q90-021 in Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation,
Inc., Applicant by Judge Teodoro A. Bay of the Regional Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 86, and certified as true a xerox copy by Idelrose B.
Mabunga, Officer-in-Charge, which reads in full as follows:
WHEREAS, based on the records of the aforecited case, the adversarial
claims of the parties on the land in question were placed under the
jurisdiction of the Land Registration Authority by virtue of a Court Order
dated October 5, 1998 referring the case to them for resolution and proper
disposition.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the said Court Order dated October 5, 1998
and after evaluating the merits of the claims of the parties involved, the
Land Registration Authority issued a Decree of Registration in favor of the
Applicant, Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation,
Inc. and the land in question had been registered in the name of the said
Applicant.
WHEREAS, during the hearing of the aforecited case conducted by this
Court, the other claimants to the land in question, despite being given
sufficient opportunity, failed to present any evidence to contravene those
presented by the Applicant-Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of
Brethren Foundation, Inc.
NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the claims of
the Applicant-Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren
Foundation, Inc. meritorious and deserving of the full protection of the law.
Let it so ordered and forthwith disseminated to all parties, authorities and
offices concerned for their information and guidance.
This Order is final and executory.[4]
(e) The alleged Letter of Atty. Luzviminda D. Puno, Clerk of Court
dated March 2, 2000, quoted above;[5]
(f) Original Certificate of Title No. 12390 issued on October 6, 1998
pursuant to LRC Case No. Q-ORIG. 98-021, LRC Record No. 6679 under
Decree No. N-198342 in favor of Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty
of Brethren Foundation, Inc., represented by Jaime B. Borjal, President, for
a parcel of land in Quezon City with an area of 4,304,623 square meters; [6]
(g) Sketch Plan of the 4,304,623 (sic) square meters of land situated
in Bago Bantay and Cruz na Ligas, Quezon City, issued on April 20, 1999
by the Chief of the Regional Surveys Division with the caveat that this plan
shall not be used for land registration,[7] and
(h) Memorandum dated August 23, 2001 purportedly issued by the
LRA which states in full:
TO: Saint Mary Crusade to
Alleviate Poverty of
Brethren Foundation, Inc.
RE: L.R.C. Case No. 0-90-02
I have been reminded by the Administrator why his order
for the relocation survey of the property in the above-captioned
case has not been implemented until now.
In this connection, please be advised that as a condition
for the conduct of the relocation survey ordered, the total
amount of Pesos: Three Hundred Sixty Thousand (P360,000.00)
to cover the cost and other related expenses for the survey
must first be deposited with us.
You are, therefore, requested to make the required deposit
within five (5) days from receipt hereof so that we can
implement the order soonest.
Very truly
yours,
(Sgd.
)
SALVADOR
L. ORIEL
LRA Office
Administrator
Records &
Decree
Section
Mr. Silvestre informed Ms. Villanueva that all the documents would be
verified by the bank, to which the latter made the assurance that the said
documents were authentic, legal and valid. Mr. Silvestre then personally
conducted the investigation and verification of the said documents. In his
Sworn Statement, he narrated the result of his investigation, as well as the
events that transpired thereafter, as follows:
6. That the Foundation is registered before the Office of the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Board Resolution
and the Secretarys Certificate were all registered;
7. That after verifying the registration of the Foundation, I
proceeded to the Supreme Court to verify the authenticity of the
Resolution promulgated by the Supreme Court dated March 2,
2000 in LRC Case No. Q-90-021, by presenting the very
documents given by Ms. Teodora N. Villanueva, which are all
photocopies;
the City Prosecutor of Manila. On the other hand, the Agents Progress
Report signed by Ha Rachel R. Marfil, Reporting Agent and Team Leader,
stated, thus:
05. Surveillance operations determined that Subject TEODORA
VILLANUEVA and the St. Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty Brethren
Foundation, Inc. were conducting business at Unit 627 Cityland Shaw
Towers, Shaw Blvd., Mandaluyong City. On several occasions, Employees of
said Foundation refused to divulge the whereabouts of Subject TEODORA
VILLANUEVA, JAIME BORJAL (President) and FELICISIMO ARELLANO
(Corporate Secretary).
06. In a conference with Assistant Clerk of Court, MA. LUISA D.
VILLARAMA, Agent Marfil requested for the names of the Clerk who
assisted Mr. DARIO SILVESTRE when he made the verification at the Office
of the Clerk of Court at the Supreme Court and the person who shall
represent the Supreme Court when the complaint for Falsification of Public
Document against Subjects TEODORA VILLANUEVA, JAIME BORJAL and
FELICISIMO ARELLANO of said Foundation. The Agents on case are ready
to file the complaint before the City Prosecutor of Manila as soon as the
above stated evidence are submitted to the NBI.
07. The Affidavits of the Clerk, Supreme Court Representative and the
Certification that the said Decision and other Certifications were not issued
by the Second Division or Atty. LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO and therefore
spurious are necessary before filing the criminal complaint before the City
Prosecutor of Manila.
Office of the Clerk of Court (requesting party) for the information and
disposition of the Supreme Court.
On February 17, 2004, the Court required Atty. Luzviminda D. Puno,
Clerk of Court, to comment on the report and recommendation of NBI
Agent Marfil. In compliance therewith, Atty. Puno made the following
observation in her Comment dated February 24, 2004:
Diligent effort was made by this office to find out the name of the clerk
from the Second Division who assisted Mr. Dario Silvestre when Mr.
Silvestre made the verification on whether or not the subject documents
were fake or not. By the lapse of time, and the fact that there are
numerous clients who constantly verify with said office, the clerks in the
Second Division could not anymore recall who among them assisted Mr.
Silvestre. Be that as it may, [absent] the affidavit of the clerk, the affidavit
of Mr. Silvestre would suffice to prove that, indeed, he made the proper
verification. As to who may represent the court as complainant, the
undersigned recommends the COMPLAINTS AND INVESTIGATION
DIVISION of the Office of the Administrative Services. With regard to the
certification on whether the subject documents are authentic or spurious[,]
[t]he National Bureau of Investigation thru Agent Marfil may coordinate
with the office of the undersigned for the issuance thereof.
In a Resolution dated March 2, 2004, the Court resolved to approve
the above recommendation to designate the Chief of Complaints and
Investigation Division to represent the Court as the Complainant, and
further directed the NBI to coordinate with Atty. Puno for the certifications
needed in the filing of the criminal case.
to above, that would serve as links for the successful prosecution of the
case, were not obtained.
18. Through First Indorsement dated 29 July 2004, Gen. Reynaldo G.
Wycoco, NBI Director and Department of Justice Undersecretary,
forwarded to Assistant Clerk of Court Ma. Luisa D. Villarama for her
information and whatever action she may deem proper to take under the
premises, a copy of the NBIs Evaluation Comment and the Agents Report.
19. The NBI Comment dated 29 July 2004, written in a Disposition Form
by Janette O. Herras-Baggas, Chief, SLPS, and approved by Roberto S. de
Alban, Chief of the LED, narrates the facts that led to Silvestres verification
in this Court of the documents presented to him by Teodora Villanueva,
adding as follows:
Sometime in April 2004, Agent-on-case approached ATTY. EDWIN B.
ANDRADA, Court Attorney IV, Complaints and Investigation Division,
Supreme Court, to confer and discuss with him the documents necessary
in filing the corresponding complaint. In that meeting, it was agreed that
ATTY. ANDRADA will secure (1) a certification from the Office of the Clerk
of Court En Banc, Supreme Court, showing that the questioned Resolution
was never issued by the Court; and (2) the identity of the Supreme Court
employee who assisted DARIO G. SILVESTRE in verifying the authenticity
of the questioned Resolution and to whom the photocopy of the fake
Resolution was handed by the latter. However, ATTY. ANDRADA was
informed by ATTY. BASILISA RINGOL, Court Attorney V, Office of the Clerk
of Court En Banc, Supreme Court, that their office [do] not issue negative
certifications. With respect to the Supreme Court employee who assisted in
the verification and to whom the photocopy of the fake decision was
handed by DARIO G. SILVESTRE, ATTY. RINGOL stated that it was difficult
to identify the said employee because it was not clear from the records to
what particular office the employee was assigned, and the Office of the
Clerk of Court En Banc dealt with cases, judicial and administrative, by the
hundreds so that one could not possibly remember the nature or title of a
particular case.
Other documents submitted by TEODORA N. VILLANUEVA to DARIO G.
SILVESTRE was a Board Resolution No. 02-009 and the Secretarys
Certificate of SAINT MARY CRUSADE TO ALLEVIATE POVERTY OF
BRETHREN FOUNDATION, INC. signed by FELICISIMO C. ARELLANO and
JAIME B. BORJAL Corporate Secretary and President & Chairman of the
Board, respectively. When these documents were presented by DARIO G.
SILVESTRE for verification with the office of the Securities and Exchange
Commission they were found to be authentic.
Moreover, probe conducted showed no evidence showing Subjects
FELICISIMO ARELLANO, JAIME BORJAL and TEODORA VILLANUEVA,
Officers of St. Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of the Brethren
Foundation, Inc., as the persons who made the falsification or would
benefit from the decision. Furthermore, although it was Subject TEODORA
VILLANUEVA who presented the questioned Resolution at the Development
Bank of the Philippines, there was no indication from said bank of their
intention to file the corresponding complaint against Subject TEODORA
VILLANUEVA since damage was prevented by the timely verification made
by DARIO SILVESTRE.
Inc. were sent NBI subpoena but did not appear before this Command on
February 17, 2003. [NBI ANNEX NOS. 06, 07, 08]
AGENTS RECOMMENDATION
09. There is no completed chain of evidence to link Subjects FELICISIMO
ARELLANO, TEODORA VILLANUEVA and JAIME BORJAL, Key Officers of St.
Mary Crusade to alleviate poverty of the Brethren Foundation, Inc. as the
persons who made the falsification or would benefit from the decision.
Although it was Subject TEODORA VILLANUEVA who presented the
questioned decision at the DBP, there is no indication from DBP to file any
complaint against Subject TEODORA VILLANUEVA since damage was
prevented by the timely verification made by DBP Manager SILVESTRE.
[NBI ANNEX NO. 09]
COMMENT/RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above, Agent-on-case recommended that this case be
temporarily closed. We agree. Therefore, it is respectfully recommended
that the records of this case be filed with our IRD; and that the Office of
the Requesting Party be informed accordingly.
20. Agents Marfil, Ma. Leticia R. Mamalateo and Dennis S. Siyhian
prepared the Agents Report dated 29 June 2004 referred to by Ms. HerrasBaggas. Its pertinent portions state:
10. Attached to this report is the result of record check with our
Identification and Records Division in the name of Subjects FELICISIMO
ARELLANO, TEODORA VILLANUEVA and JAIME BORJAL [NBI ANNEX NOS.
10, 11 & 12]
11. The absence of the statement of the court personnel who made the
verification requested by DBP Manager DARIO SILVESTRE in effect broke
the chain of evidence to prosecute TEODORA VILLANUEVA for Falsification
of public documents under Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the
Revised Penal Code.
AGENTS COMMENTS
07. The chain of evidence was not established. There was no identity of
the court personnel who made the verification of the alleged spurious court
decision and who would identify the DBP Manager who presented the court
decision for verification.
08. There was neither damage to the court or to the Development Bank of
the Philippines.
09. There is no court record to show that the questioned photocopies of
court decision and certifications were verified in June 2002 by the court
personnel.
08. Subjects FELICISIMO ARELLANO, TEODORA VILLANUEVA and JAIME
BORJAL of St. Mary Crusade to alleviate poverty of Brethren Foundation,
12. After receipt of NBI subpoena duces tecum, the Records Officer at the
Supreme Court did furnish this Command any record that the questioned
document was verified in June 2002. [NBI ANNEX NO. 13]
13. IN VIEW THEREOF, it is respectfully recommended that this case be
temporarily closed and that the Supreme Court en banc Secretariat be
furnished a copy of the Agents report and all its annexes for their
information and disposition.
21. Among the annexes submitted to the Court by the NBI are photocopies
of its indexes showing that Teodora Villanueva of Taban, Libmanan,
Camarines Sur, has been charged with: (a) violation of BP 22 under
Criminal Case No. 44267 of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Pasig City on 13
August 1999; (b) slight physical injuries under Criminal Case No. 2799 of
the Municipal Court of Naujan, Oriental Mindoro on 17 December 1975; (c)
violation of Art. 319 of the Revised Penal Code (removal, sale or pledge of
mortgaged property) under I.S. No. 77-2020 of the Office of the City
Fiscal, Malolos, Bulacan, on 2 March 1978; (d) less serious physical
injuries under Crim. Case No. 751 of the Municipal Court of Candaba,
Pampanga, on 4 October 1966 but case was dismissed on 18 May 1970;
and (e) swindling/estafa under I.S. No. 81-173 before the City
Prosecutors, Bicol Region, Camarines Sur, Naga City. The NBI also has
records of charges against three persons with the name Jaime Borjal: (a)
one from Luklukan Sur, J. Panganiban, Camarines Norte was charged with
acts of lasciviousness on 16 April 1974; (b) Jaime Borjal y Aonuevo was
charged for vagrancy before the Pasay City Court on 14 April 1971; and
(c) Jaime Borjal y Gurango of Panal, Tabaco, Albay, was charged with
damage to property thru reckless imprudence in Daraga, Albay, on 26
November 1990. One Felicisimo Arellano @ Felicing of So. Camperat, Brgy.
Bungalunan, Basay, Negros Oriental, was charged with estafa under
Criminal Case No. M-26(87) before the 2nd MCTC of Bindoy, Negros
Oriental, and the case was forwarded to the RTC of Negros Oriental at
Dumaguete City on 29 November 1991.
22. One of the annexes was a subpoena duces tecum issued by Atty. Jose
Justo S. Yap, Chief of the Anti-Graft Division of the NBI, and served upon
the Clerk of Court on 5 February 2004, requiring her to appear before said
office on 13 February 2004 to submit official certification that the Supreme
Court did not issue Decision in G.R. #75242 (AM No. 02-823-0). The
record does not show whether this subpoena was complied with. Notably,
Dario G. Silvestre was also served a subpoena on 28 October 2002 for him
to appear before the same Anti-Graft Division on 5 November 2002 and to
give his statement and submit the court order requiring UP v. St. Mary
Crusade to Alleviate Poverty G.R. # L-75242.
The Office of the Chief Attorney made the following observations and
evaluation:
Observations on alleged spurious documents
The Resolution of 24 September 2004 states that Silvestre furnished the
Court with a copy of the Decision in G.R. No. L-75242 entitled University of
the Philippines, et al. v. St. Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren
Foundation, Inc. allegedly promulgated by the Second Division on 19 May
2000. However, aside from that decision, Silvestre subsequently
submitted, in compliance with the Resolution of 24 September 2002, his
sworn statement dated 25 November 2004, with photocopies of other
documents including a Resolution allegedly promulgated by the Second
That the Decision in G.R. No. L-75242 is a sham is also apparent on its
face. The L in the docket number, which means liberation, has been
deleted from docket numbers after the number of cases filed with the
Supreme Court reached 50,000. The petitioners are University of the
Philippines, et al. meaning there are parties other than U.P. but the word
Petitioner written under it is still in the singular form and with no comma
after Petitioner. The word versus is not written after Petitioner and before
the name of the opposing party under which is written the word Applicant.
The latter word should have been Respondent. As in the questioned
Resolution, the names of eight (8) Members of the Second Division are not
properly written in that the names are written continuously and not one
name for one line. The same erroneous name of Gonzales-Reyes is in the
list. The other indicia of falsification manifest in the Resolution and
repeated in the Decision are the omission of the initials or signature of the
Clerk of Court or the Assistant Clerk of Court after the date of
promulgation, the inclusion of the first and middle initials in the name of
the ponente with no colon after CJ, the fact that the Chief Justice does not
preside over the Second Division, the missing command SO ORDERED, and
the missing phrase WE CONCUR before the signatures of the concurring
Justices.
The first sentence of the Decision betrays the lack of legal knowledge of
whoever wrote it. It states: This is a petition filed by the University of the
Philippines for the review and reconsideration of a resolution promulgated
by this division on March 2, 2000 affirming the decision of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 86, in favor of the applicant in LRC Case
No. Q-90-021. The Court simply does not review its own Resolution in a
petition for review. Moreover, the alleged Decision was promulgated later
than the Resolution. A decision is promulgated first before a resolution
resolving the motion for reconsideration of the same decision is issued and
promulgated. Another telling sign of simulation is the use of the term lack
of merits with respect to the petitions for review and reconsideration. The
dispositive portion simply directs that copies of the Decision be forwarded
to the Register of Deeds of Rizal Province, the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City, and the Director of Lands for their information and guidance.
Thus, even without verifying from this Court, to a practitioner of law before
this Court, the alleged Resolution and Decision would be considered
offhand as spurious.
With respect to the communication of the Clerk of Court dated 2 March
2000 to the publisher of the SCRA, no such communication is ever sent.
Following the standing agreement between the Supreme Court and Central
Book Supply, Inc., the messenger of the latter simply picks up the
decisions promulgated for the month for publication in the SCRA, based on
a list of cases which a clerk in the Office of the Clerk of Court prepares
(Per Atty. Felipa B. Anama of the Office of the Clerk of Court). The subject
of the communication is stated, thus: Re: Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate
Poverty of Brethren Foundation vs. UP, 144 SCRA 763 (1999). Volume 144
of the SCRA publishes decisions of the Court from September to October
10, 1986 and it has only 719 pages. It appears that the alleged
communication was needed to project the idea that the Resolution en
banc, not the Second Division, was to be published in the SCRA.
The Notice of Resolution that the Clerk of Court allegedly signed on 3
March 2000 notifies, allegedly by registered mail, Jaranilla Vicente &
Associates at P.O. Box 3710, the Office of the President of the University of
the Philippines, the Land Registration Authority, the Department of Justice,
the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, and the Land Management Bureau in
Ermita, Manila, that the Second Division had rendered the alleged
Resolution of 2 March 2000 and that the original thereof was on file with
the Office of the Clerk of Court. Again, no such form of notice is sent to
parties. Resolutions issued by Divisions are sent to parties by the Division
Clerks of Court, not by the Clerk of Court en banc.
The Certification allegedly executed by the Clerk of Court on 14 August
2003 stating that she had examined the decision in G.R. No. L-75242
entitled University of the Philippines, et al. vs. Saint Mary Crusade to
Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc. appears to the uninitiated as
a true reproduction of the one usually issued by Office of the Reporter, not
by the Clerk of Court. However, these details are lacking: (1) a statement
after the number of pages of the decision that the xerox copy is duly
sealed and signed on the left margin of each and every page thereof; (2)
the embossed seal of the Court with the initials of the personnel who
compared the original with the xerox copy at the lower left hand corner of
the certification; (3) the Deputy Clerk of Court and Reporter, as the
custodian of the originals of all decisions, signs for the Clerk of Court; and
(4) the name of the requesting party, the official receipt number and the
date of issuance at the bottom of the Certification.
Evaluation
From the documents at hand, it appears that on 23 August 2001, Salvador
L. Oriel, Office Administrator and Chief of the Docket Division of the Land
Villanueva, armed with the title and the other documents submitted to the
Court by Silvestre, including the subject Decision and Resolution of this
Court, attempted to get funds from the DBP for the housing project of the
Foundation. The scheme was to offer an overload of documentary support
for the application for funding. Unfortunately for Villanueva and the
Foundation, Silvestre doubted the authenticity of the documents and
submitted these to this Court for verification.
As observed earlier, the alleged Decision and Resolution are so blatantly
falsified on their faces that only parties who desperately want financial
gains by passing these off as genuine could have committed the forgeries,
even to the extent of brazenly attempting to delude the DBP about the
authenticity of the papers. The possible authors may either be persons
behind the Foundation, which Silvestre has found to have been actually
registered with the SEC, and/or insiders or Court personnel in cahoots with
persons behind the Foundation.
In exploring the graft and corruption angle of the matter, the NBI appears
to have zeroed in on Court personnel considering its discontinuance of the
investigation upon the failure of the Clerk of Court to issue the required
certification and the failure of Atty. Andrada of the Complaints and
Investigation Division (CID) of the Office of Administrative Services and
the Clerk of Court to identify the clerk who assisted Silvestre in verifying
the authenticity of the decision.
The matter of identifying the clerk who assisted Silvestre would hardly lead
to the author of the forgeries; neither is it an indispensable link in the
chain of evidence. The clerk may not be faulted for assisting Silvestre in
the verification of the authenticity of the questioned Decision and
Resolution. If the identity of the clerk is needed so that he or she could
attest to the fact that the photocopied documents attached to the rollo and
constituting its first seven (7) pages, were the ones presented by
Silvestre, the importance of such identity has been overshadowed by the
subsequent submission of Silvestre, in compliance with the Resolution of
24 September 2002, of his sworn statement and more photocopied
documents handed to him by Villanueva.
With all due respect, merely asking personnel of the Office of the Second
Division who among them could remember assisting Silvestre would not
attain the desired result. Considering the length of time that had elapsed
since the assistance was extended and, unfortunately, the lack of a
logbook in the Office of the Second Division wherein the names of persons
Foundation, Inc. The JRO informed this Office that there was none. Since
the JRO has an index of cases elevated to this Court for review, this Office
inquired if General Land Registration Office Record No. L.R.C. No. Q-90021 entitled Saint Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren
Foundation, Inc. Applicant was ever elevated to this Court; the JRO
informed it that no such case was appealed to this Court.
Pursuing that aspect of this matter, this Office inquired from the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, through Atty. Thelma C. Bahia, OIC of the Court
Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator, if Hon.
Teodoro A. Bay, presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon city,
Branch 86, issued the Order dated 28 December 1999 in L.R.C. Case No.
Q-90-021. The clerk of court of that court informed this Office, through
Atty. Bahia, that said Order is falsified because the petition was dismissed.
This Office received today a copy of the Order of 3 September 1998 issued
by Judge Bay dismissing the petition on the ground that the land sought to
be registered by the applicant Foundation is already covered by the
Torrens System of Registration (Annex B). The same Order required the
applicant Foundation and its counsel to show cause why no action shall be
taken against them for re-filing a case which has been previously
dismissed by this Court without informing the Court of such previous case
in violation of the Anti-Forum shopping rule and other pertinent laws or
rules).
The issue in this administrative matter is no less than the integrity of the
Court and its processes. This, the Court has expressly recognized in the
Resolution of 24 September 2002. As such, despite the fact that Villanueva
was not able to get financial benefit from the DBP through the bogus
documents she presented, the damage that has been wrought upon
the integrity of the Court and its processes is incalculable. It is erroneous
for the NBI to conclude that no damage has been done to the Court.
Should the matter be left hanging and unresolved, there is no stopping
other unscrupulous persons from passing off falsified decisions and
resolutions of this Court as genuine for personal and financial gratification.
However, the NBI could resume its investigation only if Court officials
extend full cooperation. The Clerk of Court of the Second Division, the
Chief of the JRO, and the Reporter should each issue a Certification on the
case docketed as G.R. No. L-75242. they may state therein its true title,
the date of promulgation of the Decision, and the ponente, as well as
whether a motion for its reconsideration was filed and if one was filed,
when the Court resolved the motion. To satisfy the NBI requirement, they
may be asked to state, after stating those positive data, that there is no
such case as G.R. No. 75242, entitled University of the Philippines, et al. v.
St. Mary Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc., if,
indeed, no such case is on record in this Court. Contrary to the claim of
Atty. Ringol, the NBI may not be expected to rely on a certification by
implication arising from the fact that the Court doubts the authenticity of
the Decision and Resolution, Documentary evidence issued by this Court is
needed for the progress of any criminal case that may be filed against
those who falsified or simulated the Decision and Resolution and used
these.
For the same purpose, with all due respect, the Clerk of Court en
banc should make a statement on the authenticity of the certifications and
communications attributed to her. If, indeed, she did not issue the same,
then a disclaimer should be made in a sworn statement or affidavit. Along
with the certifications that other Court officials shall issue, her affidavit will
go a long way in the prosecution of any criminal case arising from the
falsification of the Decision and Resolution. The Resolution of 2 March 2004
underscores the importance of such certification, and her affidavit, when
the Court directed her to coordinate with the NBI for the certifications
needed in the filing of the criminal case.
Notably, the Resolution of 2 March 2004 approves the recommendation of
the Clerk of Court that the Chief of the Complaints and Investigation
Division of this court shall represent the Court as the Complainant.
With all due respect, the Clerk of Court en banc should be named the
complainant in filing the criminal case or cases against the suspected
authors of the falsification. As the case involves no less than theintegrity
of the Court and its processes, the Court itself is the offended party.
Inasmuch as the Court itself cannot be on record as the complainant to
avoid the absurd situation whereby the Supreme Court would be a
complainant to avoid the absurd situation whereby the Supreme Court
would be a complainant in a criminal case filed with the Regional Trial
Court, the Court should be represented as complainant by no less than its
highest official, the Clerk of Court en banc who, after all, is responsible for
the management of the adjudication function of the Court (as opposed to
administrative supervision of courts performed by the Court
Administrator), including the protection of the integrity of its Decisions and
Resolutions.
As the complainant, the Clerk of Court need not personally attend the
investigation to be conducted by the NBI. Considering her workload, the
Clerk of Court may delegate the task of personally appearing thereat to
the Chief of the Complaints and Investigation Division (CID) [Atty. Edwin
Andrada, Attorney IV, is the chief of the CID of the Office of Administrative
Services under its plantilla. Per the Annual Report of 2003, the CID
handles administrative and disciplinary cases against Supreme Court
personnel (p. 248)] with the approval of the Court. Considering that in her
Memorandum to the Chief Justice dated 24 February 2004, the Clerk of
Court has expressed preference for that official, the same official should be
authorized as the representative of the complainant Clerk of Court during
the investigation, with reportorial responsibility to her. Once the case is
filed in court and it will have to be handled by the proper prosecutor, the
services of the Chief of the CID-OAS shall effectively be terminated. Of
course, the Clerk of Court may be required to testify during the trial but it
is an imperative official function that, unavoidably, must be performed.
Secondly, the NBI appears to be of the idea that only when the user of the
falsified document benefits therefrom may a case for falsification of public
document be pursued. Falsification of a public document is consummated
the moment the false document is executed. It is immaterial that the
falsifier did not achieve his objectives, for which reason, generally,
falsification has no attempted or frustrated stage. The simulation of a
public or official document, done in a manner as to easily lead to error as
to its authenticity, constitutes the crime of falsification. In the falsification
of public or official document, whether by public officials or by private
persons, it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the
intent to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradistinction to
private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed. Since the Court has evidence that the documents are falsified,
locating Villanueva, Borjal and Arellano, who can shed light on the author
of the falsification, should be the NBIs first concern. It should be borne in
mind that no less than a Decision and a Resolution of this Court has been
simulated. For that reason alone, damage has been done to the integrity of
the Court and its processes, as there would necessarily result violation of
the public faith thereon.[8]
The Court must authorize the Clerk of Court to request the NBI to reopen
the investigation, with discretion as to the proper offense or offenses to be
charged before the Office of the Prosecutor. The NBI may pursue the graft
angle if, after investigation, it deems it covered by Rep. Act No. 3019. In
whatever course of action the NBI would take, the Court, through its
officials, should cooperate completely. The assistance of Silvestre may also
have to be solicited. After all, it was he who opened the door to the
investigation.
Notably, in closing the case temporarily, the NBI unfortunately manifested
its shallow treatment of the case. For one, the reason for temporary
closure of the case is actually for its total closure, i.e., no evidence
showing Subjects Felicisimo Arellano, Jaime Borjal and Teodora Villanueva,
Thirdly, that the DBP did not manifest its intention to file a case against
Teodora Villanueva is no valid reason to close the case. To reiterate,
damage has been done to the Court and its intention to pursue the case is
manifest in the Resolution of 2 March 2004 directing the Clerk of Court to
coordinate with the NBI with respect to the issuance of necessary
certifications. Indeed, not only the Court, but the State itself has been
aggrieved by the criminal act of simulating the Decision and Resolution of
this Court.
Considering that there are indications that the Order dated 28 December
1999 of Judge Bay is, likewise, falsified, the possibility that OCT No. 12390
is, likewise, simulated is not remote. Should the NBI pursue this angle,
chances are, it would discover underground operatives that subvert public
faith in public documents. There are simply several aspects to the matter
at hand that the NBI appears to have glossed over.
In the meantime, to reinforce its manifest intent to protect its integrity,
the Court must require full cooperation from its officials and employees.
Certifications stating that no decision and resolution were issued in G.R.
No. L-75242 entitled University of the Philippines, et al. v. St. Marys
Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc., as there was no
case by that docket number and title has been filed before the Court and
that the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 86, did not issue the Order of 28
December 1999 and, hence, there could be no appeal from its order, as
well as an affidavit disclaiming authorship of certifications attributed to the
Clerk of Court, to be issued by the proper officials may be the bases for a
charge against Villanueva, Borjal and Arellano for falsification of public
documents under Article 171 in relation to Article 172 of the Revised Penal
Code, as well as under Article 175 for the use of fictitious certificates. Or,
the NBI may prosecute them and others under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3109) should the investigation result in a
finding that the same private persons induced or caused any official of the
Court to commit any of the offenses defined by the same law.
The use of falsified documents for the purpose of obtaining financing from
a bank is just one of several acts perpetrated by unscrupulous persons
who use fake titles to property belonging to the University of the
Philippines. Unfortunately for them, the title of the University of the
Philippines over the vast tract of land in Diliman, Quezon City, has been
settled in a number of cases, the last of which is G.R. No. 156380, Caero
v. University of the Philippines, promulgated on 8 September 2004. In that
case, the Court strongly admonished courts and unscrupulous lawyers to
stop entertaining spurious cases seeking further to assail the title of the
University of the Philippines.
The admonition may also be addressed to private persons who falsify
documents in a vain attempt to grab a piece of the U.P. property or use
simulated title to it for financial gain. But if the Court, notwithstanding that
it has been victimized by persons who falsified a Decision and a Resolution
regarding the same property and used it in an attempt to obtain financial
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?
file=/jurisprudence/resolutions/2014/08/13-11-09-SC.pdf
(4) Hon. Teodoro A. Bay of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 86, to ISSUE a certification as to the authenticity of the Order
dated October 28, 1999 in L.R.C. No. Q-90-021 entitled Saint Mary
Crusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc., Applicant and
the status of a case of the same title, if one has been filed before his
court, within five (5) days from notice;
motion and ordered the immediate transfer of the two (2) accused to the
Manila City Jail.8
On 18 January 2000, Judge Laguio, Jr., concluded that "the evidence
standing alone and unrebutted, is strong and sufficient to warrant
conviction of the two accused for the crime charged" and denied the
petition for bail of accused Yu Yuk Lai for lack of merit. 9 Consequently, both
accused filed a Joint Motion for Inhibition arguing that the trial court's
actuation "do not inspire the belief that its decision would be just and
impartial."10 On 28 January 2000, Judge Laguio, Jr., believing that the joint
motion was utterly without merit but considering the gravity of the offense
and for the peace of mind of the accused, inhibited himself.11
The case was re-raffled to Branch 53, presided by Judge Angel V. Colet.
Accused Yu Yuk Lai then filed a Motion to Order the Confinement of the
Accused in a Hospital. Before Judge Colet could resolve the motion, the
case was handled by the Branch's Pairing Judge Manuel T. Muro.
On 15 May 2000 Judge Muro granted accused Yu Yuk Lai's motion and
allowed her to be confined at the Manila Doctors Hospital for a period not
exceeding seven (7) days,12 contrary to the recommendation of Dr. Jose
Estrada Rosal, Chief of the Health Services of the Manila City Jail, that Yu
Yuk Lai be confined at the Philippine General Hospital. 13
On 5 June 2000 Judge Muro granted Yu Yuk Lai's Urgent Motion for
Extension of Medical Confinement "for a period of one (1) month, or until
such time that she is fit to be discharged from the said hospital." 14 On 7
July 2000 Judge Muro also granted Yu Yuk Lai's Motion for Leave of Court
to File Demurrer to Evidence with Motion to Admit Demurrer to
Evidence.15 Soon, rumors circulated in the Manila City Hall that Judge Muro
was partial towards accused Yu Yuk Lai.
The rumors did not end there. On 6 July 2000 unidentified employees of
the RTC Manila calling themselves "CONCERNED COURT EMPLOYEES"
wrote the Secretary of Justice, copy furnished the Chief State Prosecutor,
the Ombudsman, and Judge Muro. The letter alleged that Judge Muro
ordered the hospitalization of Yu Yuk Lai "even if she (was) not sick and
there (was) already a rumor circulating around the City Hall, that the
notorious Judge had given the go signal to the counsel of the accused to
file the Motion to Quash, which (would) be granted for a consideration of
millions of pesos and the contact person (was) allegedly the daughter of
the Judge, who is an employee in the said branch."16
At around 3:00 o'clock that same afternoon, CSP Zuo received a call from
Justice Demetria who requested him to instruct SP Formaran III to
withdraw the motion for inhibition of Judge Muro so that the Judge could
already issue an order. "Pakisabi mo nga kay State Prosecutor Formaran
na i-withdraw na iyong kanyang Motion to Inhibit para naman makagawa
na ng Order si Judge Muro," Justice Demetria was quoted as
saying.23 Politely, CSP Zuo said that he would see what he could do.
"Tingnan ko po kung ano ang magagawa ko."24
Later in the afternoon, between 1:30 and 2:00 o'clock, Justice Demetria,
PATAFA President Go Teng Kok and Atty. Reinerio Paas, lawyer of Go Teng
Kok and a close friend of Justice Demetria, went to the office of SP
Formaran III in the DOJ which SP Formaran III shares with SP Albert
Fonacier. Apparently, Justice Demetria was not familiar with SP Formaran
III as he greeted SP Fonacier "Kamusta ka, Prosecutor Formaran?"18
Soon the visitors were seated. Go Teng Kok immediately pleaded with SP
Formaran III to withdraw his motion to inhibit Judge Muro as this would
purportedly delay the resolution of the case. Go Teng Kok also expressed
his apprehension that if Judge Muro would inhibit, a new judge might
convict his friend, accused Yu Yuk Lai, who was then already receiving bad
publicity.
Justice Demetria then asked about the status of the case. SP Formaran III
informed the Justice that a motion for inhibition has been submitted for
resolution, one basis of which was the unsigned letter of the concerned
court employees. Justice Demetria opined that it was a bit dangerous to
anchor the inhibition of a judge on an unsigned, anonymous letter. The
Justice then advised Go Teng Kok who was becoming persistent to "keep
his cool" and asked SP Formaran III if he could do something to help Go
Teng Kok. Apparently, prior to 18 July 2000, Go Teng Kok had already been
Also on 20 July 2000 the DOJ received a copy of an Order dated 19 July
2000 of Judge Muro inhibiting himself from further hearing the case of Yu
Yuk Lai and Kenneth Monceda.26
Respondent Justice Demetria, for his part, vehemently denied having
interceded for Yu Yuk Lai. While he admitted that he indeed visited the DOJ
on 18 July 2000, he went there to "visit old friends" and his meeting Go
Teng Kok whom he did not know until that time was purely accidental.
Expectedly, Atty. Paas and Go Teng Kok corroborated the claim of
respondent Justice.
Justice Demetria explained that he merely requested SP Formaran III "to
do something to help Go Teng Kok about the case" without ever specifying
the kind of "help" that he requested. He averred that it was purely on the
basis of erroneous impression and conjecture on the part of SP Formaran
III that he impliedly asked him to withdraw the motion "because that is
what Mr. Go Teng Kok was appealing and requesting."27 Respondent
claimed that the "help" he was requesting could well be "within legal
bounds or line of duty."
Justice Demetria claimed that if ever he said anything else during the
discussion between Go Teng Kok and SP Formaran III, such was not a form
of intervention. He only admonished Go Teng Kok "to cool it" when the
discussion between the prosecutor and Go Teng Kok became heated. While
he asked about the status of the case this, he said, demonstrated his lack
of knowledge about the case and bolstered his claim that he could not
have possibly interceded for Yu Yuk Lai.
Respondent Justice likewise argued that the bases of his identification by
CSP Zuo as the Justice exerting undue pressure on the DOJ were all
hearsay. Respondent submitted that CSP Zuo based his identification
from a newspaper account, from the statement of his secretary that it was
he (Justice Demetria) who was on the other end of the telephone and from
SP Formaran III when the latter consulted the Chief State Prosecutor
about the visit of the Justice and Go Teng Kok impliedly asking him to
withdraw the motion.
In defense of respondent Justice, Atty. Paas stated that it was actually he,
not Justice Demetria, who later called up CSP Zuo to inquire about the
latter's decision regarding the withdrawal of the motion to inhibit since SP
Formaran III had earlier told Go Teng Kok that the matter would be taken
up with his superiors.
In fine, respondent Justice Demetria maintains that it is inconceivable for
him to ask SP Formaran III whom he just met for the first time to do
something for Go Teng Kok whom he claims he just likewise met for the
first time. Neither did he know Yu Yuk Lai, a claim Yu Yuk Lai herself
corroborated. It would be unthinkable for him to intercede in behalf of
someone he did not know. Indeed respondent Justice asserted that his
meeting Go Teng Kok on 18 July 2000 at the DOJ was purely coincidence,
if not accidental.
So, did respondent Justice Demetria really intercede in behalf of suspected
drug queen Yu Yuk Lai?
ascendancy over CSP Zuo, he being a Justice of the Court of Appeals and
a former Undersecretary and at one time Acting Secretary of the DOJ.
Even the requested "help" for Go Teng Kok, whom respondent Justice
claims he did not know and met only that time, could not have meant any
other assistance but the withdrawal of the motion to inhibit Judge Muro.
True, Justice Demetria never categorically asked SP Formaran III to
withdraw his Motion. But when respondent Justice Demetria asked the
state prosecutor at that particular time "to do something . . . to help Mr.
Go Teng Kok," the latter was pleading for the withdrawal of the motion,
and nothing else. That was the only form of "help" that Go Teng Kok
wanted. The subtle pressure exerted simply pointed to one particular act.
Thus, subsequently respondent Justice called CSP Zuo to ask for just that
the withdrawal of the motion to inhibit Judge Muro.
Justice Demetria also claimed that he, together with Atty. Paas, went to
the DOJ, first, to see Secretary Artemio Tuquero and seek assistance in the
appointment of Atty. Paas to the Court of Appeals, and second, to "visit old
friends,"32 and that the meeting with Go Teng Kok was purely accidental.
But respondent Justice never mentioned in his earlier Compliance to the
Memorandum of the Chief Justice that his primary purpose in going to the
DOJ was to see Sec. Tuquero, and since Sec. Tuquero was not in, he
instead decided to see some officials/prosecutors whom he had not visited
for a long time.
We find this assertion difficult to accept. For, even his very own witnesses
belied his alibi. ACSP Gaa, Jr. testified and confirmed that Justice
Demetria only said "hi."33 SSP Daosos, denied seeing him and claimed
that it was only Atty. Paas who peeped into his room.34 Suspiciously, it was
really in the office of SP Formaran III, whom respondent Justice Demetria
did not know, where Justice Demetria, Atty. Paas and Go Teng Kok decided
to "stay a while."35
only make a mockery of his high office, but also caused incalculable
damage to the entire Judiciary. The mere mention of his name in the
national newspapers, allegedly lawyering for a suspected drug queen and
interfering with her prosecution seriously undermined the integrity of the
entire Judiciary.
Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no
position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness
tha a seat in the Judiciary.40 High ethical principles and a sense of
propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in
the Judiciary so indispensable in orderly society cannot be
preserved.41 There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot
meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.42
WHEREFORE, we sustain the findings of the Investigating Justice and hold
Justice Demetrio G. Demetria GUILTY of violating Rule 2.04 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture
of all benefits and with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to
any government office, agency or instrumentality, including any
government owned or controlled corporation or institution.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C .J ., Bellosillo, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr.
and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ ., concur.
Puno, J ., abroad on official leave.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
EN BANC
The Cases
RE: COMPLAINT AGAINST JUSTICE
ELVI JOHN S. ASUNCION OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA
X----------------------------X
ATTY. ROBERTO C. PADILLA,
Complainant,
-versus- A.M. No. 06-44-CA-J
Before Us are two (2) administrative cases against Justice Elvi John S.
Asuncion of the Court of Appeals [CA].
been sitting on motions for reconsideration for six months to more than a
dates, the respondent was present, and in connection with A. M. No. 06-
[1]
supporting the investigation of Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion, and citing one
24, 1999, and assumed office on May 25, 1999. On July 5, 2004, he was
particular case pending in his division that will show how he operates.
[2]
The Investigation
reads:
February 17, 2006
Hon. Artemio V. Panganiban
Chief Justice, Supreme Court
Padre Faura, Manila
Sir:
some confusion in the status of cases assigned to him; (3) The physical
Courts discretion. The respondent stressed that the cited case, CA-G.R. SP
No. 91258, was still pending in his division and not germane to the on-
AN AGGRIEVED PARTY
Comment dated August 30, 2006[5] in which he strongly denied the charge
making inquiries, he found that the Court of Appeals had not acted on the
unsigned letter as the work of the same group that previously instigated
false accusations which also resulted in my being investigated by the
reconsideration, and cited the following justifiable reasons: (1) The heavy
of
the
18 th Division
based
in
Cebu
City, which
created
The facts, as culled from the Investigating Justices Report [10], are
as follows:
On June 27, 2000, the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) decided in her favor the claim of Ms. Erlinda
Archinas for reinstatement and payment of back wages
against the Philippine National Bank (PNB), affirming in
toto the ruling of Labor Arbiter Celestino Daing ordering
her reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and
payment of back wages.
On August 25, 2000, PNB filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
assailing the decision of the NLRC (CA-G.R. SP No. 60573).
Meantime, the NLRC issued an Entry of Judgment making
final and executory the decision of the labor arbiter as
of July 17, 2000, pursuant to Sec. 2[c], Rule VIII of the
NLRC Rules. Ms. Archinas filed a motion for a writ of
execution
for
the
uncontested
amount
of
P1,096,233.97. PNB opposed the motion. In view of the
pending petition with the CA, the labor arbiter deferred
action on the motion for execution.
On May 28, 2001, the Court of Appeals, through
respondent Justice Asuncion, dismissed the petition of PNB
and affirmed in toto the decision of NLRC in favor of Ms.
Archinas.
On June 13, 2001, PNB filed with the Court of Appeals a
motion for reconsideration of the decision, to which Ms.
Archinas filed, on June 25, 2001, an opposition. On June
25, 2001, PNBs motion for reconsideration was deemed
submitted for resolution.
In the interim, on June 18, 2001, the labor arbiter granted
Ms. Archinas motion for execution of the uncontested
amount of P1,096,233.97, for which the Sheriff of the
NLRC levied upon personal property of the PNB and
scheduled an auction sale on July 25, 2001. Upon motion
of PNB, on July 24, 2001, respondent Asuncion issued the
questioned resolution, which granted a temporary
restraining order to stop the auction sale by directing the
labor arbiter to temporarily enjoin implementation of the
writ of execution. It likewise ordered the parties to
maintain the status quo pending resolution of PNBs motion
for reconsideration.
In
the
first
administrative
case,
A.M.
No.
06-6-8-CA,
was
not
deliberate
or
maliciously
motivated. The
the
resolution of
the
petitioners
motion for reconsideration.
Technically, status quo is defined as the last
actual, peaceful and uncontested status that precedes
the actual controversy, that which is existing at the time of
the filing of the case [18] However, the Supreme Court has
ruled that a status quo ante order has the nature of a
temporary restraining order[19]. Thus, the decretal
portion of the resolution of July 24, 2001, specifically
ordered that the public respondent is temporarily enjoined
from
implementing
the
assailed
writ
of
execution. Respondent justice must be playing with
words. When a judge or justice uses technical or legal
terms with a well-defined meaning, such as a temporary
restraining order or a status quo order, he must have
intended those meaning; he cannot impute a directory
meaning to confuse the parties. x x x On the other hand,
he ought to know that a temporary restraining order
cannot exist indefinitely; it has a lifetime of a nonextendible period of sixty days and automatically expired
on the sixtieth day[20]. No judicial declaration that it has
expired is necessary[21], and, the lower courts, including
the Court of Appeals, have no discretion to extend the
same[22]. A second TRO by the Court of Appeals after the
expiration of the sixty day period is a patent nullity.[23]
Respondent Justice cannot seek refuge behind
the Eternal Garden case
to
justify
the October
30,
2001 resolution. The Eternal Garden case
involves
a
petition for certiorari filed before the Supreme Court,
which could issue a temporary restraining order or a
status quo order effective indefinitely or until further
orders (Rule 58, Section 5, par. 4, Rules of Court. On the
other hand, a temporary restraining order issued by the
Court of Appeals is effective only for sixty days.
(Ibid.) Hence, when respondent Justice Asuncion issued
the October 30, 2001 resolution ordering the parties to
maintain the status quo pending the resolution of PNBs
motion for reconsideration, he extended the restraining
order
until respondent could act on the PNB motion for
reconsideration which he did only as late as August 7,
2006, a glaring five years from submission. His interest
in the case is manifest in that, despite his assignment
to Cebu City on July 7, 2004, he did not unload the case to
Justice Zenarosa. (Office Order No. 212-04-CG, dated July
Section 1, Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court is that justice shall be
pending resolution, forty-six were filed in 2004 or earlier, with one dating
all the way back to 2000. Five were filed in 2001, sixteen in 2002, ten in
the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that (J)udges shall perform all
delay was caused by the reorganization of the CA, his assignment to the
CA Cebu Station and his transfer back to Manila which, allegedly, caused
[26]
We have already ruled that the failure of a judge to decide a case within
reorganization took place only in 2004, and at that time, there were at
the required period constitutes gross inefficiency [29] which, if the case
least thirty-two (32) motions for reconsideration crying out for resolution..
remains undecided for years, would become serious misconduct that would
justify dismissal from the service.[30]
cases allegedly unresolved by and pending with him. The findings of the
justices, must also fall flat. As aptly stated by the Investigating Justice,
other CA justices are likewise subjected to such a heavy caseload, and yet,
inapplicable. The July 24, 2001 resolution, which temporarily enjoined the
[28]
numerous
cases
and
matters
mentioned
above
is,
therefore,
unjustified. Even in the case of PNB v. NLRC and Archinas alone, the
respondents
failure
to
resolve
PNBs June
13,
2001 motion
for
reconsideration until after the lapse of more than five (5) years, despite
Archinas four (4) motions urging immediate resolution of the same, truly
smacks of gross inefficiency and serious dereliction of duty.Worse, it
invites suspicion of malice, and casts doubt on the justices fairness and
integrity.
The October 30, 2001 resolution, which ordered the maintenance
of the status quo, effectively extended the temporary restraining order, in
occasion to state:
When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so
basic and elemental a rule, a law or a principle in the
discharge of his functions, a judge is either too
incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he
holds or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission
was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of
judicial authority.In both cases, the judges dismissal is in
order.
Yet, the purpose was clear; the October 30, 2001 resolution was intended
to extend the effectivity of the July 24, 2001 restraining order. It was, as
the Investigating Justice would characterize it, a renewed or second
temporary
restraining
order
proscribed
by
the
rule
and
extant
jurisprudence.
The respondent Justice would seek to extricate himself from any liability by
invoking
the
convenient
excuse
that
the
resolutions
of July
24,
2001 and October 30, 2001 were the collegial acts of the First Division of
the Court of Appeals, composed of three justices, and not the acts of
respondent justice alone. This, in fact, was the only significant subject
dwelt
on
by respondents
lawyer
in
the
cross-examination
of
the
to have more than just a modicum of acquaintance with the statutes and
procedural rules.
While a judge is presumed to act with regularity and good faith in the
performance of judicial functions, a blatant disregard of the clear and
unmistakable provisions of a statute, as well as Supreme Court circulars
enjoining strict compliance therewith, upends this presumption and
subjects the magistrate to administrative sanctions. [33]
Justice as ponente, the First Division of the Court of Appeals dismissed the
in Manila?
PNB petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction, affirming in its entirety the decision of the National
The Investigating Justice supplies the answer in his Report thus: His
Labor Relations Commission. On June 13, 2001, PNB filed a motion for
assignment in Cebu City on July 7, 2004, he did not unload the case to
petition
for
certiorari)
filed
her
opposition
to
PNBs
motion
for
reconsideration. On July 24, 2001, acting upon PNBs urgent motion for
To the Court, these are badges of bad faith and manifest undue interest
2001, the resolution ordering the maintenance of the status quo was
attributable only to the respondent, and not to the other two justices of
issued. On November
5,
2001,
Archinas
filed
her
motion
seeking
reconsideration of the October 30, 2001 resolution. Archinas filed four (4)
urgent
motions
for
early
resolution
of
the
pending
motion/s
the consequences.
for
Besides, the five-year delay in the resolution of the PNB motion for
is
hereby
ordered DISMISSED
FROM
THE
SERVICE with
SO ORDERED.
On the other hand, gross ignorance of the law, for which respondent is
being faulted in A. M. No. 06-44-CA-J, is considered a serious charge, and
carries the penalty of (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or
EN BANC
part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-
JOVITO S. OLAZO,
Complainant,
versus -
CORONA, C.J.,
CARPIO,
CARPIO MORALES,
*
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA, and
SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated:
December 7, 2010
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISION
of THREE MONTHS.
BRION, J.:
[1]
Rule
Factual Background
contest the complainants sales application and claim the subject land for
himself. The complainant also alleged that the respondent prevailed upon
Miguel Olazo to accept, on various dates, sums of money as payment of
the latters alleged rights over the subject land. The complainant further
claimed that the respondent brokered the transfer of rights of the subject
land between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, who is the
nephew of the respondents deceased wife.
by
then
Executive
Secretary
Catalino
Macaraig,
creating
areas
belonging
to
Manuel
Olazo,
the
complainants
7(b)(2) of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713 since he engaged in the
Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over the land to Joseph Jeffrey
as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez before the
Committee on Awards.
respondent met with Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance
the third malicious charge filed against him by the complainant. The first
one was submitted before the Judicial and Bar Council when he was
claimed that the respondent wanted the rights over the land transferred to
one
complaint is now pending with the Office of the Ombudsman, for alleged
Rolando
the subject land and he later conveyed these rights to Joseph Jeffrey
conduct considering his knowledge that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez was not a
Rodriguez. Miguel Olazos rights over the subject land and the transfer of
averred that Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the
Secretary of the DENR before whom the conflict of rights over the subject
proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award. Thus, the approval of
land (between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, on one hand,
and the complainant on the other hand) was brought. In its decision, the
emphasized that the DENR decision is now final and executory. It was
(4) He asserted that he and Miguel Olazo were cousins and that
affirmed by the Office of the President, by the Court of Appeals and by the
the latter decided to sell his rights over the subject land for the
Supreme Court.
Olazo.
affidavits
of
Miguel
Olazo
and
Francisca
Olazo,
the
complainants sister.
told
him,
cannot
prevail
over
his
earlierSinumpaang
Miguel Olazo to claim the rights over the subject land. The
his father Miguel Olazo, not the complainant, was the farmer-
intervene
in
the
disposition
of
the
conflicting
applications
of
the
complainant, Miguel Olazo and Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez were not included
member of the Bar only when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of
the Office of the Regional Director, NCR of the DENR. This office ruled over
the conflicting claims only on August 2, 2000. This ruling became the basis
of the decision of the Secretary of the DENR.
actions
constitute
breach
of
the
standard
ethical
conduct first, while the respondent was still an elective public official and a
a public official, but a private lawyer who represented a client before the
private law practice and to those who, though prohibited from engaging in
the practice of law, have friends, former associates and relatives who are
in the active practice of law.[8] In this regard, the respondent had already
After a careful evaluation of the pleadings filed by both parties and their
completed his third term in Congress and his stint in the Committee on
complaint.
subject
to
constant
public
scrutiny
under
norms
of
public
the interest of relatives. We also ruled that private interest interferes with
public duty when the respondent uses the office and his or her knowledge
of the intricacies of the law to benefit relatives.[15]
accountability. They also bear the heavy burden of having to put aside
their private interest in favor of the interest of the public; their private
activities should not interfere with the discharge of their official functions.
[11]
[17]
the evidence showing that he demanded money from the complainant who
had a pending application for visas before his office.[18]
Similarly, in Igoy v. Soriano[19] we found the respondent (a Court Attorney
The above provision prohibits a lawyer from using his or her public
position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or
(3) allow private interest to interfere with his or her public duties. We
previously
held
that
the
restriction extends
to
all
government
lawyers who use their public offices to promote their private interests. [12]
of this Court) liable for violating Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, after considering the evidence showing that he demanded
and received money from the complainant who had a pending case before
this Court.
Applying these legal precepts to the facts of the case, we find the
Second,
the
complainants
allegation
that
the
respondent
absence of any concrete proof that the respondent abused his position as a
orchestrated the efforts to get the subject land does not specify how the
subject land, and neither was he a contracting party in the transfer of his
rights over the subject land. In the absence of any specific charge, Olazos
sales application was pending before the Office of the Regional Director,
NCR of the DENR due to the conflicting claims of Miguel Olazo, and,
only on August 2, 2000 that the Office of the Regional Director, NCR of the
undue pressure and influence over his father (namely: the letter, dated
DENR rendered its decision, or after the term of the respondents elective
June 22, 1996, to the DENR Regional Director-NCR; [21] the Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated July 12, 1996;[22] and the Sinumpaang Salaysaydated July
in 1997.
17, 1996[23]), do not contain any reference to the alleged pressure or force
exerted by the respondent over Miguel Olazo. The documents merely
showed that the respondent helped Miguel Olazo in having his farm lots
way promote, advance or use his private interests in the discharge of his
(covered by the proclaimed areas) surveyed. They also showed that the
official duties. To repeat, since the sales application was not brought
before the Committee on Awards when the respondent was still a member,
July 17, 1996. To our mind, there are neutral acts that may be rendered
by one relative to another, and do not show how the respondent could
denial of the
complainants sales application over the subject land was made by the
the Sinumpaang Salaysay, dated January 20, 2000, of Manuel. They are
this
not only hearsay but are contrary to what Miguel Olazo states on the
record. We note that Manuel had no personal knowledge, other than what
evidence, specifically the dates when the sums of money were extended
Miguel Olazo told him, of the force allegedly exerted by the respondent
17, 1995, and the date when the Deed of Conveyance [27] over the subject
land was executed or on October 25, 1995, showed that the sums of
money were extended prior to the transfer of rights over the subject land.
that Miguel Olazo decided to sell his rights over the subject land to pay the
and Francisca Olazo in the year 1995. In her affidavits dated May 25,
loans he obtained from the respondent and, also, to finance his continuing
2003[24] and
medical treatment.
July
21,
2010,[25] Francisca
Olazo
corroborated
the
respondents claim that the sums of money he extended to her and Miguel
Olazo were loans used for their medical treatment. Miguel Olazo, in
his Sinumpaang Salaysay dated May 25, 2003, asserted that some of the
money borrowed from the respondent was used for his medical treatment
practice of law after his separation from the government service, the
respondents claim that the latters involvement was limited to being paid
Joseph Jeffrey Rodriguez, he and Miguel Olazo agreed that a portion of the
legally
and the amount paid would be considered as part of the purchase price of
conclude that there was a violation of Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
represented
Ramon
Lee
and
Joseph
Jeffrey
Rodriguez.
any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree
not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions. [30] The last
with R.A. No. 6713 and Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
lawyers separated from the government service who are covered under
is imposed to practice law in connection with any matter before the office
he used to be with.
xxxx
(b) Outside employment and other activities related
thereto. Public officials and employees during their
incumbency shall not:
xxxx
he had intervened while in the said service. The keyword in Rule 6.03 of
practice of law when he appeared as a lawyer for Ramon Lee and Joseph
As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the
respondent was engaged in the practice of law. At face value, the legal
Jeffrey Rodriguez despite his knowledge that his nephew was not a
specifically
to apply for a sales application over lots covered by the proclaimed areas
acts of the same nature habitually or customarily holding ones self to the
has been resolved in the affirmative by the Secretary of the DENR in the
public as a lawyer.
decision dated April 3, 2004, [34]when the DENR gave due course to his
single
document. In Borja,
Sr.
v.
Sulyap,
Inc.,[32] we
sales application over the subject land. We are, at this point, bound by this
In any event, even granting that respondents act fell within the
finding.
by the Office of the President, the Court of Appeals [35] and, finally, the
before it. These are matters for the complainant to prove and we cannot
Court, per our MinuteResolution, dated October 11, 2006, in G.R. No.
173453.
In
our
Resolution,
we
dismissed
the
petition
for
review
reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in its decision. [36]
deceitful conduct. From the above discussion, we already struck down the
under no obligation to prove his/her defense, [38] until the burden shifts to
him/her because of what the complainant has proven. Where no case has
in the first place been proven, nothing has to be rebutted in defense. [39]
With this in mind, we resolve to dismiss the administrative case
against the respondent for the complainants failure to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the former committed unethical infractions
warranting the exercise of the Courts disciplinary power.
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered,
we DISMISS the
administrative case for violation of Rule 6.02, Rule 6.03 and Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, filed against retired Supreme Court
Associate Justice Dante O. Tinga, for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. SB-14-21-J
September 23, 2014
[Formerly A.M. No. 13-10-06-SB]
RE: ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH AT THE SENATE BLUE
RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013
AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG, SANDIGANBAYAN
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is
done.
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
This administrative complaint was filed by the Court En Banc after
investigation into certain allegations that surfaced during the Senate Blue
Factual Antecedents
In the middle of 2013, the local media ran an expose involving billions of
government funds channeled through bogus foundations. Dubbed as the
"pork barrel scam," as the money was sourced from the Priority
Development Assistance Fund allotted to members of the House of
Representatives and Senate, the controversy spawned massive protest
actions all over the country. In the course of the investigation conducted
by the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and
Investigations (Blue Ribbon Committee), the names of certain government
officials and other individuals were mentioned by "whistle-blowers" who
are former employees of the alleged mastermind, Janet Lim-Napoles (Mrs.
Napoles), wife of an ex-military officer. These personalities identified by
the whistle-blowers allegedly transacted with or attended Mrs. Napoles'
parties and events, among whom is incumbent Sandiganbayan Associate
Justice Gregory S. Ong, herein respondent.
Benhur Luy (Luy), a cousin of Mrs. Napoles who had worked for several
years with the Napoleses, filed illegal detention charges against Mrs.
Napoles who accused him of double-dealing. When Luy went public with
his story about Mrs. Napoles' anomalous transactions and before the
warrant of arrest was issued by the court, she reportedly tried to reach out
to the other whistle-blowers for them not to testify against her but instead
point to Luy as the one receiving and distributing the money.
Marina Sula (Sula) executed a Sworn Statement2 before the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on August 29, 2013, part of which reads:
32. In the sixteen (16) years that I worked with Ms. Napoles, I
witnessed several personalities visit our offices and join us as our
special guests during our parties and other special occasions. 33.
These personalities who would either visit our office or join our
events and affairs are: Senator Franklin Drilon, Senator Jinggoy
Estrada and family, Senator Bong Revilla, Lani Mercado-Revilla,
Bryan Revilla, Secretary Rene Villa, Congressman Pichay and Wife,
Congressman Plaza, Congressman Ducut, DAR Director Theresita
Panlilio, Catherine Mae Canlas Santos, Pauline Labayen, Jen
her sworn statement, alleged to have visited their office or attended their
events, thus:
34. Before the warrant of arrest was issued against Ms. Napoles,
she told us that that case could take four to five years to clear. She
said, "Antayin niyo munang ma-clear pangalan ko para makakilos
ako at matulungan ko kayo". Sinabi niya na meron na siyang
kausap sa Ombudsman at sa Sandiganbayan.
xxxx
38. Attorney Tan instructed us to implicate Benhur in case we were
asked by the NBI. He said "wala naman ipinakita sa inyong
masama si Madam (Janet Lim Napoles). Siguro wala naman
kayong sama ng loob kay madam, kaya nga idiin ninyo si Benhur
na siya ang nag-utos at saka sa kanya ninyo ibinibigay ang
pera."3(Emphasis supplied.)
The following day, the social news network Rappler published an article by
Aries Rufo entitled "Exclusive: Napoles Parties with Anti-Graft Court
Justice" showing a photograph of Senator Jinggoy Estrada (Senator
Estrada), one of the main public figures involved in the pork barrel scam,
together with Mrs. Napoles and respondent. The reporter had interviewed
respondent who quickly denied knowing Mrs. Napoles and recalled that the
photograph was probably taken in one of the parties frequently hosted by
Senator Estrada who is his longtime friend. Respondent also supposedly
admitted that given the ongoing pork barrel controversy, the picture gains
a different context; nevertheless, he insisted that he has untainted service
in the judiciary, and further denied he was the one advising Mrs. Napoles
on legal strategies in connection with the Kevlar helmet cases where she
was acquitted by a Division of the Sandiganbayan of which respondent is
the Chairman and the then Acting Presiding Justice. 4
On September 12, 2013, Sula executed a "Karagdagang Sinumpaang
Salaysay "5 wherein she gave details regarding those persons named in
xxxx
w) Justice GREGORY ONG - Isang beses ko po siyang nakitang nagpunta
sa office sa 2501 Discovery Centre, Ortigas at nakita ko po silang
magkausap ni Madam JANET NAPOLES sa conference room.
x x x x6
In her testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on September
26, 2013, Sula was asked to confirm her statement regarding Justice Ong,
thus:
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Grace.
Isang tanong lang kay Ms. Sula.
Sinabi niyo kanina may tinawagan si Ms. Napoles at sinabi niya, "Malapit
na lumabas yung TRO galing sa korte." May kilala pa ba si Janet Lim
Napoles sa ltuwes sa korte sa Sandiganbayan? MS. SULA. Hindi ko po
alam.
THE CHAIRMAN. Your attention is called sa page
MS. SULA. Sandiganbayan po, sorry. Mayroon po siyang binanggit na ano
po
As to the Kevlar helmet cases, respondent said it was impossible for him to
have been advising Mrs. Napoles, as claimed by Mr. Rufo, as even the
article itself noted that Mrs. Napoles' own brother, Reynald L. Lim, ( a.k.a.
Reynaldo L. Francisco), a co-accused in the case, was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan. He stressed that these cases were decided on the merits
by the Sandiganbayan, acting as a collegial body and he was not even the
Xxxx8
Chief Justice Sereno then requested the Court En Banc to conduct an
investigation motu proprio under this Court's power of administrative
supervision over members of the judiciary and members of the legal
profession (referring to notaries public who were alleged to have purposely
left their specimen signatures, dry seals and notarial books with Mrs.
Napoles to facilitate the incorporation of non-governmental organizations
[NGOs] involved in the scam).9
Under our Resolution dated October 17, 2013, the Court En Banc required
respondent to submit his comment and directed the NBI to furnish the
Court with certified copies of the affidavit of Luy. On November 21, 2013,
the Court received respondent's Comment.10 Respondent categorically
denied any irregularity in the Kevlar helmet cases and explained the visit
he had made to Mrs. Napoles as testified by Sula.
On Sula's statement, respondent points out that Sula never really had
personal knowledge whether respondent is indeed the alleged "contact" of
Mrs. Napoles at the Sandiganbayan; what she supposedly "knows" was
what Mrs. Napoles merely told her. Hence, Sula's testimony on the matter
is based purely on hearsay. Assuming that Mrs. Napoles actually made the
statement, respondent believes it was given in the context of massive
media coverage of the pork barrel scam exploding at the time. With the
consciousness of a looming criminal prosecution before the Office of the
Ombudsman and later before the Sandiganbayan, it was only natural for
Mrs. Napoles to assure Sula and others involved in their business operation
that she would not leave or abandon them and that she would do all that
she can to help them just so they would not turn their backs on her and
become whistle-blowers. Thus, even if Mrs. Napoles made
misrepresentations to Sula regarding respondent as her "connection", she
only had to do so in order to convince Sula and her co-employees that the
cases to be filed against them would be "fixed."
As to Sula's statement that she personally witnessed respondent at one
time visiting Mrs. Napoles at her office and having a meeting with her at
the conference room, respondent said that at the birthday party of Senator
Estrada where the controversial photograph was taken, Mrs. Napoles
engaged him in a casual conversation during which the miraculous healing
power of the robe or clothing of the Black Nazarene of Quiapo was
mentioned. When Mrs. Napoles told respondent that she is a close friend of
the Quiapo Church's parish priest, he requested her help to gain access to
the Black Nazarene icon. Eventually, respondent, who is himself a Black
Nazarene devotee and was undergoing treatment for his prostate cancer,
was given special permission and was able to drape the Black Nazarene's
robe or clothing for a brief moment over his body and also receive a
fragrant ball of cotton taken or exposed to the holy image, which article he
keeps to this day and uses to wipe any ailing part of his body in order to
receive healing. Because of such favor, respondent out of courtesy went to
see Mrs. Napoles and personally thank her. Respondent stressed that that
was the single occasion Sula was talking about in her supplemental
affidavit when she said she saw respondent talking with Mrs. Napoles at
the conference room of their office in Discovery Suites.
Respondent maintains that there was nothing improper or irregular for him
to have personally seen Mrs. Napoles at the time in order to thank her,
considering that she no longer had any pending case with his court, and to
his knowledge, with any other division of the Sandiganbayan at the time
and even until the date of the preparation of his Comment. He thus prays
that this Court duly note his Comment and accept the same as sufficient
compliance with the Court's Resolution dated October 17, 2013.
This Court upon evaluation of the factual circumstances found possible
transgressions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct committed by
respondent. Accordingly, a Resolution was issued on January 21, 2014
stating that:
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to have the instant administrative
matter RE-DOCKETED as A.M. No. SB-14-21-J (Re: Allegations Made
Under Oath at tlze Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing held on
September 26, 2013 against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong,
Sandiganbayan), and ASSIGNS the same to retired Supreme Court Justice
Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez for investigation, report and recommendation
within a period of sixty (60) days from notice hereof.
The Court further resolves to NOTE the letter dated January 7, 2014 of
Atty. Joffre Gil C. Zapata, Executive Clerk of Court III, Sandiganbayan,
Fourth Division, in compliance with the resolution of the Court En Banc
dated December 3, 2013, transmitting the original records of Criminal
Case Nos. 26768 and 26769. Atty. Zapata is INFORMED that there is no
more need to transmit to this Court the post-sentence investigation
reports and other reports on the supervisory history of the accusedprobationers in Criminal Case Nos. 26768 and 26769.
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Justice
xxxx
THE INVESTIGATION
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
xxxx
1. THE KEVLAR CASE
Two criminal cases were filed with the Sandiganbayan sometime in 2001 Criminal Case No. 26768 for Falsification of Public Documents and Criminal
Case No. 26769 for Violation of Section 3(e) of the AntiGraft Law. Charged
were several members of Philippine Marine Corps and civilian employees
including Ms. Janet L. Napoles (Napoles), her mother Magdalena Francisco
(now deceased), her brother Reynaldo Francisco and wife Anna Marie
Dulguime, and her (Napoles') three employees.
These cases are referred to as the Kevlar case because the issue involved
is the same - the questionable purchase of 500 Kevlar helmets by the
Philippine Marine Corps in the amount of P3,865,310.00 from five suppliers
or companies owned by Napoles.
The prosecution alleged inter alia that the accused, acting in conspiracy,
released the payment although there was yet no delivery of the Kevlar
helmets; that the suppliers are mere dummies of Napoles; and that the
helmets were made in Taiwan, not in the U.S.A.
Napoles' husband, Major Jaime Napoles, was dropped from the two
Informations in an Order issued by the Ombudsman on March 18, 2002.
Napoles' mother, brother, and sister-in-law were among those convicted
for the lesser crime of Falsification of Public Documents and sentenced to
suffer the penalty of 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional to 8
years and 1 day of prision mayor and each to pay PS,000.00. They all
underwent probation.
Napoles and six members of the Philippine Marine Corps were acquitted in
both cases.
The court ruled that Napoles "was not one of the dealer-payees in the
transaction in question. Even if she owns the bank account where the 14
checks were later deposited, this does not in itself translate to her
conspiracy in the crimes charged x x x."
Benhur Luy: "Alam ko inayos ni Ms. Napoles iyon dahil may connect nga
siya sa Sandiganbayan."
On how Napoles "inayos" or fixed the Kevlar case, Benhur said that he
kept a ledger of the Sandiganbayan case wherein he listed all her
expenses in the sum of P 100 million pesos. He was surprised why she
would spend such amount considering that what was involved in the Kevlar
case was only P3.8 million. She explained that she gave various amounts
to different people during the pendency of the case which lasted up to ten
years. And before the decision in the Kevlar case was released, she also
gave money to respondent but she did not mention the amount. Thus, she
knew she would be acquitted.
Q You answered Senator Angara this way which we already quoted a while
ago, "Alam ko inayos ni Ms. Napoles iyon dahil may connect nga siya sa
Sandiganbayan." You stated that the connect is Justice Ong. Can you
explain before us what you mean, "Alam ko inayos ni Ms. Napoles iyon."
What do you mean by that "inayos"?
A Kasi po ma' am meron kaming ledger ng Sandiganbayan case sa lahat
ng nagastos ni Ms. Janet Napoles, nilista ko po yon lahat. Kasi naririnig ko
po kay Janet Napoles, parang pinsan ko po si Janet Napoles, "Paano
nagkaroon ng kaso ang ate ko? So nadiscover ko na Jang po na yun pala
yung Kevlar. So, mahigit one hundred million na nagastos po ni Ms.
Napoles kasi di Jang naman po si sir Justice Gregory Ong ...
xxx
Q Did you come to know to whom she gave all the money?
A Wala po siyang ... basta ang sabi niya inayos na niya si ... binaggit niya
po si ... kasi si madam hindi kasi nagki-keep kasi ako pinsan niya po kasi
ako, nabanggit niya po si Justice Gregory Ong. Sinabi niya nagbigay daw
po siya ng pera kay Justice Ong pero she never mentioned kung magkano
yung amount.
xxx
Q Nagbigay ng pera kay Justice Gregory Ong?
A Opo, yung ang sabi niya (referring to Ms. Napoles).
Q To you?
A Yes, madam.
Q Do you remember when she made that kind of statement?
A Bago po ano madam, bago po lumabas yung decision kaya kampante na
po si Ms. Napoles bago lumabas yung decision na acquitted siya. Alam na
niya. Sa Kevlar case.
xxx
Justice Gutierrez
Continue counsel.
Witness Luy
Kasi naikwento po madam ni Ms. Napoles na almost PlOO million na ang
nagastos niya. Tapos ang sabi ko nga po sa kanya: "Madam, P 100 million
na sa halagang P3.8 lang na PO (purchase order) sa Kevlar helmet, tapos
P 100 million na ang nagastos mo?"
Q Did she tell you or explain to you to whom this P 100 million was paid?
How was it spent?
A Basta ang natatandaan ko ... di ko na po matandaan ang mga dates kasi
parang staggered. May P5 million sa ibang tao ang kausap niya. Tapos ito
naman tutulong ng ganito. lba-iba kasi madam, eh.
Q But there was no showing the money was given to Justice Ong?
A Wala po pero nabanggit lang po niya (Ms. Napoles) sa akin na nagbigay
po siya kay Justice Ong, but she never mentioned the amount.
Continuing with his testimony, Benhur declared that in 2012, respondent
went twice to Napoles' office at the Discovery Suites Center, 25 ADB
Avenue, Ortigas, Pasig City. On the first visit, Napoles introduced Justice
Ong to Benhur and her other employees.
II. Sula, also a whistle blower, testified that she was an employee of JLN
Corporation. Her duties included the formation of corporations by making
use of the forms, applying for business licenses, transfer of properties,
purchase of cars, and others.
The Chairman
Sa Sandiganbayan?
Ms. Sula
Opo.
The Chairman
Okay. With that, I will just have a closing statement before we leave the
hearing.
Sula explained that the TRO mentioned by Napoles refers to the TRO to be
issued by the Sandiganbayan in the event the case involving the PIO billion
PDAF scam against her is filed with that court; and that Napoles told Sula
and the other employees not to worry because she has contact with the
Sandiganbayan - respondent Justice Ong, thus:
A Wala po. Pero sinabi ko po doon sa part na yon (her testimony before
the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) na meron na siyang kilala sa
Ombudsman, pero hindi niya nabanggit ang pangalan. Pero sa
Sandiganbayan, ang alam namin kilala niya si Justice Ong.
Q Yun ang sagot niya kay Chairman Guingona. Di ba I read it a while ago?
A Opo, doon sa Sandiganbayan.
Sula also testified that every time Napoles talked to her and the other
employees, she would say that Justice Ong will help her in the Kevlar case.
Sula's testimony is as follows:
Witness Sula
Sula likewise testified that Napoles told her and the other employees that
she will fix (aayusin) the "PDAF case" in the Sandiganbayan. Then they
replied in jest that her acquaintance in that court is respondent. Napoles
retorted, "Ay huag na iyon kasi masyadong mataas ang talent fee."
Q Yung PDAF?
A Opo, yung PDAF sa Sandiganbayan.
Q Pagdating ng kaso sa Sandiganbayan?
A Opo, kasi po ina-ano po niya, siya po tinitira na ni Benhur - si Madam
tungkol sa PlO billion scam. So, pinag-uusapan namin sa bahay niya sa
South Garden Unit na, Madam, paano po yan, pag lahat ng kaso na iyan
dadaan sa lawmakers, dadaan yon sa Ombudsman at saka sa
Sandiganbayan? Sabi niya, "Huwag kayong mag-alala. Meron naman
akong mga contact doon." Sabi niyang ganoon sa Ombudsman at sa
Sandiganbayan.
Q Is that in your affidavit?
xxxx
III. Aries Rufo, a Reporter of Rappler, testified that he cannot reveal who
gave him the photograph [of respondent beside Napoles and Senator
Jinggoy Estrada] because he is shielded by law and he has to protect his
source.
When asked about his comment upon seeing the picture, Rufo said:
Initially, when I saw the picture, since I knew that Justice Ong was one of
the members of the division that handled the Kevlar case, it aroused my
curiosity why he was in that picture. Second, because in journalism, we
also get to practice ethical standards, I immediately sensed though that a
Justice or a lawyer, that he should not be seen or be going to a party or be
in an event where respondent (Ms. Napoles) was in a case under his
Division. He should not be in a situation that would compromise the
integrity of his office.
casual conversation and thanked him for her acquittal in the Kevlar case.
Respondent replied she should thank her "evidence" instead, adding that
had the court found enough evidence against her, she would have been
convicted. She talked about her charity works like supporting Chinese
priests, building churches and chapels in China, and sponsoring Chinese
Catholic priests. He was not interested though in what she was saying until
she mentioned the name of Msgr. Ramirez, former Parish Priest of Quiapo
Church.
Respondent became interested because he has been a devotee of the Holy
Black Nazarene since he was a little boy. Napoles told him that Msgr.
Ramirez has with him the robe of the Holy Black Nazarene which has a
healing power if one wears it. Then respondent asked if he can have
access to the robe so he can be cured of his ailment (prostate cancer)
which he keeps only to himself and to the immediate members of his
family. Napoles made arrangement with Msgr. Ramirez until respondent
was able to drape the robe over his body for about one or two minutes in
Quiapo Church. He also received a fragrant ball of cotton which he keeps
until now to heal any ailing part of his body. That was a great deal for him.
So out of courtesy, he visited Napoles in her office and thanked her. That
was his first visit.
Thereafter, Napoles kept on calling respondent, inviting him to her office,
but he kept on declining. Then finally after two weeks, he acceded for she
might think he is "walang kwentang tao." They just engaged in a small talk
for about 30 minutes and had coffee.
5. Concerning Benhur's testimony that Napoles paid respondent an
advanced interest consisting of eleven (11) checks in the amount
of P282,000.00 each and that he issued to her his BDO check of P25.5
million which she deposited in her account, he claimed that "he never
issued that check as he did not intend to invest in AFPSLAI. In fact, he
does not have any money deposited there. Inasmuch as he did not issue
any BDO check, it follows that Napoles could not have given him those
eleven (11) checks representing advanced interest. He further explained
that he found from the internet that in AFPSLAI, an investor can only make
an initial deposit of P30,000.00 every quarter or Pl20,000.00 per year. The
limit or ceiling is P3 million with an interest of 15% or 16% per annum.
6. The whistle blower's testimony are conflicting and therefore lack
credibility. While Sula testified that Napoles told her that she did not want
to approach respondent (should a case involving the pork barrel scam be
filed with the Sandiganbayan) because his talent fee is too high, however,
both whistle blowers claimed that he is Napoles' contact in the
Sandiganbayan.
With respect to the Rappler Report, according to respondent, Rufo was
insinuating four things: 1. That there was irregularity in the manner the
Kevlar case was decided;
2. That respondent was close to Napoles even during the pendency of the
Kevlar case;
Respondent must have forgotten that Napoles' natural instinct was selfpreservation. Hence, she would avail of every possible means to be
exonerated. Besides, respondent's belief that the two members of his
Division are independent-minded Jurists remains to be a mere allegation.
xxxx
EVALUATION
xxxx
It bears stressing that before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, Benhur
initially testified that Napoles fixed or "inayos" the Kevlar case because she
has a contact at the Sandiganbayan, referring to respondent. Sula
corroborated Benhur's testimony.
Testifying before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee is certainly an ordeal.
The witnesses and everything they say are open to the public. They are
subjected to difficult questions propounded by the Senators, supposedly
intelligent and knowledgeable of the subject and issues under inquiry. And
they can easily detect whether a person under investigation is telling the
truth or not. Considering this challenging and difficult setting, it is
indubitably improbable that the two whistle blowers would testify false! y
against respondent.
Moreover, during the investigation of this case, Benhur and Sula testified in
a candid, straightforward, and categorical manner. Their testimonies were
instantaneous, clear, unequivocal, and carried with it the ring of truth.
Justice Gutierrez
According to respondent, the purpose of his first visit was to thank Napoles
for making it possible for him to wear the Holy Black Nazarene's robe.
Even assuming it is true, nonetheless it is equally true that during that
visit, respondent could have transacted business with Napoles. Why should
Napoles pay respondent an advanced interest of P3,102,000.0 with her
own money if it were not a consideration for a favor?
Respondent's transgression pertains to his personal life and no direct
relation to his judicial function. It is not misconduct but plain dishonesty.
His act is unquestionably disgraceful and renders him morally unfit as a
member of the Judiciary and unworthy of the privileges the law confers on
him. Furthermore, respondent's conduct supports Benhur's assertion that
he received money from Napoles.
Dishonesty likewise violates Canon 2 (1 and 2) on Integrity of the same
Code providing in part that judges must ensure that their conduct is above
reproach and must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the
Judiciary.
Indeed, respondent should not stay in his position even for a moment.
xxxx
...From respondent's end, there was nothing wrong when he visited
Napoles twice in her office considering that the visits took place long after
the promulgation of the decision in the Kevlar case.
Contrary to respondent's submission, such acts also constitute gross
misconduct in violation of Canon 4 on Propriety of the same Code. Section
1 provides that judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities .
. . . respondent's reason for his first visit was to thank Napoles for her help
in making it possible for him to wear the robe of the Holy Black Nazarene.
Instead of visiting her, respondent could have extended his gratitude by
simply calling her by phone. Worse, he visited her again because she may
think he is an unworthy person. This is an extremely frail reason. He was
seen by the whistle blowers and their co-workers who, without doubt,
and more important, these are consistent with their previous testimonies
before the Senate; they never wavered or faltered even during crossexamination.
It is a settled rule that the findings of investigating magistrates are
generally given great weight by the Court by reason of their unmatched
opportunity to see the deportment of the witnesses as they testified. 17 The
rule which concedes due respect, and even finality, to the assessment of
credibility of witnesses by trial judges in civil and criminal cases applies a
fortiori to administrative cases.18 In particular, we concur with Justice
Sandoval-Gutierrez's assessment on the credibility of Luy and Sula, and
disagree with respondent's claim that these witnesses are simply telling
lies about his association with Napoles.
Contrary to respondent's submission, Sula in her testimony said that
whenever Napoles talked about her contacts in the Ombudsman and
Sandiganbayan, they knew that insofar as the Sandiganbayan was
concerned, it was understood that she was referring to respondent even as
she may have initially contacted some persons to get to respondent, and
also because they have seen him meeting with Napoles at her office. It
appears that Napoles made statements regarding the Kevlar case not just
to Luy but also to the other employees of JLN Corporation. The following
are excerpts from Sula's testimony on direct examination, where she even
hinted at their expected outcome of the Kevlar case:
Atty. Benipayo
Q So, Ms. Sula, what were the statements being made by Ms. Janet Lim
Napoles regarding her involvement in the Kevlar case, or how she was
trying to address the problem with the Kevlar case pending before the
Sandiganbayan?
Witness Sula
A Ang alam ko po kasi marami po siyang kinaka-usap na mga lawyers na
binabayaran niya para tulungan siya kay Gregory Ong sa Kevlar case.
Tapos, sa kalaunan po, nasabi na niya sa amin na mcron na po siyang
nakilala sa Sandiganbayan na nagngangalang Justice Gregory Ong. Tapos,
sabi niya, siya po ang tutulong sa amin para ma-clear kami. Pero hindi
niya sinabi na meron din pong ma ... sasagot sa kaso. Hindi po lahat, kasi
po dalawa sa mga empleyado niya, bale apat, dalawang empleyado niya,
isang kapatid niya at sister-in-law ang mag-aano sa kaso pati yung mother
niya na namatay na ay sasagot din sa kaso. Siya Jang at saka yung asawa
niya ang bale makli-clear sa kaso.
Q So, she told you that two (2) employees, one (1) sister-in-law and one
brother will answer for the case and Janet Lim Napoles and her husband
will be acquitted, is that right?
A Yun po ang aking pagkaka-alam kasi po, nag-petition po kasi sila eh,
yung mga officemates ko. Nagkaroon ng probation. Noong lumabas ang
hatol, meron silang probation period.
xxxx
Q Which you told me that somebody will help in the Kevlar case?
A Opo. Sinabi po niya sa amin everytime po pag nagkukwento siya,
sinasabi niya na si Justice Ong ang tutulong sa kanya para ma-clear po
yung Kevlar case niya.
Judges are required not only to be impartial but also to appear to be so,
for appearance is an essential manifestation of reality. Canon 2 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to avoid not just impropriety in their
conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety.
They must conduct themselves in such a manner that they give no ground
for reproach. [Respondent's] acts have been less than circumspect. He
should have kept himself free from any appearance of impropriety and
endeavored to distance himself from any act liable to create an impression
of indecorum.
xxxx
Indeed, respondent must always bear in mind that:
xxxx
19
(Emphasis supplied.)
As it turned out, Napoles' husband was dropped from the two informations
while her mother, brother and sister-in-law were convicted in the lesser
charge of falsification of public documents. Apparently, after her acquittal,
Napoles helped those convicted secure a probation. But as stated in our
earlier resolution, the Court will no longer delve into the merits of the
Kevlar case as the investigation will focus on respondent's administrative
liability.
Respondent's act of voluntarily meeting with Napoles at her office on two
occasions was grossly improper and violated Section 1, Canon 4
(Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which took effect on June
1, 2004.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities.
A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial
and that fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. 20 Public
confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct
of judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof.
Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and
"A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as personal
conduct, a price one has to pay for o ccupying an exalted position in the
judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to avoid not just impropriety in the
performance of judicial duties but in all his activities whether in his public
or private life. He must conduct himself in a manner that gives no ground
for reproach." (Emphasis supplied.)
On this score, our previous pronouncements have enjoined judges to avoid
association or socializing with persons who have pending cases before
their court. Respondent cites the case of Abundo v. Mania, Jr.23 where this
Court did not find fault with a judge who was charged with fraternizing
with his lawyer-friend. In that case, we said:
Respondent admits that he and Atty. Pajarillo became close friends in 1989
when they were both RTC judges stationed in Naga City. Since they both
resided in Camarines Norte, Atty. Pajarillo hitched rides with respondent to
Daet, Camarines Norte in the latter's car.
In his Comment, respondent claims that he leaves the door to his
chambers open to lawyers or parties with official court business, whose
requests and complaints regarding their cases he listens to in full view of
his staff, who are witnesses to his transparency and honesty in conducting
such dialogues. He also admits that Atty. Pajarillo has been to his house on
several occasions, but only to make emergency long-distance calls to his
children in Metro Manila. He, however, denies that he and Atty. Pajarillo
were frequently seen eating and drinking together in public places.
We agree with Justice Buzon's finding that the evidence against
respondent on this point was insufficient, viz.:
"On the other hand, the admission of respondent that he attended two
public functions where Atty. Pajarillo was also present; that Atty. Pajarillo
had been in his house twice or thrice and used his telephone; and that he
receives lawyers, including Atty. Pajarillo, and litigants inside his
chambers, the door to which is always open so that [the] staff could see
that no under the table transactions are taking place, is not proof that he
is fraternizing with Atty. Pajarillo. A judge need not ignore a former
colleague and friend whenever they meet each other or when the latter
makes requests which are not in any manner connected with cases
pending in his court. Thus, Canon 30 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
provides:
'30. Social relations
It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial duty that judges
should live in retirement or seclusion; it is desirable that, so far as the
reasonable attention to the completion of their work will permit, they
continue to mingle in social intercourse, and that they should not
discontinue their interests in or appearance at meetings of members at the
bar. A judge should, however, in pending or prospective litigation before
him be scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to
waken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships
constitute an element in determining his judicial course.'"
The factual setting in Abundo v. Mania, Jr. is not similar to the present case
because Napoles was not a colleague or lawyer-friend but an accused in a
former case before the Sandiganbayan's Fourth Division chaired by
respondent and which acquitted her from malversation charge. What
respondent perhaps want to underscore is the caveat for judges, in
pending or prospective litigation before them, to avoid such action as may
raise suspicion on their partiality in resolving or deciding the case. Thus,
he emphasized in his Memorandum that he "never knew Napoles on a
personal level while she was still on trial as an accused in Kevlar helmet
Justice Gutierrez
Okay. It happened already. But just to thank Ms. Napoles, I think Justice
you should have been very, very careful about your actuations. You should
not have been seen in public, you know, with a woman like her who was
an accused before. You could have thanked her simply by calling her. You
could have relayed to her your true feelings that you are so grateful
because of her assistance. Were it not for her, you could not have worn
that Holy Robe of the Black Nazarene. You could have simply called her
instead of going to her office; instead of, you know, going to the Church of
Santuario de San Antonio in Forbes Park. And you should have been more
careful not to be seen by the public with her considering that she was a
former accused in that case.
Justice Ong
Justice Ong
You cannot do that, your honor. Ever since when I was a small boy, I never
got near the image of the Mahal na Poon. Nobody can do that, your honor.
Justice Gutierrez
Justice Gutierrez
No, no. What I mean is that you can just go to the priest in Quiapo and
make the proper request. Why did you not do that?
Justice Ong
I don't know, your honor.
Justice Gutierrez
Because you have been suffering from that ailment, mass or whatever, and
that you are a devotee of the Black Nazarene. You could have gone to the
Office of the priest there and had that request for you to wear that robe of
the Black Nazarene?
Q And you admitted a while ago, during the interview conducted by Mr.
Aries Rufo that. "That is a lesson for me; that I should not have
associated, you know, with a former respondent or accused in a case
before me." You admitted that? You said you learned you lesson. Was that
the first time you learned that kind of lesson, Mr. Justice? Or even before
you took your oath as a member of the Judiciary, you already knew that
lesson, isn't it or was that the first time? That is why you associated
yourself with Senator Jinggoy Estrada who was accused before of plunder?
Justice Ong
Your honor, talking about ....
Justice Gutierrez
Justice Ong
Hindi ko po alam na may ganyan, your honor. I was only told by Napoles
during that conversation. Had I known that, siguro po pwede ko pong
gawin. Had I known that there is such a robe, maybe I will do that.
Justice Ong
A Yes, your honor. You have to forgive me for that.26 (Emphasis supplied.)
The Court finds that respondent, in not being truthful on crucial matters
even before the administrative complaint was filed against him motu
proprio, is guilty of Dishonesty, a violation of Canon 3 (Integrity) of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Dishonesty is a "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in
principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud,
deceive or betray."28 Dishonesty, being a grave offense, carries the
extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement
benefits except accrued leave credits, and with perpetual disqualification
from reemployment in government service. Indeed, dishonesty is a
malevolent act that has no place in the Judiciary.29
Under Section 11(A), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, a respondent found
guilty of a serious charge may be penalized as follows:
SEC. 11. Sanctions. - A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge,
any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
governmentowned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however,
that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
Considering that respondent is not a first time offender and the
charges of gross misconduct and dishonesty are both grave
offenses showing his unfitness to remain as a magistrate of the
special graft court, we deem it proper to impose the supreme
penalty of dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Sandiganbayan Associate Justice
Gregory S. Ong GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT, DISHONESTY and
IMPROPRIETY, all in violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, for which he is hereby DISMISSED from the service,
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, if
Petitioners alleged that they have since 1998 been approaching the
Executive Department, represented by the respondent public officials,
requesting assistance in filing claims against the Japanese military officers
who established the comfort women stations. But that Department
declined, saying that petitioners individual claims had already been fully
satisfied under the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan.
PER CURIAM:
On April 28, 2010, the Court rendered judgment dismissing petitioners
This case is concerned with charges that, in preparing a decision for the
action. Justice Mariano C. del Castillo wrote the decision for the Court. The
Court essentially gave two reasons for its decision: it cannot grant the
manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism [3] that resulted in gross
the Courts decision. More than a month later on July 18, 2010, counsel for
petitioners, Atty. Herminio Harry Roque, Jr., announced in his online blog
for the Court he had the intent to attribute all sources used in it. He said in
committed by the court under the second reason it gave for dismissing
the petition and that these stolen passages were also twisted to support
the courts erroneous conclusions that the Filipino comfort women of World
War Two have no further legal remedies. The media gave publicity to Atty.
Roques announcement.
On July 27, 2010, the Court En Banc referred the charges against
Justice Del Castillo to its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards,
chaired by the Chief Justice, forinvestigation and recommendation. The
Chief Justice designated retired Justice Jose C. Vitug to serve as consultant
comment on Justice Del Castillos verified letter. When this was done, it set
rather than with respect to the passages taken from his work. He thought
that the form of referencing was inappropriate. Mr. Tams was also
concerned that the decision may have used his work to support an
In the meantime, on July 19, 2010, Evan Criddle wrote on his blog
that he and his co-author Evan Fox-Descent (referred to jointly as Criddle-
On August 26, 2010, the Committee heard the parties submissions in the
the Courts conclusion that prohibitions against sexual slavery are not jus
sides were given ample time to address the Committee and submit their
evidence. The Committee queried them on these.
On July 23, 2010, Dr. Mark Ellis wrote the Court expressing
concern that in mentioning his work, the Court may have misread the
Counsels for Justice Del Castillo later asked to be heard with the
argument [he] made in the article and employed them for cross
other parties not in attendance so they could make submissions that their
purposes. Dr. Ellis said that he wrote the article precisely to argue for
that
went
into
the
making
counsels
of
the
vigorously
Courts
decision
objected
and
in
the
(U.P.) College of Law publicized a Statement from his faculty, claiming that
researcher, whose name need not be mentioned here, explain the research
work that went into the making of the decision in the Vinuya case. The
Court of the land. The statement said that Justice Del Castillo had a
deliberate intention to appropriate the original authors work, and that the
Ellis, found in the beginning drafts of her report to Justice Del Castillo,
[5]
taken from his work, he was given generic reference only in the footnote
avoid touching the merits of the Courts decision in that case or the
same. The Court will deal, not with the essential merit or persuasiveness
acknowledge that certain words or language in his work were taken from
of the foreign authors works, but how the decision that Justice Del Castillo
wrote for the Court appropriated parts of those works and for what
After the hearing, the Committee gave the parties ten days to file
their
respective
memoranda. They
filed
their
memoranda
in
due
1. Whether or not, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case,
mere generic reference. But, although Tams himself may have believed
that the footnoting in this case was not an appropriate form of referencing,
[9]
he and petitioners cannot deny that the decision did attribute the source
or sources of such passages. Justice Del Castillo did not pass off Tams
2. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of these authors to
work as his own.The Justice primarily attributed the ideas embodied in the
passages to Bruno Simma, whom Tams himself credited for them. Still,
Because of the pending motion for reconsideration in the Vinuya case, the
Court like its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards will purposely
That it would have been better had Justice Del Castillo used the
introductory phrase cited in rather than the phrase See would make a case
of mere inadvertent slip in attribution rather than a case of manifest
intellectual theft and outright plagiarism. If the Justices citations were
imprecise, it would just be a case of bad footnoting rather than one of
theft or deceit. If it were otherwise, many would be target of abuse for
every editorial error, for every mistake in citing pagination, and for every
technical detail of form.
The Passages from Ellis
and Criddle-Descent
Petitioners also attack the Courts decision for lifting and using as
footnotes, without attribution to the author, passages from the published
work of Ellis. The Court made the following statement on page 27 of its
decision, marked with Footnote 65 at the end:
We fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture,
and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as
legally prohibited under contemporary international
law. 65 xxx
that they are from that article. The footnote could very well have read:
Next, petitioners also point out that the following eight sentences
and their accompanying footnotes appear in text on pages 30-32 of
the Vinuya decision:
xxx In international law, the term jus
cogens (literally, compelling law) refers to norms
that command peremptory authority, superseding
The Explanation
Unless amply explained, the above lifting from the works of Ellis
carpenter. The carpenter first gets the pieces of lumber he would need,
choosing the kinds and sizes suitable to the object he has in mind, say a
table. When ready, he would measure out the portions he needs, cut them
out of the pieces of lumber he had collected, and construct his table. He
drafts of her report to him, which report eventually became the working
draft of the decision. She said that, for most parts, she did her research
electronically. For international materials, she sourced these mainly from
Here,
Justice
Del
Castillos
researcher
did
just
that. She
In the old days, the common practice was that after a Justice
Justice. She used the Microsoft Word program.[12] Later, after she decided
would have assigned a case for study and report, the researcher would
on the general shape that her report would take, she began pruning from
source his materials mostly from available law books and published articles
that manuscript those materials that did not fit, changing the positions in
on print. When he found a relevant item in a book, whether for one side of
the general scheme of those that remained, and adding and deleting
the issue or for the other, he would place a strip of paper marker on the
appropriate page, pencil mark the item, and place the book on his desk
Justice Del Castillo, her chief editor, demanded. Parenthetically, this is the
where
paraphrase or copy the marked out passages from some of these books as
their work.
attributions.
websites that offer virtual libraries of books and articles. Here, as the
researcher found items that were relevant to her assignment, she
First Finding
technique in this case is not too far different from that employed by a
For most senior lawyers and judges who are not computer literate,
would
be: The
inalienable
character
of
juridical
personality.23 The
subject tag, serves as reminder to him to attribute the passage in its final
form to Tolentino. After the passage has been tagged, it would now appear
like this:
the book of the learned Civilist, Arturo M. Tolentino, happens to have been
When researcher X copies and pastes the above passage and its footnote
into a manuscript-in-the-making in his computer, the footnote number
would, given the computer program in use, automatically change and
serves but a marker to help researcher X maneuver the passage into the
right spot in his final manuscript.
The mistake of Justice Del Castillos researcher is that, after the
Justice had decided what texts, passages, and citations were to be
retained including those from Criddle-Descent and Ellis, and when she was
already cleaning up her work and deleting all subject tags, she
unintentionally deleted the footnotes that went with such tagswith
disastrous effect.
juridical
personality.23,by
simple
delete
operation,
and
the
erasure of the footnote eliminates the link between the lifted passage and
testimony. Justice Del Castillo merely explained that there was every
its source, Tolentinos book. Only the following would remain in the
intention to attribute all sources whenever due and that there was never
manuscript:
turns out is a true statement. He recalled how the Court deliberated upon
the case more than once, prompting major revisions in the draft of the
decision. In the process, (s)ources were re-studied, discussions modified,
passages added or deleted. Nothing in the letter suggests a coverup. Indeed, it did not preclude a researchers inadvertent error.
pruned. The portions that remain simply blend in with the rest of the
disclose his researchers error. He wrote the decision for the Court and was
manuscript, adjusting the footnote number and removing any clue that
expected to take full responsibility for any lapse arising from its
Descent. The researcher deleted the subject tags and, accidentally, their
accompanying footnotes that served as reminder of the sources of the
lifted passages. With 119 sources cited in the decision, the loss of the 2 of
motive or reason for omitting attribution for the lifted passages to Criddle-
letter of July 22, 2010 is inconsistent with his researchers claim that the
omissions were mere errors in attribution. They cite the fact that the
sources. Citing these authors as the sources of the lifted passages would
Justice did not disclose his researchers error in that letter despite the
enhance rather than diminish their informative value. Both Justice Del
latters confession regarding her mistake even before the Justice sent his
Castillo and his researcher gain nothing from the omission. Thus, the
letter to the Chief Justice. By denying plagiarism in his letter, Justice Del
failure
Castillo allegedly perjured himself and sought to whitewash the case. [13]
to
mention
the
works
of
Criddle-Decent
and
Ellis
was
[14]
Second Finding
The Court also adopts the Committees finding that the omission of
that Justice Del Castillo himself created the passages that he lifted from
[15]
their published articles. That he merely got those passages from others
remains self-evident, despite the accidental deletion. The fact is that he
still imputed the passages to the sources from which Criddle-Descent and
Ellis borrowed them in the first place.
free of any mistake. The theory places an automatic universal curse even
deletion of the subject tag and, accidentally, its footnote which connects to
or
creative
expressions
as
one's
own.[16] Thus,
plagiarism
Ellis supported the Courts conclusion that the Philippines is not under any
True the subject passages in this case were reproduced in
the Vinuya decision without placing them in quotation marks. But such
passages are much unlike the creative line from Robert Frost, [17] The
woods are lovely, dark, and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles
Ellis were accidentally deleted, it is impossible for any person reading the
that in writing the decision Justice Del Castillo twisted their intended
principles of law, and similar frequently repeated phrases that, in the world
facts that established the state of international law at various stages of its
development. These are neutral data that could support conflicting
theories regarding whether or not the judiciary has the power today to
model is based on the originality of the writers thesis, the judicial system
historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions. The
of jus cogens.
Third Finding
against him is to say the least, unkind. To be more accurate, however, the
charge is reckless and obtuse.
No Misconduct
meaning of.[19] For example, if one lifts the lyrics of the National Anthem,
uses it in his work, and declares that Jose Palma who wrote it did not love
amount to misconduct. Only errors that are tainted with fraud, corruption,
anthems lyrics said. Here, nothing in the Vinuya decision said or implied
or malice are subject of disciplinary action. [20] This is not the case
here. Justice Del Castillos acts or omissions were not shown to have been
impelled by any of such disreputable motives.[21] If the rule were
decision. The wheels of justice in the Supreme Court will grind to a halt
he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary with an unblemished
record.[22]
What is important is that, in this case, Justice Del Castillo retained
No Inexcusable Negligence
control over the writing of the decision in the Vinuya case without,
however, having to look over his researchers shoulder as she cleaned up
her draft report to ensure that she hit the right computer keys. The
the omission was the result of plain error, Justice Del Castillo is
Justices researcher was after all competent in the field of assignment given
her. She finished law from a leading law school, graduated third in her
has full control and supervision over his researcher and should not have
class, served as Editor-in Chief of her schools Law Journal, and placed
fourth in the bar examinations when she took it. She earned a masters
degree in International Law and Human Rights from a prestigious
But this assumes that Justice Del Castillo abdicated the writing of
adduced during the hearing. As his researcher testified, the Justice set the
programs on International Law in the world. Justice Del Castillo did not
direction that the research and study were to take by discussing the issues
exercise bad judgment in assigning the research work in the Vinuya case
with her, setting forth his position on those issues, and reviewing and
to her.
commenting on the study that she was putting together until he was
completely satisfied with it.[24] In every sense, Justice Del Castillo was in
Can
errors
in
preparing
decisions
be
prevented? Not
until
control of the writing of the report to the Court, which report eventually
became the basis for the decision, and determined its final outcome.
human errors. They are hypocrites who believe that the courts should be
as error-free as they themselves are.
practice in the high courts of all nations. This is dictated by necessity. With
the Faculty of the U.P. College of Law on the allegations of plagiarism and
would be truly senseless for him to do all the studies and research, going
to the library, searching the internet, checking footnotes, and watching the
reproduced but the signatures portion below merely listed the names of 38
faculty members, in solid rows, with the letters Sgd or signed printed
least one to two weeks of work for each case that has been submitted for
beside the names without exception. These included the name of retired
Supreme Court Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, a U.P. professor.
Exhibit J, it directed Atty. Roque to present the signed copy within three
days of the August 26 hearing. [25]He complied. As it turned out, the original
involved in legal research and reporting with copies of this decision and to
list. The set of signatories that appeared like solid teeth in the dummy
enjoin them to avoid editing errors committed in the Vinuya case while
turned out to be broken teeth in the original. Since only 37 out of the 81
the Faculty but of just some of its members. And retired Justice V. V.
Mendoza did not sign the statement, contrary to what the dummy
software for use by the Court that can prevent future lapses in citations
and attributions.
for the Committee to turn over the signed copy of the same to the en
Standards to turn over to the en banc the dummy as well as the signed
SO ORDERED.