benchmark digest

Digest of Supreme Courts Benchmark

2006

Libertas et Iusticia

LIBERTAS ET IUSTICIA | DIGEST OF SUPREME COURTS BENCHMARK 2006

www.libertas.ph

Table of Contents April.. 1 Disrespectful Lawyers-Spouses Suspended

May 2 No Time Limit for Administrative Cases vs Lawyers

SCEA President Suspended

Judge, Staff Penalized for Spurious Bailbonds and Release Orders

June . 3 Sandiganbayan Justice Ordered to Inhibit Self in Marcos Graft Cases

One-Year Suspension for Negligent Lawyer July .. 4 Court Upholds Religious Freedom

'Disgraceful' Clerk Fined

2 Lawyers Suspended, Notary Commissions Revoked

One-Year Suspension for Moonlighting Stenographer

Judge Reprimanded for Impropriety

Lawyer Suspended for Representing Conflicting Interests

August.. 6 SC Allows MRs of IBP Resolutions

Lawyer Suspended for Refusing to Pay Debt

Lawyer Suspended for Pocketing Clients Money

Deceitful Notary Suspended

Clerk of Court Dismissed for Forgery, Falsification

September 8 Court Nullifies Suspension of Sentence of Minor Convict

Squabbling Judge and Clerk Disciplined

Thirteen SC Employees Disciplined for Habitual Tardiness

Lawyer Suspended for Four Years

Manila RTC Judge, Personnel Fined

Lawyer, Two CA Attorneys Disciplined

Time for Filing of Pleadings Extended to 5 PM

SC Explains Legal Effects of Death Penalty Prohibition

October 11 SC to Withhold Names of Women and Child Victims in Decisions

E-Decisions Follow Cabalquinto Ruling

Court Clarifies Payment of Corporate Rehabilitation Fees

Award of Damages Not Immediately Executory in Intra-Corporate Disputes

Complaints vs. Retired Justices and Judges Referred to SC

Revised Guidelines for Enhanced Pre-Trial under JURIS Project Approved

Clerk of Court, Cash Clerk Dismissed for Php8.7M Shortage in Judiciary Fund

Two-Year Suspension for Wily Lawyer

Lawyer Suspended for Negligence, Obstruction

Decisions of Sharia District Courts Appealable to SC

Notarial Rules Updates

November .. 16 SC Clarifies Rules on Indigent Litigants

Judge Suspended, Fined for Failure to Inhibit Self, Improper Conduct

Lawyer Suspended for Shooting Motorist

Disgruntled Complainant Fined for Maligning Court

Judge Dismissed for Corruption

PAO Lawyer Reprimanded for Notarizing Receipt Without Commission

SC Clarifies Effects of RA 9346 on Graduation of Criminal Penalties

Lawyer Suspended for Negligence

Engineer Suspended for Failure to Repair Aircons

Lawyer Suspended for Reneging on Contractual Obligation

December . 19 Judge, Two Mayors Fined for Contempt

Retired Clerk of Court and Sheriff Fined for Undue Demolition


www.libertas.ph

April 2006

Disrespectful Lawyers-Spouses Suspended By Genevieve B. Zuiga

THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY suspended a married lawyer-couple for

using very disrespectful, insulting, and humiliating language against a

judge.

Attys. Ellis and Olivia Jacoba were suspended for two years and two

months, respectively, for using the words and phrases, abhorrent

nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake, horrible error,

boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an anachronism in the judicial

process in their Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution issued by

Judge Ubaldino Lacurom of the Cabanatuan City Municipal Trial Court,

Branch 30.

In a decision penned by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Court said that

even the most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous attack

made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacuroms Resolution...

Though a lawyers language may be forceful and emphatic, it should

always be dignified and respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal

profession, it added.

The Jacoba spouses have been previously punished for violation of the

Code of Professional Responsibility. Ellis was suspended twice one for

six months and another for one year for his failure to file the required

pleadings, while Olivia was fined for appearing in barangay conciliation

proceedings on behalf of a party despite the prohibition in the Local

Government Code. (AC No. 5921, Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and Pairing Judge, Branch 30 vs. Atty.

Ellis F. Jacoba and Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba, March 10, 2006)

1


www.libertas.ph

May 2006

No Time Limit for Administrative Cases vs Lawyers By Janice R. Erni

TIME CANNOT ERASE a lawyers administrative culpability.

Thus, in a six-page En Banc resolution penned by Justice Renato C.

Corona, the Court struck down as void and of no legal effect Section 1 of

Rule VIII of the CBD-IBP Rules of Procedure which provides: A complaint

for disbarment, suspension[ ]or discipline of attorneys prescribes in two

(2) years from the date of the professional misconduct.

It noted that as early as 1967, it has already ruled that

prescription does not lie in administrative proceedings against lawyers.

The Court, quoting from a 2004 decision, added, No matter how

much time has elapsed from the time of the commission of the act

complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring

members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the

Court. Otherwise, the Court said, members of the bar would be

emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as lawyers.

The case stemmed from an administrative case filed against Atty.

Carmelita Bautista-Lozada. The Court found Lozada found guilty of

violating the lawyers Code of Professional Responsibility and willfully

disobeying a final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals. She

was suspended for two years. She moved for the reconsideration of the

decision raising as defense Sec. 1, Rule VIII of the CBD-IBP Rules of

Procedure. (AC No. 5565, Bobie Rose V. Frias vs. Atty. Carmelita S. Bautista-Lozada,

May 4, 2006)

Judge, Staff Penalized for Spurious Bailbonds and Release Orders By Joshua P. Lapuz

A LAGUNA REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE and four of his staff members

were admonished and suspended, respectively, by the Supreme Court for

issuing spurious bailbonds and release orders.

Judge Leonardo Leonida of the Sta. Cruz, Laguna RTC, Branch 27

was admonished for failing to carry out his administrative responsibilities

as presiding judge. The Court said that he violated Rules 2.01, 2.03, 3.08,

and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for allowing surety agents to

freely enter his chambers and discuss their business with him and, either

wittingly or unwittingly, permit these agents to give instructions or

orders to members of his staff to prepare the release orders.

On the other hand, Legal Researcher Alegria Ramos and

Stenographers Irma Agawin and Ma. Veronica Nequinto were suspended

for six months due to gross neglect of duty for their practice of taking

instructions from surety agents and certifying release orders without

Judge Leonida having signed the original copies thereof. Court Aide

Mauro Callado was also held liable for simple neglect of duty for having

handed over two release order and bail bonds to a surety agent instead

of personally submitting the same to the court where they were

addressed. (AM No. 04-6-332-RTC, Report on the Investigation Conducted on the Alleged Spurious Bailbonds and Release Orders Issued by the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 27, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, April 5, 2006)

SCEA President Suspended By Joshua P. Lapuz

SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION President Jose Dante

Guerrero was suspended by the Supreme Court for his failure to swipe

his ID card in the Chronolog Time Recorder Machine (CTRM) to register

his times of arrival at and/or departure from the office for 34 days on

various dates from July 2004 to January 2005. Guerrero, a Court

Secretary II assigned to the Office of the Third Division Clerk of Court, was

found guilty of dishonesty and suspended for six months.

2


www.libertas.ph

In a decision penned by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, the

Court said that the fault does not lie with the CTRM or the ID card but

with respondent himself who deliberately refused to register his

attendance through the machine. It also said that Guerreros tardiness is

evident from the non-chronological and highly irregular entries in the

Report of Absences and Tardiness.

[W]e arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the deliberate non-

registration by respondent via the CTRM in order to cover up his

tardiness constitutes dishonesty, said the Court. However, instead of

dismissal, it suspended Guerrero for six months in consideration of his

good performance rating, his 13 years of satisfactory service in the

Judiciary, and his acknowledgment of and remorse for his infractions.

(AM No. 2005-07-SC, Re: Failure of Jose Dante E. Guerrero to Register his

Time In and Time Out in the Chronolog Time Recorder Machine on Several

Dates, April 19, 2006)

June 2006

Sandiganbayan Justice Ordered to Inhibit Self in Marcos Graft Cases By Genevieve B. Zuiga

JUSTICE GREGORY S. ONG, Chairman of the Sandiganbayans Fourth

Division, has been directed by the Supreme Court to inhibit himself from

participating in the criminal cases for violations of the Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act against former First Lady Imelda R. Marcos.

In an 11-page decision penned by Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, the

Court said that Justice Ong should have voluntarily declined to

participate in these cases given that the allegations raised against him

unavoidably cast doubt on his impartiality to decide these very critical

cases. The Court emphasized that any act which would give the

appearance of impropriety becomes, of itself, reprehensible.

The case stemmed from a remark made by Justice Ong to Special

Prosecutor Wendell E. Barreras-Sulit, when the latter came in to explain

the motion filed by the government seeking to have the cases assigned to

the First Division under Presiding Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro,

because of her familiarity with the cases. According to Sulit, Justice Ong

remarked that he would have dismissed the cases when it was before

him during trial because Chavezs testimony was hearsay. Special

Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio later confirmed Justice Ongs remarks. (GR Nos. 162130-39, People of the Philippines vs. Justice Gregory S. Ong, Chairman, Fourth

Division, Sandiganbayan, and Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos, May 05, 2006)

One-Year Suspension for Negligent Lawyer By Joshua P. Lapuz

A LAWYER HAS BEEN SUSPENDED for one year for gross negligence in

handling two civil cases.

In one case, Atty. Reynaldo Reyes not only failed to file the pre-

trial brief of his clients within the required period but worse, did not

submit the brief when he filed a motion for reconsideration of the order

of dismissal several months later. In another case, he also failed to file

the necessary pleadings causing its dismissal, which was later on

reconsidered.

Apart from his negligence, Atty. Reyes omitted to apprise his

clients of the status of the two cases and even assured them that he was

diligently attending to said cases.

A lawyer should never neglect a legal matter entrusted to him,

otherwise his negligence in fulfilling his duty will render him liable for

disciplinary action, the Court said. It added that in failing to inform his

clients of the status of their cases, respondent [Reyes] failed to exercise

3


www.libertas.ph

such skill, care, and diligence as men of the legal profession commonly

possess and exercise in such manners of professional employment.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines recommended the penalty

of disbarment but since it was Atty. Reyes first offense, the Court instead

suspended him for one year. (AC No. 4676, Spouses Antonio and Norma Soriano

vs. Atty. Reynaldo P. Reyes, May 4, 2006)

July 2006

Court Upholds Religious Freedom By Gleo SP. Guerra

IN A LANDMARK RULING on religious freedom penned by Senior

Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Court ordered the dismissal of the

administrative charge of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" against a

court employee who has been living with a man not her husband for the

past 25 years and had a son by him.

Soledad Escritor, a court interpreter in the Regional Trial Court,

Branch 253 of Las Pias City, had claimed in her defense that her conjugal

arrangement is in conformity with and has the approval of the Jehovah's

Witnesses, the congregation to which she and her mate belong, per their

Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness executed in 1991 and recorded in

the Watch Tower Central Office. Only couples who have been baptized

and are in good standing may execute The Declaration, which allows

members of the congregation who have been abandoned by their

spouses to enter into marital relations.

We find that in this particular case and under these distinct

circumstances, respondent [Soledad] Escritor's conjugal arrangement

cannot be penalized as she made out a case for exemption from the law

based on her fundamental right to freedom of religion [T]he state

interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will

erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom, said

the Court in its 63-page signed resolution. Concurring were Justices

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Ma. Alicia Austria-

Martinez, Renato C. Corona, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V.

Chico-Nazario, and Cancio C. Garcia. Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban

and Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Conchita

Carpio Morales, and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. dissented. Justice Presbitero J.

Velasco, Jr. took no part due to prior action of OCA.

The Court found that that evidence presented by the Solicitor

General "fails to demonstrate 'the gravest abuses, endangering

paramount interests' which could limit or override respondents

fundamental rights to religious freedom. Neither did the government

exert any effort to show that the means it seeks to achieve its legitimate

state objective is the least intrusive means." (AM No. P-02-1651, Alejandro

Estrada vs. Soledad S. Escritor, June 22, 2006)

'Disgraceful' Clerk Fined By Joshua P. Lapuz

FOR MAKING OFFENSIVE and foul remarks, a clerk was recently fined by

the Supreme Court.

Sheryll Madlangbayan of the Mandaluyong City Regional Trial

Court, Branch 210 was fined Php1,000 for her disgraceful conduct against

Leilani Nacionales, her erstwhile friend.

"Even if respondent acted in retaliation to complainant's calling

her 'Sheryll Maniac' when she uttered 'fuck you' and made a dirty finger

sign, that these were done in public by a court employee who was then

wearing the office uniform creates a bad impression not only against

respondent as an employee but also against the judiciary," the Court

said. "Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect.

Misbehavior by their employees within and around their vicinity

necessarily diminishes their sanctity and dignity," it added. (AM No. P-06-

4


www.libertas.ph

2171, Leilani E. Nacionales vs. Sheryll S. Madlangbayan, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court,

Mandaluyong City, Branch 210, June 15, 2006)

2 Lawyers Suspended, Notary Commissions Revoked By Joshua P. Lapuz

TWO LAWYERS WERE recently suspended for one year and their

commissions as notaries public revoked by the Supreme Court for

dereliction of duty and inexcusable negligence.

Attys. Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy Baliga were found guilty of

violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility

and the lawyer's oath for the incorrect entries in their respective notarial

registers. They were also disqualified from reappointment as notaries

public for two years.

"...[T]he notary public is personally accountable for all entries in

his notarial register. Respondents cannot be relieved of responsibility for

the violation of the aforesaid sections by passing the buck to their

secretaries, a reprehensible practice which to this day persists despite

our open condemnation," the Court said. (AC No. 5377, Victor Lingan vs. Attys.

Romeo Calubaquib and Jimmy P. Baliga, June 15, 2006)

One-Year Suspension for Moonlighting Stenographer By Joshua P. Lapuz

JUDICIAL EMPLOYEES OUT to make extra money on the side be warned.

Emiladie Anacan, Court Stenographer of the San Jose, Occidental

Mindoro Regional Trial Court, Branch 45 was recently suspended for one

year for "moonlighting." She was found guilty of conduct grossly

prejudicial to the best interest of the service for facilitating payments to

landowners for expropriated lands in Occidental Mindoro for a fee.

"[T]he Court frowns upon 'moonlighting' activities of court

employees. While 'moonlighting' is not normally considered a serious

misconduct, nonetheless, by the very nature of the position held, it

amounts to a malfeasance in office," the Court said. (AM No. P-04-1816, Eusebio M. Baron vs. Emiladie T. Anacan, Court Stenographer III, RTC-Branch 45, San

Jose, Occidental Mindoro, June 20, 2006)

Judge Reprimanded for Impropriety By Joshua P. Lapuz

JUDGE JOSE NACIONAL of the Naga City Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1

was recently reprimanded by the Supreme Court for improper conduct

for discussing the merits of a pending case pending before his sala with a

party without the latter's counsel and the adverse party.

"Respondent had exceeded the boundaries of propriety and

regularity. Respondent should have known fully well that in every

litigation, the manner and attitude of a judge are crucial to everyone

concerned. It is improper for respondent to meet with the complainant

and his wife to discuss the merits of the case without the presence of the

accused and his counsel no matter how noble his intentions may have

been," the Court said. (AM No. MTJ-05-1605, Pedro C. Abesa vs. Judge Jose P.

Nacional, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Naga City, June 8, 2006.)

Lawyer Suspended for Representing Conflicting Interests By Joshua P. Lapuz

ATTY. LUIS LOKIN, JR. was recently suspended for three months by the

Supreme Court for representing conflicting interests.

The Court said that when Lokin appeared in the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) as counsel for the therein respondents PHILCOMSAT,

et al., he was clearly representing a party which had an interest in

preventing the implementation of the Compromise Agreement the

same agreement which Lokin and his law firm previously negotiated for

Potenciano Ilusorio, the adverse party.

5


www.libertas.ph

"The act alone of representing a subsequent client against a

former client in any manner related to the subject of the previous

litigation thus constitutes a violation of the rule against representing

conflicting interests," the Court said. It added that whatever may be the

tenor or merit of the arguments Lokin made in behalf of his clients in the

SEC case, his mere act of appearing therein against a former client

already constituted professional misconduct in view of the clear relation

of the subject matter in that SEC case to that of the earlier case in the

Sandiganbayan. (AC No. 6554, Erlinda K. Ilusorio-Bildner vs. Atty. Luis K. Lokin, Jr.,

and the Board of Governors of the IBP, June 5, 2006)

August 2006

SC Allows MRs of IBP Resolutions By Gleo SP. Guerra

REITERATING ITS 1996 RULING in Halimao v. Villanueva, the Supreme

Court stressed that motions for reconsideration of resolutions of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) in disciplinary cases may be filed by

aggrieved parties.

In Halimao, the Court, through Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, has

held that the absence of such a remedy in the Rules of Court does not

preclude the filing of such a motion: Although Rule 139-B, 12 (c) makes

no mention of a motion for reconsideration, nothing in its text or in its

history suggests that such motion is prohibited. It may therefore be filed

within 15 days from notice to a party. Indeed, the filing of such motion

should be encouraged before resort is made to this Court as a matter of

exhaustion of administrative remedies, to afford the agency rendering

the judgment an opportunity to correct any error it may have committed

through a misapprehension of facts or misappreciation of the evidence.

In a 13-page unanimous decision penned 10 years later by Justice

Minita V. Chico-Nazario, the Court added, Certainly, prudence dictates

that the IBP be given the opportunity to correct its mistakes, if any, by

way of motions for reconsideration before this Court takes cognizance of

the case. This is to further insure that the grievance procedure will be

allowed to duly run its course a form of filtering process, particularly

respecting matters within the competence of the IBP, before we step in.

The Court thus laid down the following guidelines to be observed

by the IBP in disciplinary cases against lawyers:

1. The IBP must first afford a chance to either party to file a

motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution containing its findings

and recommendations within fifteen (15) days from notice of receipt by

the parties thereon;

2. If a motion for reconsideration has been timely filed by an

aggrieved party, the IBP must first resolve the same prior to elevating to

this Court the subject resolution together with the whole record of the

case;

3. If no motion for reconsideration has been filed within the

period provided for, the IBP is directed to forthwith transmit to this

Court, for final action, the subject resolution together with the whole

record of the case;

4. A party desiring to appeal from the resolution of the IBP may

file a petition for review before this Court within fifteen (15) days from

notice of said resolution sought to be reviewed; and

5. For records of cases already transmitted to this Court where

there exist pending motions for reconsideration filed in due time before

the IBP, the latter is directed to withdraw from this Court the subject

resolutions together with the whole records of the cases, within 30 days

from notice, and, thereafter, to act on said motions with reasonable

dispatch.

6


www.libertas.ph

Consistent with the foregoing, the Court remanded the case to

the IBP for the proper disposition of respondent Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyelas

motion for reconsideration of the IBP resolution recommending her

suspension for two years.

Concurring in the decision are Chief Justice Artemio V.

Panganiban, Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno and Justices

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-

Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Renato C.

Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna,

Dante O. Tinga, Cancio C. Garcia, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (AC No. 7055,

Ramientas v. Reyala, July 31, 2006)

Lawyer Suspended for Refusing to Pay Debt By Joshua P. Lapuz

FOR REFUSING TO PAY HIS DEBT, Atty. Jeremias Vitan was suspended for

six months by the Supreme Court.

A lawyer may be disciplined for evading the payment of a debt

validly incurred. In this case, the failure of Atty. Vitan to pay his debt for

over three years despite repeated demands puts in question his standing

as a member of the bar, said the Court. It added that Atty. Vitan

admitted having incurred the Php100,000 loan but later pointed to his

employee Evelyn Estur as the true debtor.

We find that his lack of sincerity in fulfilling his obligations is

revealed by his acts of issuing promissory notes and reneging on them;

executing a simulated Deed of Absolute Sale; and breaking his promise to

redeem the property from the mortgagee, it added. Atty. Vitan also

issued several checks, all of which were dishonored due to closed

account. (AC No. 6955, Mar Yuson vs. Atty. Jeremias R. Vitan, July 27, 2006)

Lawyer Suspended for Pocketing Clients Money By Joshua P. Lapuz

ATTY. MINERVO LANGIT WAS SUSPENDED for two years by the Supreme

Court for appropriating Php255,000 of his clients money. He was also

ordered to restitute the amount.

Respondent committed a flagrant violation of his oath when he

received the sum of money representing the monthly rentals intended

for his client, without accounting for and returning such sum to its

rightful owner, the Court said. It held that his failure to turn over the

money to his client despite the latters demands gives rise to the

presumption that he had converted the money for his personal use and

benefit.

Additionally, respondent failed to observe Canon 17 of the Code

of Professional Responsibility which obligates a lawyer to take up the

cause of his client with entire zeal and devotion, said the Court. It found

that Langits misconduct was aggravated by his unjustified refusal to

heed the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines requiring him to

file an answer to the complaint-affidavit and to appear at the mandatory

conference. (AC No. 7057, David L. Almendarez, Jr. vs. Atty. Minervo T. Langit, July 25,

2006)

Deceitful Notary Suspended By Joshua P. Lapuz

A LAWYER WAS SUSPENDED for one month by the Supreme Court for

making a false declaration in a public document.

The Court said that Atty. Vivian Rubia violated Rule 1.01 of Canon

1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when she prepared a

Memorandum of Joint Venture Agreement for her clients Marilyn Carido

and Yoshimi Nakayama and attested that it was acknowledged before her

on January 9, 2001 when in truth it was notarized in 2002. It found that

7


www.libertas.ph

the document was ante-dated in an attempt to exculpate Marilyn from

the Anti-Dummy charge against her in 2002. (AC Nos. 5907 and 5942, Elsa L.

Modejar vs. Atty. Vivian G. Rubia, July 21, 2006)

Clerk of Court Dismissed for Forgery, Falsification By Joshua P. Lapuz

ATTY. CECILIA T. FAELNAR, Clerk of Court of the Manolo Fortich,

Bukidnon Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11 was dismissed recently

from the service by the Supreme Court (SC) for violating the Code of

Conduct for Court Personnel, dishonesty, grave misconduct, falsification,

and forgery.

The Court found Faelnar guilty of falsely writing the names of SC

auditors with corresponding signatures in an attendance sheet to make it

appear that they lunched with her at a clubhouse when actually she and

her staff were the ones who did so; forging the signature of Judge

Francisco Rojas in the Certificate of Service; failure to comply with OCA

Circular No. 28-2003 regarding the holding of the alleged Judicial Service

Team (JST) meeting, particularly the submission of the minutes thereof;

and using the solicited note from the local government of Manolo Fortich

to cover the aforesaid meals of her staff at the clubhouse after the SC

auditors had declined the offer to have lunch there.

The Court noted that Faelnars admission to signing the name of

Judge Rojas in her Certificate of Service and in some court orders is

sufficient to establish a case of forgery against her. The argument of

respondent that she was authorized by Judge Rojas to sign his name is

immaterial to forgery, the Court said. (AM No. P-06-2205, Felicidad D. Palabrica vs. Atty. Cecilia T. Faelnar, Clerk of Court VI, RTC, Branch 11, M. Fortich, Bukidnon,

August 3, 2006)

September 2006

Court Nullifies Suspension of Sentence of Minor Convict By Joshua P. Lapuz

JUVENILES WHO HAVE been convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion

perpetua, life imprisonment, reclusion perpetua to death, or death are

disqualified from having their sentences suspended. Thus ruled the

Supreme Court in the case of Frank Bansales, a minor convicted of

murder.

Bansales was charged for assaulting and stabbing to death with a

knife his high school teacher, Yvonne Declarador. The Roxas City Regional

Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 convicted him but later suspended his

sentence of reclusion perpetua and ordered his commitment instead to a

rehabilitation center. This prompted the victims husband, Rennie, to file

a petition in the SC questioning the RTCs suspension of Bansales

sentence.

The disqualification is based on the nature of the crime charged

and the imposable penalty therefore, and not on the penalty imposed by

the court after trial. It is not the actual penalty imposed but the possible

one which determines the disqualification of a juvenile, the Court said. It

added that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering the

suspension of Bansales sentence. (GR No. 159208, Rennie Declarador vs. Hon. Salvador S. Gubaton, Presiding Judge, Branch 14, Roxas City, and Frank Bansales, August

18, 2006)

Squabbling Judge and Clerk Disciplined By Joshua P. Lapuz

JUDGE CRISPIN BRAVO of the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 16

was reprimanded for abusing his authority when he ordered the arrest of

8


www.libertas.ph

his former Clerk of Court, Atty. Miguel Morales, on the basis of a mere

intent to sue the latter for unjust vexation. Morales, on the other hand,

was fined Php2,000 for conduct unbecoming a public officer when he

mimicked and ridiculed Bravo in front of other people. Their quarrel

started when Bravo recommended the dismissal of Morales from the

service for corrupt practices. Since then, Morales acted discourteously by

mimicking Bravo in a squeaky, comical voice whenever the latter greets

court employees.

Judge Bravo should have confined himself to filing an

administrative complaint or a criminal one and let the wheels of justice

run its course, the Court said. As for Morales, the Court observed that

his mimicry falls below the ideal for a court employee to be well-

mannered, civil, and considerate in his actuations, more particularly with

respect to his relation to the presiding judge he is assigned under. (AM No. P-05-1950, Judge Crispin B. Bravo vs. Atty. Miguel C. Morales, Branch Clerk of Court,

Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 17 [now detailed with OCC] Manila; AM No. MTJ-1612,

Atty. Miguel C. Morales vs. Judge Crispin B. Bravo, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial

Court, Branch 16, Manila, August 30, 2006)

Thirteen SC Employees Disciplined for Habitual Tardiness By Arcie M. Sercado

THE SUPREME COURT SUSPENDED two employees, reprimanded three,

and warned eight others for incurring habitual tardiness in the second

semester of 2005.

Utility Worker Fernando Pascual from the Records Division of the

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and Human Resource

Management Aide Louella Cadiz from the Office of Administrative

Services (OAS) were suspended for 10 and five days, respectively. Pascual

was 11 times late in July, August, and October, while Cadiz was tardy 13

and 10 times in July and September, respectively. Pascual was issued a

final warning, while Cadiz was sternly warned that repetition of the same

offense will be dealt with more severely.

Program Management Office Deputy Judicial Reform Program

Administrator Edilberto A. Davis and Development Management Officer

Maria Noemi B. Adriano and Administrative Officer Zosimo D. Labro, Jr. of

the OCA Property Division were severely reprimanded and warned, while

a stern warning was given to Attys. Winston R. Baniel of the Office of the

Clerk of Court En Banc, Belen C. Gatdula of the Court Management Office

(CMO), and Maria Melissa R. Dimson of the Philippine Judicial Academy

(PHILJA). Zienna Punsalan-Duldulao of OCA, Emelda M. Benologa of the

Printing Services, Susana M. Lubre of the CMO, Gerardo D. Pinca of

PHILJA, and Maria Nina A. Rayco of OAS, OCA were likewise sternly

warned.

The Court said that illness, moral obligation to family and

relatives, performance of household chores, traffic, and health or

physical condition are not sufficient reasons to excuse habitual tardiness.

It stressed that it cannot countenance such infraction as it seriously

compromises efficiency and hampers public service. (AM No. 2006-11-SC, Re: Supreme Court Employees Incurring Habitual Tardiness in the 2nd Semester of 2005,

September 13, 2006)

Lawyer Suspended for Four Years By Joshua P. Lapuz

ATTY. ROLANDO DELA CRUZ was suspended by the Supreme Court for a

total of four years for two offenses.

Dela Cruz, a principal of Saint Louis University-Laboratory High

School, was suspended for two years for immoral conduct when he wed

Mary Jane Pascua while still married to Teresita Rivera. He was likewise

suspended for another two years for deliberately subscribing and

notarizing 14 legal documents on different dates from 1988 to 1997

despite the expiration of his notarial commission on December 31, 1987.

9


www.libertas.ph

The Court said that Dela Cruzs bigamy is contrary to honesty,

justice, decency, and morality. It also said that by making it appear that

he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and

purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyers oath

proscribes. (AC No. 6010, St. Louis University Laboratory High School Faculty and Staff

vs. Atty. Rolando C. dela Cruz, August 28, 2006)

Manila RTC Judge, Personnel Fined By Joshua P. Lapuz

A NOW RETIRED Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge and six of his

court personnel were penalized by the Supreme Court for disobedience

and misusing the daily attendance logbook, respectively.

Judge Juan Nabong, Jr. of RTC Branch 32 was fined Php1,000 for

failing to promptly comply with the directives of the Office of the Court

Administrator (OCA) and the SC requiring him to explain his failure to

properly supervise the attendance of his personnel.

Officer-in-Charge Loida Moralejo, Clerk Heidwig Marie Balicanta,

and Court Stenographers Elma Dabbay and Virginia Peralta were fined

Php5,000 each, while Court Aide Paquito del Rosario and Process Server

Andresito Robles were fined Php2,000 each, all for failing to log-in their

attendance in the logbook.

Although unintentional mistake and good faith are not valid

defenses, the fact that respondents readily acknowledged their

transgression, sought pardon and vowed to rectify their errors, and the

fact that this is their first administrative offense, militate the reduction of

the imposable penalty of dismissal from the service to lighter penalties,

the Court said. As to Judge Nabong, the Court said that while he may

have been suffering from serious ailments,...it does not serve as a valid

excuse for not giving due attention to the directives of the OCA and the

Court. (AM No. P-04-1838, Re: Audit Report on Attendance of Court Personnel of

Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila, August 31, 2006)

Lawyer, Two CA Attorneys Disciplined By Joshua P. Lapuz

A LAWYER AND TWO COURT ATTORNEYS from the Court of Appeals (CA)

were disciplined recently by the Supreme Court.

Atty. Edna Paa was suspended for three months for making

reckless statements about an alleged pay-off in the judiciary, while

court attorneys Victoriano Muring and Manuel Gatcho were admonished

for engaging in unauthorized private practice of law and filing a petition

for commission as notary public while employed in the judiciary,

respectively.

Atty. Paas reckless statements on alleged schemes of

corruption serve only to tarnish the image of the legal profession and of

public office, the Court said. The evidence...shows failure on the part of

Atty. Paa to comply with the exacting standards of good moral character

required of members of the Bar, added the Court.

As for Atty. Muring and Gatcho, the Court said that while they

deserve a more severe penalty, like suspension from office, they can only

be admonished since they have already left government service to go to

private practice. (AM No. CA-05-19-P, Atty. Victoriano S. Muring, Jr. vs. Atty. Manuel T. Gatcho, Court Attorney V, Nelpa Lota-Calayag, Executive Assistant V, and Atty. Edna S.

Paa, August 31, 2006)

Time for Filing of Pleadings Extended to 5 PM By Arcie M. Sercado

THE SUPREME COURT has extended the deadline to 5 p.m. for the

acceptance of petitions and pleadings, except for very urgent instances

when instructed by the Court or when the parties inform the Judicial

Records Office (JRO) or the Clerk of Court En Banc ahead of time of their

filing of important pleadings beyond that time. The new office hours of

10


www.libertas.ph

the JRO receiving section are from 8-5 p.m., with a lunch break from 12-1

p.m.

All petitions and pleadings, even those filed beyond 5 p.m., should

now be filed with the JRO receiving section located near the Padre Faura

Gate and not at its main office located at the New Supreme Court

Building Annex. (AM No. 06-8-18-SC, Re: Filing of Petitions/Pleadings After Hours,

August 22, 2006)

SC Explains Legal Effects of Death Penalty Prohibition By Janice R. Erni

A PERSON WHOSE SENTENCE has been reduced to reclusion perpetua

with the effectivity of RA 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of

Death Penalty in the Philippines) is not eligible for parole. However, the

convict is still bound to pay the amount of civil indemnity provided under

the applicable laws. There is no automatic review of judgments of

convictions where reclusion perpetua is imposed in lieu of death. Thus

the Supreme Court clarified the effects of RA 9346 in three recent

decisions.

In the first decision penned by Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, the Court

held that in light of the passage of RA 9346, the penalty to be imposed on

the accused Nicanor Salome for rape aggravated by dwelling shall be

reclusion perpetua. However, pursuant to sec. 3 of RA 9346, Salome shall

not be eligible for parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the

Court ruled.

The Court also sustained the grant of Php75,000 as civil indemnity

to the victim, explaining that while the new law prohibits the imposition

of the death penalty, the penalty provided for by law for a heinous

offense is still death and the offense is still heinous. It also added that

since the death penaltys imposition is now prohibited, there is a need to

perfect an appeal, if appeal is desired, from a judgment of conviction for

an offense where the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua in lieu of the

death penalty.

In another decision, penned by Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., the

Court reduced accused Roberto Quiachons sentence for qualified rape

from death to reclusion perpetua without parole.

The Court also ordered Quiachon to pay, among others, the civil

indemnity of Php75,000 as the award is not dependent on the actual

imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that the qualifying

circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended

the commission of the offense.

Finally, in a decision penned by Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago,

the Court found Edilberto Tubongbanua guilty for murder aggravated by

taking advantage of superior strength and dwelling. He was sentenced to

reclusion perpetua with no possibility of parole. The Court also ordered

him to pay the victims heirs Php75,000 as civil indemnity as the award is

mandatory and needs no proof other than the commission of the crime.

(GR No. 169077, People vs. Nicanor Salome; GR No. 170236, People vs. Roberto

Quiachon; GR No. 171271, People vs. Tubongbanua, August 31, 2006)

October 2006

SC to Withhold Names of Women and Child Victims in Decisions By Annie A. Laborte

TO RESPECT THE DIGNITY and protect the privacy of women and child

victims, the Supreme Court has ruled to withhold their names and use

instead fictitious initials in its decisions. It added that the personal

circumstances of victim-survivors or any other information tending to

establish or compromise their identities, as well as those of their

immediate family or household members, shall not be disclosed.

11


www.libertas.ph

The ruling was made in a decision penned by Justice Dante O.

Tinga where the name of the eight-year old victim was withheld and

instead substituted with the initials AAA.

The Court said its ruling effectuates the provisions of RA 7610 or

the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and

Discrimination Act and its implementing rules; RA 9262 or the Anti-

Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 and its

implementing rules; and the Rule on Violence Against Women and their

Children.

This rule has been prospectively applied by the Court as seen in

the subsequent case of People vs. Mangitngit. (GR No. 167693, People of the Philippines vs. Melchor Cabalquinto, September 19, 2006; GR No. 171270, People of the

Philippines vs. Alexander Mangitngit, September 20, 2006)

E-Decisions Follow Cabalquinto Ruling By Madeleine U.V.G. Avanzado

THE COURT HAS TAKEN STEPS to ensure that decisions promulgated prior

to the Cabalquinto decision will conform to the said ruling. Upon the

instructions of Committee on Computerization and Library Chairperson

Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the SC Library Services and Public

Information Office have started replacing the names and other

information of women and children who are victims of crimes covered by

RA 9262 in the electronic copies to be made available through the E-

Library and SC website starting with decisions and resolutions of the

Court promulgated on March 27, 2004. The matter was also referred to

the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court for further study and

recommendation.

Even before the Cabalquinto ruling was promulgated on

September 19, 2006, the Court has already refrained from posting the full

text of decisions in child sexual abuse and similar cases in the SC website.

(AM No. 99-7-06-SC, In re: Internet Web Page of the Supreme Court, July 27, 2006)

(With reports from SC Library Services Chief Ms. Milagros S. Ong)

Court Clarifies Payment of Corporate Rehabilitation Fees By Arcie M. Sercado

THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY clarified the manner of payment of the

increased fees for corporate rehabilitation petitions, which are based on

the value of assets or the amount of monetary claims against the debtor,

whichever is higher.

Under the new rules, if the fees amount to less than Php100,000,

it shall be paid upon the filing of the petition. However, if the fees exceed

Php100,000, it may be paid on a staggered basis, Php100,000 to be paid

upon filing and the balance to be paid as follows: 25 percent upon the

issuance of an order giving due course to the petition, 25 percent upon

the approval of the rehabilitation plan, and 50 percent to be included as

part of the preferred payables to be settled in the rehabilitation plan.

The amendments will take effect on October 16. (AM No. 04-2-04-SC, RE: Amendment of Section 21(i), Rule 141 of The Rules of Court [A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC,

August 16, 2004] by Clarifying the Manner of Payment of the Increased Fees for

Corporate Rehabilitation Petitions, Taking Into Account the Courts Issuance in

Amendment on the Clarification on the Legal Fees to be Collected in Cases of Corporate

Rehabilitation [A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC, December 10, 2002], September 19, 2006)

Award of Damages Not Immediately Executory in Intra-Corporate

Disputes By Arcie M. Sercado

EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 16, all decisions and orders in intra-corporate

controversies are immediately executory, except awards for moral and

exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

In a resolution, the Supreme Court said that an appeal or petition

shall not stay the enforcement or implementation of the decision or

12


www.libertas.ph

order, unless restrained by an appellate court. (AM No. 01-2-04-SC, Re: Amendment of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of procedure Governing Intra-

corporate Controversies by Clarifying that Decisions Issued Pursuant to said Rule are

Immediately Executory except the Awards for Moral Damages, Exemplary Damages and

Attorneys Fees, if any, September 19, 2006)

Complaints vs. Retired Justices and Judges Referred to SC By Madeleine U.V.G. Avanzado

ALL COMPLAINTS FOR DISBARMENT, suspension, and discipline filed

against retired justices and judges for acts and omissions committed

during their tenure in the judiciary must be referred to the Supreme

Court for appropriate disposition.

The Court resolved to approve in principle this procedure as part

of the amendment of the second paragraph of Section 1 of Rule 139-B of

the Rules of Court dealing with the Disbarment and Discipline of

Attorneys. This has been referred to the Committee on Revision of the

Rules of Court for drafting of the revised provision. (Administrative Case No. 7197 [Formerly CBD Case No. 06-1646], International Militia of People against

Corruption and Terrorism, represented by Atty. Elly Velez Pamatong vs. Chief Justice

Hilario G. Davide, Jr. [Ret.], September 5, 2006)

Revised Guidelines for Enhanced Pre-Trial under JURIS Project

Approved By Genevieve B. Zuiga

TO EXPEDITE THE RESOLUTION OF CASES through the use of amicable

settlement, the Supreme Court has approved revised guidelines for an

enhanced pre-trial proceeding under the Justice Reform Initiatives

Support (JURIS) project for implementation in its model courts.

Under the revised guidelines, a raffle replaces the pairing system

for resumption of judicial proceedings after Judicial Dispute Resolution

(JDR) has not succeeded and the judge conducting the JDR will be called

the JDR Judge instead of pre-trial judge when pre-trial proper is resumed

after the JDR.

Cases are also allowed a settlement period of 30 days for first

level courts and 60 days for regional trial courts, extendible only upon

discretion of the JDR judge. Likewise, settlements reached regarding the

civil aspect of criminal cases, wherein the period of payment exceeds one

year, may be archived upon motion of the prosecution with concurrence

of the private complainant and approval of the judge. Additionally, the

civil aspect of theft under Art. 308 of the Revised Penal Code as part of

the cases involved is now included for referral to mediation.

Before the implementation of the revised guidelines, judges will

be required to undergo orientation and training in mediation,

conciliation, and neutral evaluation. Thereafter, they shall be authorized

to conduct JDR in all model court sites and their adjacent areas after

Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) has not succeeded.

Under the JURIS Program, two model courts have been set up in

Bacolod and San Fernando, Pampanga. Additional model courts will be

set up in Benguet, La Union, and Cagayan de Oro, to implement CAM and

JDR. In these courts, mediatable cases are referred to CAM for mediation

under accredited mediators in the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC)

and subsequently referred to JDR for further mediation by the judges if

such are not resolved under the former.

The goal of the JDR is to strengthen conciliation in the model

court sites during the pre-trial stage to expedite the resolution of cases

and thus decongest court dockets. (A.M. No. 04-1-12-SC PhilJA, Re: Philja Resolution No. 06-22, re: Revised Guidelines for the Implementation of an Enhanced

Pre-Trial Proceeding under the JURIS Project, August 29, 2006)

13


www.libertas.ph

Clerk of Court, Cash Clerk Dismissed for Php8.7M Shortage in Judiciary

Fund By Joshua P. Lapuz

TWO COURT PERSONNEL were dismissed recently by the Supreme Court

for failing to account for more than Php8 million in judiciary funds.

The Court found Clerk of Court Atty. Marilou Dureza-Aldevera and

Cash Clerk Teresita Elegino of the Davao City Regional Trial Court guilty of

gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct for the shortage

of Php8,790,552.30 in the Fiduciary Fund.

The safeguarding of funds and collections, submission to this

Court of a monthly report of collections for all funds, the proper issuance

of official receipts for collections are essential to an orderly

administration of justice. Hence, respondents failure to comply with the

aforementioned Court Circulars and other relevant rules designed to

promote full accountability for public funds constitutes gross neglect of

duty and grave misconduct, said the Court.

The cash shortages and fiscal irregularities were discovered after

a surprise audit was conducted in April 2000 and February 2001 by the

Office of the Court Administrator. (AM No. P-01-1499, Office of the Court Administrator vs. Atty. Marilou Dureza-Aldevera, Clerk of Court, RTC, Davao City and

Teresita M. Elegino, Cash Clerk III, same Court, September 26, 2006)

Two-Year Suspension for Wily Lawyer By Joshua P. Lapuz

ATTY. ANASTACIO REVILLA, JR. was suspended for two years by the

Supreme Court for intentional falsehood, misusing judicial processes, and

collaborating with non-lawyers.

Revilla sought to delay the execution of the November 15, 1999

judgment rendered by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

Provincial Adjudicator (PARAD) in a disturbance compensation case

against his clients by first filing a Motion for Leave of Court to Allow

Correction of Caption and Amendment of Judgment. When his motion

was denied, he was able to obtain a temporary restraining order from the

DAR Adjudication Board Central Office, which prevented the execution of

aforesaid judgment. When the PARADs judgment was upheld with

finality by the Supreme Court, Revilla then filed an action to quiet title

before the Cavite Regional Trial Court to stop its enforcement. He also

signed his pleadings under a group of non-lawyers.

In the disturbance compensation case, he represented his clients

as tenants and acknowledged that complainants were the owners of the

subject land. In the action to quiet title, however, he conveniently

repudiated his previous admission by falsely alleging that his clients were

adverse possessors claiming bona fide ownership, the Court said. The

Court also noted that Revilla kept silent on the accusation that he held

himself out as a law partner of the KDC Legal Services, Law Offices and

Associates, a firm purportedly rendering legal services together with

persons not licensed to practice law. (AC No. 7056, Plus Builders, Inc. and

Edgardo C. Garcia vs. Atty. Anastacio E. Revilla, Jr., September 13, 2006)

Lawyer Suspended for Negligence, Obstruction By Joshua P. Lapuz

ATTY. JOSE SUING was suspended for six months by the Supreme Court

for neglecting to protect his clients interest and for attempting to delay

and obstruct the investigation being conducted against him.

The Court found Atty. Suing guilty of negligence for failing to

properly ascertain the true and real identities of four complainants who

executed release waivers and quitclaims and received considerations

therefor. It also held him liable for gross misconduct for attempting to

coach or influence the answers of his client Manuel Rodil so as not to

incriminate him when the latter testified before the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines.

14


www.libertas.ph

The Court said that Rodil did not request him [Suing] to go to the

Labor Arbiters office to be a mere passive witness to the signing of the

Release Waiver and Quitclaims but to exert vigilance to protect his

clients interest, which Suing failed to do. It added that not only did Suing

tried to coach or influence Rodil to answer questions in an attempt not to

incriminate him, but the latter also contradicted his claim that the

Release Waiver and Quitclaims which Suing prepared was not the one

presented at the Arbiters office. (AC No. 7062, Renerio Sambajon, Ronald Sambajon, Crisanto Conos, and Fredilyn Baculbas vs. Atty. Jose A. Suing, September 26,

2006)

Decisions of Sharia District Courts Appealable to SC By Joshua P. Lapuz

THE DECISIONS OF SHARIA DISTRICT COURTS may reach the Supreme

Court by way of petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal

under Rule 45 or special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if

there is a question of jurisdiction. Thus ruled the Court in dismissing a

case on a fixed dower (mahr musama) between Moslem spouses.

The Iligan City Fourth Sharia Circuit Court rendered a decision in

that case which on appeal was reversed by the Sharia District Court.

Mocaral Macawiag then filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 to the

SC, which dismissed the same for being used as a substitute for the lost

remedy of appeal through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule

45.

While the Supreme Court en banc authorized the creation of the

Sharia Appellate Court, it has not yet been organized; in any case, it

should begin with the appointments of the Presiding Justice and two

Associate Justices. Consequently, aggrieved parties can come up only to

this Court in view of the rule set forth in Article 145 of Presidential

Decree No. 1083, the Court said. (GR No. 159210, Mocaral Macawiag vs. Judge

Rasad Balindong and Soraida A. Macawiag, September 20, 2006)

Notarial Rules Updates By Gleo Sp. Guerra

THE COURT HAS RECENTLY authorized Clerks of Court of Regional Trial

Courts to notarize private documents subject to the payment of the

prescribed notarial fees, which shall be for the account of the judiciary,

and the execution of a certification in the notarized documents that there

are no notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned

RTC.

It also required notaries public within the National Capital Region

to secure their notarial registers from the Property Division of the Office

of Administrative Services of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),

while the others can also secure their notarial registers from the Office of

the Clerk of Court of the RTC under the supervision of the Executive

Judge who issued their respective notarial commissions. The notarial

registers shall be available at Php1,200.00 each exclusive of shipping

charges when sold in the provinces.

In view of the current unavailability of notarial registers, notaries

public may request in writing the Executive Judge who issued their

commissions for them to use the prescribed temporary form. A copy of

their current commissions must be attached to the said request.

The Court also denied for lack of merit the motion of Chief Public

Attorney Persida V. Rueda-Acosta for reconsideration of the January 31,

2006 denial of her request to exempt PAO lawyers from the payment of

the fees for notarial commission and for the exemption of their clients

from the payment of filing fees. (AM No. 02-8-13-SC, Re: 2004 Rules on Notarial

Practice, August 15, 2006)

15


www.libertas.ph

November 2006

SC Clarifies Rules on Indigent Litigants By Gleo Sp. Guerra

EVEN IF AN APPLICANT FOR EXEMPTION from the payment of docket and

legal fees does not meet the salary and property requirements under

Rule 141, sec. 19, i.e., the applicants gross income and that of his

immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly

minimum wage of an employee and the applicant does not own real

property with a market value of more than Php300,000.00, the applicant

may still be exempted if he can prove that he has no money or property

sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself

and his family under Rule 3, sec. 21.

Thus ruled the Supreme Court in a 19-page decision penned by

Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and concurred in by Justices Leonardo A.

Quisumbing, Antonio T. Carpio, and Conchita Carpio Morales. Justice

Dante O. Tinga concurred in the result. The Court therefore set aside the

orders of the Regional Trial Court, Naga City disqualifying the spouses

Antonio F. Algura and Lorencita S. J. Algura as indigent litigants and

ordered the RTC to set for hearing the spouses motion to litigate as such.

Recapitulating the rules on indigent litigants, therefore, if the

applicant for exemption meets the salary and property requirements

under Sec. 19 of Rule 141, then the grant of the application is mandatory.

On the other hand, when the application does not satisfy one or both

requirements, then the applicant should not be denied outright; instead

the court should apply the indigency test under Section 21 of Rule 3 and

use its sound discretion in determining the merits of the prayer for

exemption, the Court held.

Judge Suspended, Fined for Failure to Inhibit Self, Improper Conduct By Joshua P. Lapuz

JUDGE CHARLES AGUILAR of the Laoag City Regional Trial Court, Branch

12 was recently disciplined by the Supreme Court for failing to inhibit

himself in and dismissing a case wherein he had a personal and direct

interest, abusing his authority, and for entering his appearance and

attending court proceedings without prior written permission from the

Court.

The Court held that Judge Aguilars reluctance to let go of a case

involving a parcel of land of which he is a co-owner induced doubts and

suspicions as to his honest actuations, probity, and objectivity. For this, it

suspended him for three months without pay.

The Court also held that Judge Aguilar committed an unlawful act

when he entered the premises of the said lot and willfully removed the

wires and posts installed thereat. It also said that he practically took the

law into his own hands when he entered and caused the leveling of said

lot. The Court thus fined him Php11,000.

The Court also reprimanded Aguilar for failing to obtain a written

permission from the Court prior to his court appearance in another case.

(AM No. RTJ-03-1809, Busilac Builders, Inc. and Romeo M. Camarillo vs. Judge Charles A.

Aguilar, Regional Trial Court, Laoag City, Branch 12, October 17, 2006)

Lawyer Suspended for Shooting Motorist By Joshua P. Lapuz

FOR SHOOTING AN UNARMED MOTORIST in a traffic altercation, a lawyer

was suspended for one year by the Supreme Court.

The Court found Atty. Arnel Alcaraz guilty of gross misconduct for

firing at Ramon Gonzalez with a Super .38 caliber pistol along South

Luzon Expressway. The two were involved in a traffic altercation when

Alcarazs vehicle overtook and suddenly cut across Gonzalezs path. After

16


www.libertas.ph

angrily confronting Alcaraz, Gonzalez drove on. Alcaraz, however, chased

him and shot at him twice, missing in both instances.

The vengeful and violent behavior exhibited by respondent in

what should have been a simple traffic altercation reveals his conceit and

delusions of self-importance, the Court said. By firing his gun openly in

a congested highway and exposing complainant and the general public to

danger, he showed his utter lack of a sense of responsibility, as well as of

respect for law and order, it added. (AC No. 5321, Ramon C. Gonzalez vs. Atty.

Arnel C. Alcaraz, September 27, 2006)

Disgruntled Complainant Fined for Maligning Court By Joshua P. Lapuz

A LITIGANT WAS RECENTLY fined Php20,000 by the Supreme Court for

continuously filing pleadings containing innuendos that tend to malign

the integrity of the Court.

The Court said that Nestor Ernesto Dequia went overboard when

in spite of the dismissal of his complaint against Judge Rolando Ramirez

and Clerk of Court Sandra Ledesma of the Cadiz City Municipal Trial Court

in Cities, he still persisted in filing numerous pleadings reiterating his

allegation that the said dismissal was brought about by a syndicate

coddling Ramirez and Ledesma. (AM No. MTJ-06-1657, Nestor Ernesto P. Dequia vs. Judge Rolando V. Ramirez, Presiding Judge, MTCC, Cadiz and Sandra M. Ledesma,

Clerk of Court, MTCC, Cadiz City, September 27, 2006)

Judge Dismissed for Corruption By Joshua P. Lapuz

A JUDGE WAS RECENTLY DISMISSED by the Supreme Court for bribery.

The Court found Judge Luisito Adaoag of the Gerona-Ramos- Pura, Tarlac

Municipal Circuit Trial Court guilty of serious misconduct for soliciting and

accepting Php20,000 from Desiree Legario in consideration of the

dismissal of the case filed against her. Adaoag was caught in an

entrapment operation by operatives of the National Bureau of

Investigation.

Aside from dismissal, Adaoag was also ordered to pay a fine of

Php2,000 for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension. (AM No. MTJ-03-1503, National Bureau of Investigation vs. Judge Luisito T. Adaoag, Municipal

Circuit Trial Court, Gerona-Ramos-Pura, Tarlac, November 16, 2006)

PAO Lawyer Reprimanded for Notarizing Receipt Without Commission By Joshua P. Lapuz

A lawyer of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) was recently disciplined by

the Supreme Court for performing a notarial act without a commission.

Atty. Noel Mora was reprimanded for notarizing without a

notarial commission an acknowledgment receipt of the initial payment

for a parcel of land. The Court deemed the same a violation of Canon 1,

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility stating that a lawyer

shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

(AC No. 6678, Jocelyn A. Saquing vs. Atty. Noel A. Mora, October 9, 2006)

SC Clarifies Effects of RA 9346 on Graduation of Criminal Penalties By Karen M. Martinez

RA 9346 not only prohibits the physical imposition of the death penalty

but effectively removes the penalty of death from the graduation of

criminal penalties under Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code.

The Court clarified RA 9348s effects in a 53-page decision penned

by Justice Dante O. Tinga, which affirmed with modification the

conviction of Alfredo Bon for the rapes and attempted rapes of his two

minor nieces. The Court ruled that it cannot find basis to conclude that

Rep. Act No. 9346 intended to retain the operative effects of the death

penalty in the graduation of the other penalties in our laws. Thus, the

Court reduced Bons penalty for each of the six counts of rape to

17


www.libertas.ph

reclusion perpetua, while his penalty for each of the two counts of

attempted rape was downgraded to an indeterminate penalty of two

years, four months, and one day of prision correccional as minimum, to

eight years and one day of prision mayor as maximum plus civil

indemnity and damages.

Bon had been found guilty by the trial court of eight counts of

rape and was given eight death sentences. The Court of Appeals had

upheld six of the eight death sentences and downgraded the other two

rape convictions to attempted rape. On review, the Supreme Court had

to determine the proper penalty to be given Bon for the crimes of

attempted rape: whether he should be sentenced to prision mayor, the

penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua, which is now the

highest remaining penalty with the removal of the death penalty by RA

9346.

According to the Court, the negation of the word death as

previously inscribed in Article 71 will have the effect of appropriately

downgrading the proper penalties attaching to accomplices, accessories,

frustrated and attempted felonies to the level consistent with our penal

laws. It maintained that if RA 9346 was to be interpreted in such a way

as to limit its effects only to matters concerning the physical imposition

of the death penalty, there would be an anomalous situation where the

penalties for the principals and accomplices are equalized in certain

felonies but not in others.

The Court also clarified that the prohibition against the death

penalty did not result in the reclassification of those crimes previously

defined as heinous. It underscored the fact that the amendatory effects

of the law pertain only to the application of the death penalty and not to

the classification of felonies.

The Court extended the retroactive benefits of the enactment of

RA 9346 in accordance with Article 22 of the RPC to persons previously

convicted of capital offenses (except habitual criminals) but stressed that

this decision does not make operative the release of such convicts as

there are other remedies under the law which could be utilized to secure

the reasonable release of such prisoners. (GR No. 166401, People v. Alfredo

Bon, October 30, 2006)

Lawyer Suspended for Negligence By Karen M. Martinez

ATTY. ALFREDO ZAPANTA was suspended by the Supreme Court for three

months for his failure to follow the proper procedure for withdrawal in a

case, which resulted in the dismissal of his clients case.

The Court held that until Zapantas dismissal or withdrawal was

made of record, any judicial notice sent to him was binding upon his

client even though as between them the professional relationship may

have been terminated. Thus, unless properly relieved, respondent is

responsible for the conduct of the cases and his failure to attend the

hearing and comply with the trial courts directive to file a formal offer of

evidence constitute inexcusable negligence. (AC No. 6266, Estela Anastacio-

Briones vs. Atty. Alfredo A. Zapanta, November 16, 2006)

Engineer Suspended for Failure to Repair Aircons By Karen M. Martinez

ENGR. CELERINO BUENAVENTURA, Building and Grounds Maintenance

Head of the Halls of Justice of Naga City, was suspended for 35 days

without pay for failing to take charge of the maintenance and repairs of

the four airconditioning units installed in the Naga City Hall of Justice

despite repeated requests to do so.

The Court found grossly unsatisfactory Buenaventuras

explanation that the government was able to save money during the time

the airconditioners were not in use as his inaction caused more damage

to the government. (AM No. 2004-15-SC, Prosecutor Agapito B. Rosales,

Provincial Prosecutor, Camarines Sur vs. Engr. Celerino Buenaventura,

18


www.libertas.ph

Buildings and Grounds Maintenance Head, Maintenance Section, Halls of

Justice, Naga City, November 16, 2006)

Lawyer Suspended for Reneging on Contractual Obligation By Karen M. Martinez

FOR REFUSING WITHOUT JUSTIFIABLE REASON to comply with his

contractual obligation as vendor of a piece of land and for mortgaging the

same property without informing the vendee, Atty. Alexander Bulauitan

was suspended for one year by the Supreme Court.

The Court finds the respondents act of giving the property in

question in mortgage bordering on the fraudulent and surely dishonest,

said the Court. Respondent had shown, through his dealing with the

complainant involving a tiny parcel of land, a want of professional

honesty. Such misdeed reflects on the moral stuff which he is made of, it

added. (AC No. 7280, Dahlia S. Gacias vs. Atty. Alexander Bulauitan, November 16,

2006)

December 2006

Judge, Two Mayors Fined for Contempt By Joshua P. Lapuz

A JUDGE, TWO MAYORS, and two others were disciplined recently for

defying an order of the Supreme Court.

Judge Ralph Lee of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch

83 was found guilty of indirect contempt and fined Php5,000 for granting

the motions for reconsideration and re-determination of probable cause

and downgrading the charges of double murder and multiple frustrated

murder against former Poblacion Malabang, Lanao del Sur Mayor Anwar

Balindong and his two sons, Mayor Amer Oden Balindong and Ali

Balindong, and Chief of Police Lt. Col. Jalandoni Cota. Cota and the

Balindongs were likewise fined for continuously filing pleadings in

defiance of the Courts decision of December 16, 2004 in GR No. 159962,

which had already sustained the above informations.

The Court said that Judge Lee impudently substituted his own

judgment for that of the Court. As for the four accused, the Court said

that their persistent attempts to raise issues long laid to rest by a final

and executory judgment constitute contumacious defiance of its

authority and impede the speedy administration of justice. (GR No. 173290, Zenaida M. Limbona vs. Hon. Judge Ralph S. Lee of Regional Trial Court-Quezon City, Br.

83, Mayor Anwar Berua Balindong, Lt. Col. Jalandoni Cota, Mayor Amer Oden Balindong

& Ali Balindong, November 20, 2006)

Retired Clerk of Court and Sheriff Fined for Undue Demolition By Joshua P. Lapuz

ERIBERTO SABAS, a retired Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the

Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, was fined

by the Supreme Court from his retirement pay an amount equivalent to

six months salary plus six months leave credits for grave abuse of

authority and conduct unbecoming of an officer of the court.

Sabas caused the demolition of a fence and half of the house

owned by the spouses Arthur and Leonora Stilgrove, which were not

included in the MTCs decision and special order of demolition. He also

shouted unkind words at Arthur Stilgrove.

The Court said that Sabas actions, which were beyond the scope

of his authority, deprived the Stilgroves of their property without due

process of law. It added that he further failed to demonstrate courtesy

and civility in the discharge of his functions when he shouted at Arthur

Stilgrove. (AM No. P-06-2257, Sps. Arthur and Leonora Stilgrove vs. Clerk of Court

Eriberto R. Sabas and Sheriff III Ernesto Simpliciano, November 29, 2006)

19

benchmark digest

Documents