Ethics assigned cases

7/24/2019 Ethics assigned cases

1/102

SECOND DIVISION

[A.C. No. 4762. June 28, 2004]

LINDA VDA. DE ESPINO, complainant, vs. ATTY. PEPITO C. PRESQITO, respondent.

R E S O L T I O N

PNO,J.!

On June 9, 1997, Linda Vda. de Espino wrote a letter-coplaint !1"wit# t#e t#en Court

$dinistrator $l%redo &enipa'o, c#ar(in( respondent $tt'. )epito C. )res*uito, a e+er o%

t#e Inte(rated &ar o% t#e )#ilippines I&), isais Oriental C#apter, %or /#a0in( eplo'ed

%raud, tricer' and dis#onest eans in re%usin( to #onor and pa' !#er" late #us+and Vir(ilio

Espino, w#en #e was still ali0e, t#e su o% )723,424.44.5 $ccordin( to coplainant,

respondent6s unlaw%ul re%usal and dilator' tactics partl' tri((ered t#e deat# o% #er #us+and,

w#o died /disillusioned and e+ittered.5!"8#e letter-coplaint and ada0it also alle(edt#at notwit#standin( t#e nuerous oral deands +' r. Espino and coplainant a%ter t#e

deat# o% r. Espino, respondent still re%used to pa' t#e aounts represented +' t#e ei(#t

c#ecs w#ic# #ad all +een dis#onored. Coplainant surised t#at $tt'. )res*uito6s re%usal to

pa' a' +e due to #is reliance on t#e in:uence o% #is %at#er-in-law, a %orer E;ecuti0e Jud(e

o% t#e , respondent was introduced to

coplainant6s late #us+and, r. Vir(ilio . Espino. r. Espino, a resident o% Da0ao Cit', #ad

sou(#t t#e assistance o% respondent, a resident o% Ca(a'an de Oro, re(ardin( t#e sale o% #is

piece o% land wit# an area o% 11,4>7.>9 s*.. situated in isais Oriental. 8#e discussion

+etween r. Espino and t#e respondent resulted in t#e sale o% t#e propert' to respondent.!3"?nder t#e ters o% t#e a(reeent +etween r. Espino and respondent, !@"t#e purc#ase

price o% t#e land was )1,@37,@14.44, pa'a+le on a sta((ered +asis and +' installents.!>")ursuant to t#e ters o% pa'ent in t#e a(reeent, respondent issued ei(#t post-dated

c#ecs, totalin()732,424.44.!2"

to 32 lots.

eanw#ile, t#e ei(#t post-dated c#ecs issued +' respondent were all dis#onored. r.

Espino ade repeated deands %or pa'ent %ro respondent +ut t#e latter re%used. r.

Espino died in Dece+er 1992. is widow, coplainant, t#en tried to collect %ro

respondent t#e 0alue o% t#e ei(#t c#ecs. #en coplainant6s nuerous pleas reained

un#eeded, s#e led t#e coplaint in June 1997.

In #is coent dated Septe+er , 1997, respondent denied an' wron(doin(, and

said t#at t#e alle(ations t#at #e #ad eplo'ed /%raud, tricer' and dis#onest eans5 wit#

t#e late r. Espino were totall' %alse and +aseless. 8#e coplaint, accordin( to respondent,

steed %ro coplainant6s lac o% nowled(e as to /t#e real stor'5 o% t#e transaction
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/jun2004/ac_4762.htm#_ftn1


2/102

+etween coplainant6s #us+and and respondent. e also 0e#eentl' too e;ception to t#e

iputation t#at #e was +anin( on t#e in:uence o% #is %at#er-in-law and uncle-in-law.


3/102

road-ri(#t-o%-wa'. Coplainant6s e;#i+its were %orall' oGered as earl' as Januar' 2, 1999,!13"and were aditted wit#out o+=ection %ro respondent.!1@"

In t#e %ace o% t#ese uncontro0erted %acts, it was incu+ent upon respondent to pro0e a

le(al e;cuse or de%ense %or nonpa'ent o% t#e ei(#t c#ecs.


4/102

wit# Auadalupe $res +' ain( coplainant6s late #us+and, si(n o0er t#e propert' +' wa'

o% t#e Deed o% Sale. e t#ere%ore nd respondent6s position 0is-M-0is t#e widowed

coplainant snea' and un%air. e reiterate t#at respondent #as assued responsi+ilit' %or

t#e ne(otiations on t#e road-ri(#t-o%-wa' and was aware o% t#e pro+le. 8o !sic" our ind

#e #as used t#e alle(ed road-ri(#t-o%-wa' pro+le onl' as an a%tert#ou(#t and a reason to

dela' and in %act den' t#e coplainant pa'ent o% w#at is due #er.


5/102


6/102

$t t#e Octo+er 1@, 441 Special Aeneral $sse+l' presided +' respondent and )N) Sr. Supt.

$n(elito L. Aeran(co Aeran(co, w#o were not e+ers o% t#e t#en current

&oard,2Aeran(o, coplainant6s predecessor, as C#air o% t#e AE$SCO +oard, declared

#isel% C#air, appointed ot#ers to replace t#e reo0ed directors, and appointed respondent

as &oard Secretar'.

On Octo+er 1>, 441, respondent and #is (roup too o0er t#e AE$SCO oce and its

preises, t#e pup#ouses, water %acilities, and operations. On e0en date, respondent sent

letter-notices to coplainant and t#e %our reo0ed directors in%orin( t#e o% t#eir reo0al

%ro t#e &oard and as e+ers o% AE$SCO, and ad0isin( t#e to cease and desist %ro

%urt#er disc#ar(in( t#e duties o% t#eir positions.7

Coplainant t#us led on Octo+er 12, 441 wit# t#e Cooperati0e De0elopent $ut#orit'

CD$-Cala+a a coplaint %or annulent o% t#e proceedin(s taen durin( t#e Octo+er 1@,

441 Special Aeneral $sse+l'.

8#e CD$ $ctin(


7/102

It appears t#at durin( t#e andator' con%erence +e%ore t#e I&), coplainant proposed t#e

%ollowin( issues

1. #et#er or not t#e acts o% respondent constitute 0iolations o% t#e Code o%

)ro%essional


8/102

In #er


9/102

E


10/102

D E C I S I O N

PER CRIA3!

&e%ore us is a coplaint %or dis+arent led +' coplainant ar' $nn 8. attus a(ainst $tt'.

$l+ert 8. Villaseca %or (ross and ine;cusa+le ne(li(ence in #andlin( Criinal Case No. 14349-

4.

&ac(round acts

8#e coplainant, Aeran &ernardo D. attus and De;ter $li(an were t#e accused in

Criinal Case No. 14349-4 Q a case %or esta%a t#ru %alsication o% pu+lic docuent led in

t#e , 44F, we re%erred t#e case to t#e Inte(rated &ar o% t#e

)#ilippines I&) %or in0esti(ation, report and recoendation.

8#e I&)s6


11/102

In #is


12/102

s#all not, a%ter o+tainin( e;tensions o% tie to le pleadin(s, eoranda or +rie%s, let t#e

period lapse wit#out su+ittin( t#e sae or oGerin( an e;planation %or #is %ailure to do so.

8#e records %urt#er disclosed t#at a%ter $tt'. Villaseca6s %ailure to le a deurrer to e0idence,

t#e #earin( was reset to $u(ust F, 44> due to

$tt'. Villaseca6s %ailure to appearK1t#e $u(ust F, 44> #earin( was reset to No0e+er 17,

44> upon $tt'. Villaseca6s otionK13and t#e No0e+er 17, 44> #earin( was reset to arc#

1, 442 +ecause o% $tt'. Villaseca6s ani%estation t#at #is intended rst witness was

una0aila+le.1@Durin( t#e arc# 1, 442#earin(, t#e respondent ani%ested t#at t#e de%ense

would no lon(er present an' e0idence, and o0ed t#at #e +e (i0en tie to le a

eorandu.1>

e point out t#at t#e prosecution rested its case on Jul' 1, 44@K 'et $tt'. Villaseca waited

until arc# 1, 442 onl' to ani%est t#at #e would no lon(er present an' e0idence. e are

at a loss w#' $tt'. Villaseca c#ose not to present an' e0idence %or t#e de%ense, considerin(

t#at t#e accused wanted and were read' to tae t#e witness stand. $s a result, t#e

testion' o% t#e lone prosecution witness reained uncontro0erted. 8o ae atters worse,$tt'. Villaseca directed Aeran to attend t#e #earin( on June 2, 447wit#out in%orin( #i

t#at it was alread' t#e date o% t#e proul(ation o% =ud(ent.1wphi1

8#e Code o% )ro%essional


13/102

presented e0idenceK we sipl' stress t#at utost delit' and attention are deanded once

counsel a(rees to tae t#e cud(els %or #is clientTs cause.

e a(ain reind e+ers o% t#e +ar to li0e up to t#e standards and nors e;pected o% t#e

le(al pro%ession +' up#oldin( t#e ideals and principles e+odied in t#e Code o% )ro%essional

'ears %or +ein( (rossl' reiss in t#e

per%orance o% #er duties as counsel. In t#is cited case, t#e ci0il case entrusted to $tt'.

$0ance was disissed %or %ailure to prosecute. Durin( t#e pendenc' o% #er otion %or

reconsideration w#ic# s#e #ad led wa' +e'ond t#e re(leentar' period, s#e told #er

client t#at s#e would le a petition %or certiorari +e%ore t#e C$ to assail t#e disissal o% t#e

ci0il case. S#e did not le t#is petition, +ut %ailed to in%or #er client o% t#is oission.

oreo0er, $tt'. $0ance stopped appearin( as counsel %or #er client wit#out noti%'in( t#e

latter.

$tt'. Villaseca6s ne(li(ence in t#e present case #ad uc# (ra0er iplications, as t#e le(al

atter entrusted to #i in0ol0ed not erel' one' or propert', +ut t#e 0er' li+ert' and

li0eli#ood o% #is clients. e stress t#at t#e oent $tt'. Villaseca a(reed to #andle t#ecoplainant6s criinal case, #e +ecae dut'-+ound to ser0e #is clients wit# copetence

and dili(ence, and to c#apion t#eir cause wit# w#ole-#earted delit'. &' %ailin( to aGord

#is clients e0er' reed' and de%ense t#at is aut#oriBed +' t#e law, $tt'. Villaseca %ell s#ort

o% w#at is e;pected o% #i as an ocer o% t#e Court. e cannot o0erstress t#e dut' o% a

law'er to up#old t#e inte(rit' and di(nit' o% t#e le(al pro%ession +' %ait#%ull' per%orin( #is

duties to societ', to t#e +ar, to t#e courts and to #is clients.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_7922_2013.html#fnt22


14/102

$ll told, $tt'. Villaseca s#owed a wanton and utter disre(ard to #is clients6 causeK #is %ailure

to e;ercise due dili(ence in attendin( to t#eir interest in t#e criinal case caused t#e

(ra0e pre=udice. ?nder t#e circustances, we nd a 0e-'ear suspension %ro t#e practice

o% law to +e a sucient and appropriate sanction a(ainst #i. 8#e increased penalt' ser0es

t#e purpose o% protectin( t#e interest o% t#e Court, t#e le(al pro%ession and t#e pu+lic.

E, 1992, petitioner led an ?r(ent otion to


15/102

$88. &?A$


16/102

CO?


17/102

to t#e 19@F, >19@9 and >19>4 and t#is letter re*uest, 'our onor %or t#eannotation o% t#e lis pendens clearl' s#ows t#at it #as +een alread' enteredin t#e +oo o% priar' entr'. e would lie also to in0ite t#e attention o% t#eon. Court t#at t#e otion %or Contept o% Court was led on No0e+er 2,1992. 8#e letter %or t#e annotation o% t#e lis pendens was ade +' t#e

counsel %or t#e plaintiG onl' on Septe+er 1F, 1992, 'our onor. owe0er,'our onor, as earl' as $u(ust 12, 1992 an Order #as alread' +een issued+' t#e on. Court readin( as %ollows, T#ere%ore in 0iew o% t#e a+o0e, t#eotion o% t#e de%endant is A


18/102

CO?


19/102

$88. &?A$


20/102

#as won all #is cases o% certiorari in t#e appellate Courts, t#at #e nows +etter t#e, 1992, petitioner led a otion %orreconsideration o% t#e Order citin( #i in direct contept o% court. 8#e ne;t da', Dece+er

2, 1992, petitioner led anot#er otion pra'in( %or t#e resolution o% #is otion %orreconsideration. &ot# otions were ne0er resol0ed and petitioner was released onDece+er F, 1992.7

8o clear #is nae in t#e le(al circle and t#e (eneral pu+lic, petitioner led a petition +e%oret#e Court o% $ppeals pra'in( %or t#e annulent o% t#e Order dated Dece+er >, 1992 citin(#i in direct contept o% court and t#e rei+urseent o% t#e ne o% )3,444.44 on (roundst#at respondent Jud(e Dolores S. EspaUol #ad no %actual and le(al +asis in citin( #i indirect contept o% court, and t#at said Order was null and 0oid %or +ein( in 0iolation o% t#eConstitution and ot#er pertinent laws and =urisprudence.F

8#e Court o% $ppeals %ound t#at %ro a t#orou(# readin( o% t#e transcript o% steno(rap#ic

notes o% t#e #earin( #eld on Dece+er >, 1992, it was o+0ious t#at t#e petitioner wasindeed arro(ant, at ties ipertinent, too ar(uentati0e, to t#e e;tent o% +ein(disrespect%ul, anno'in( and sarcastic towards t#e court.9It ared t#e order o% t#erespondent =ud(e, +ut %ound t#at t#e ne o% )3,444.44 e;ceeded t#e liit o% ),444.44prescri+ed +' t#e


21/102

no %actual and le(al +asis. It would also s#ow t#at #e was polite and respect%ul towards t#ecourt as #e alwa's addressed t#e court wit# t#e p#rase 'our #onor please.

e disa(ree.

Section 1,


22/102


23/102

E


24/102

or wit# (ra0e a+use o% discretion. 8#at was t#e +asis %or t#e relie% sou(#t, seein( a writ o%

preliinar' in=unction restrainin( Cit' S#eriG o% anila, %ro proceedin( wit# t#e sale at

pu+lic auction o% petitionerTs properties and a%ter #earin(, annullin( t#e a%oresaid writ o%

e;ecution and liewise all t#e proceedin(s in >43, t#erea%ter ain( t#e

in=unction peranent, and orderin( respondent $+itria to pa' petitioner t#e su o% )>44.44

as attorne'Ts%ees. 8#us was iparted ore t#an =ust a se+lance o% plausi+ilit' to t#e

petition, decepti0e in c#aracter, as su+se*uent pleadin(s pro0ed, +ut nonet#eless

insucient to call %or its suar' disissal.

On June 1, 1927, t#is Court issued a resolution to t#is eGect 8#e respondents in L-722

anila )est Control, Inc. 0s. orenTs Copensation Coission, et al. are re*uired to

le, wit#in 14 da's %ro notice #ereo%, an answer not a otion to disiss to t#e petition

%or pro#i+itionK let teporar' restrainin( order issue, eGecti0e iediatel' and until %urt#er

orders %ro t#is Court.

8#e answer o% respondent orenTs Copensation Coission o% Jul' 1, 1927 and t#e

later pleadin(s, re0ealed *uite a diGerent stor'. It is now *uite clear t#at instead o% +ein( t#e

oGended part' suGerin( %ro a le(itiate (rie0ance, its ri(#t to due process #a0in( +eensuaril' disre(arded, petitioner was not a+o0e resortin( to e0er' tec#nicalit' t#e law

aGords to e0ade t#e per%orance o% an o+li(ation, w#ic# under t#e law it ust %ulll,

nael', to copensate %or t#e serious and de+ilitatin( ailent o% tu+erculosis ac*uired in

t#e course o% eplo'ent +' respondent $+itria. $ccordin(l', t#e petition %or certiorariand

pro#i+ition s#ould +e, as it is #ere+', denied.

8#e %acts as %ound +' respondent orenTs Copensation Coission, w#ic# ust +e

deeed conclusi0e, can 'ield no ot#er conclusion +ut t#e undenia+le lia+ilit' %or

copensation to respondent $+itria on t#e part o% petitioner. 8#us ro t#e recorded

e0idence, it appears t#at claiant was eplo'ed wit# t#e respondent since e+ruar' @,

19>2, worin( si; 2 da's a wee and recei0in( an a0era(e ont#l' wa(e o% )1F4.44 asla+orer %or t#e respondent. e was assi(ned in t#e


25/102

su+se*uentl' aditted. 8#e attendin( p#'sician testied %urt#er t#at t#e ri(#t lun( #ad

+ronc#o(enous lesions in t#e upper lo+e wit# #one'co+ at nd and 3rd intercostal space,

w#ile t#e le%t lun( #ad +rotic lesion +e#ind t#e anterior ri+ II. ... e was disc#ar(ed %ro t#e

ueBon Institute on Septe+er 3, 1922, +ut t#e illness was not 'et arrested alt#ou(# t#ere

was stoppin( o% t#e #eopt'sis. 8#e doctor testied on cross e;aination t#at t#e nature o%

wor o% t#e claiant in0ol0in( strenuous p#'sical e;ertion and ot#er %actors o% wor suc# as

t#e lowerin( o% #is resistance in 0iew o% t#e enorous in#alation o% c#eical %ues also

+rou(#t a+out t#e a((ra0ation o% t#e claiantTs present condition. $ccordin( to t#e claiant

t#e respondent was dul' notied o% #is illness t#rou(# t#e (eneral ana(er and in 0iew o%

t#e respondentTs re%usal to pa' #i disa+ilit' copensation despite repeated deands,

claiant led t#is instant clai.2

8#e sole issue t#en, as accuratel' set %ort# in t#e a+o0e decision, was to deterine in t#is

case ... w#et#er ... t#ere is sucient or su+stantial e0idence in support o% t#e clai %or

disa+ilit' copensation +enets under t#e orenTs Copensation Law. 8#e e0idence on

record is cr'stal clear t#at t#e claiant #ad alread' su+stantiall' pro0en #is case and all

indications point t#at t#e illness o% oderatel' ad0anced, pulonar' tu+erculosis was

ser0ice connected in 0iew o% #is wor as la+orer in0ol0in( strenuous p#'sical e;ertion w#ic#+rou(#t a+out t#e lowerin( o% #is resistance due to t#e assi0e in#alation o% in=urious

c#eical %ues to t#e e;tent t#at #e was ade an eas' pre' to t#e contraction o% 8& +acilli.

8#e %act t#at t#ere was no e0idence on record t#at claiant was sic upon entrance to #is

eplo'ent, it is presued t#at #e was noral in e0er' respect durin( t#e rst period o% #is

eplo'ent and t#e disease o% pulonar' tu+erculosis s#owed onl' durin( t#e later part o%

#is eplo'ent w#en #e was assi(ned in t#e researc# di0ision o% t#e respondent. 8#e

attendin( p#'sician #isel% stated t#at claiantTs e;posure to #is wor a((ra0ated t#e

illness and we +elie0e t#at t#e respondent #ad %ailed to dispute t#e wor connection as

t#ere is no s#owin( t#at claiantTs ailent was due to t#e lowerin( o% #is resistance +'

causes ot#er t#an t#e nature o% #is wor as la+orer o% t#e respondent. 7

It ust +e a realiBation t#at no 0alid de%enses could +e interposed t#at propted petitioner

to rel' on t#e alle(ed depri0ation o% due process, a contention, w#ic# as will now +e s#own,

is wit#out +asis.

8#e petition was so worded t#at t#e eplo'erTs ri(#t to +e #eard appeared to #a0e +een

disre(arded. No %urt#er attention s#ould +e accorded suc# an alle(ed (rie0ance. I% it did not

introduce an' e0idence, it #ad itsel% solel' to +lae. No %ault could +e attri+uted to

respondent orenTs Copensation Coission. 8#ere ust +e suc# a realiBation on t#e

part o% petitioner %or its %our-pa(e eorandu su+itted in lieu o% oral ar(uent did not

+ot#er to discuss suc# a atter at all. $ccordin(l', suc# a contention need not detain us

%urt#er as it ou(#t ne0er to #a0e +een raised in t#e rst place.

)etitioner would ae uc# #owe0er o% t#e alle(ation t#at, as s#own in t#e answer o%

respondent orenTs Copensation Coission,Ft#e decision was sent to a certain

$ttorne' anuel Caac#o +ut care o% petitionerTs counsel, $ttorne' anuel CorpuB.

)etitioner would ep#asiBe t#at t#e one ociall' %urnis#ed wit# a cop' o% suc# decision

was not its counsel, w#o was wit#out an' connection wit# t#e a%oresaid $ttorne' Caac#o.

It would conclude, t#ere%ore, t#at it #ad not recei0ed a cop' o% a decision w#ic# could not

t#erea%ter reac# t#e sta(e o% nalit' callin( %or a writ o% e;ecution.


26/102

8#is contention was s*uarel' et in t#e repl'-eorandu o% No0e+er 2, 1927 o% t#e

orenTs Copensation Coission. #' it #appened t#us was e;plained in an ada0it

o% one o% its eplo'ees, a certain Aerardo AuBan, included t#erein.9$s set %ort# in suc#

repl' eorandu $s stated in t#e ada0it o% r. AuBan, #e went to t#e oce o% $tt'.

CorpuB, on arc# 14, 1927 to deli0er a cop' o% t#e decision ..., +ut $tt'. CorpuB re%used to

recei0e t#e said decision alle(in( t#at #e was no lon(er #andlin( t#e case. $tt'. CorpuB,

instead instructed r. AuBan to deli0er t#e said decision to $tt'. Caac#o since it was

alread' $tt', Caac#o w#o was #andlin( t#e case, and $tt'. Caac#o, accordin( to $tt'.

CorpuB, e0en #ad t#e records o% t#e case.14In 0iew o% suc# instruction, it was %urt#er noted,

AuBan went t#e oce o% $tt'. Caac#o, +ut since $tt'. Caac#o was not around #e

#anded t#e cop' o% t#e decision to t#e recei0in( cler t#erein, w#o recei0ed it as e0idenced

+' t#e stap pad +earin( t#e nae o% t#e Law Oce o% Caac#o, Rapa, $nda'a X

$ssociates on t#e attac#ed true cop' o% t#e Notice o% Decision, ...11

ro w#ic# it could ae t#e apt o+ser0ation. It is indeed sad to note t#at a%ter t#e

Counsel %or )etitioner re%used to recei0e t#e cop' o% said decision, #e is now ipu(nin( t#e

deli0er' o% said decision to $tt'. Caac#o and is den'in( nowled(e o% it w#en in %act and

trut# t#e deli0er' o% said decision to $tt'. Caac#o was ade per #is instruction to r.AuBan, as e0idenced +' t#e attac#ed ada0it o% r. AuBan.1

In 0iew o% t#e rat#er persuasi0e c#aracter o% suc# an ada0it and t#e understanda+le

re:ection on t#e actuation o% counsel %or petitioner, t#ere was, as could +e e;pected

su+itted +' petitionerTs counsel a re=oinder, dated No0e+er 2, 1927. e would #a0e t#is

Court +elie0e t#at t#e repl'-eorandu is contradicted +' w#at appeared in respondentsT

answer, w#ere it was stated t#at a cop' o% t#e decision was recei0ed, not +' #i +ut +' t#e

law oce o% a certain $ttorne' Caac#o. e would t#en as w#' AuBan did not ser0e a

cop' o% t#e decision to #i. e would e0en assue, %or ar(uent sae, t#at t#ere was a

re%usal on #is part to accept a cop' o% t#is decision, +ut #e would ar(ue w#' did not

AuBan, w#o could +e e;pected to now t#e duties o% a ser0ice ocer, %ail to state saidre%usal in #is ocial return.

#ic# o% t#e a+o0e con:ictin( 0ersions is entitled to credence 8#at o% respondent

orenTs Copensation Coission would appear to +e ore in accordance wit# t#e

realities o% t#e situation. It is entitled to +elie%.

8#is would not +e t#e rst tie, in t#e rst place, w#ere out o% e;cess o% Beal and out o% a

desire to rel' on e0er' concei0a+le de%ense t#at could dela' i% not de%eat t#e satis%action o%

an o+li(ation incu+ent on oneTs client, counsel would attept to put t#e ost %a0ora+le

li(#t on a course o% conduct w#ic# certainl' cannot +e (i0en t#e stap o% appro0al. Not t#at

it would clear counsel o% an' %urt#er responsi+ilit'. is conduct lea0es uc# to +e desired.

is responsi+ilit' aside, it ade e0ident w#', to repeat t#e eGort to e0ade lia+ilit' +'petitioner +' in0oin( t#e due process (uarant' ust not +e rewarded wit# success.

?nder t#e a+o0e circustances, no due process *uestion arose. #at was done satised

suc# a constitutional re*uireent. $n eGort was ade to ser0e petitioner wit# a cop' o% t#e

decisionK t#at suc# eGort %ailed was attri+uta+le to t#e conduct o% its own counsel. 8rue,

t#ere was a denialK it is %ar %ro persuasi0e, as alread' noted. It does not #a0e t#e rin( o%


27/102

trut#. 8#ere is no reason w#' t#e decision would #a0e +een ser0ed on soe ot#er counsel i%

t#ere w#ere no suc# isin%oration, i% t#ere w#ere no suc# attept to islead.

No +enet would #a0e accrued to respondent orenTs Copensation Coission. It was

erel' per%orin( its ocial %unction. Certainl', it could +e e;pected to see to it t#at t#e

lawTs +eneciaries were not incon0enienced, uc# less %rustrated, +' its %ailure to %ollow t#e

re(ular procedure prescri+ed. It was unliel' t#at t#e eplo'ee entrusted wit# ser0in( a

cop' o% t#e decision, in t#is particular case, and in t#is particular case alone, would depart

so radicall' %ro w#at t#e law re*uires, i% t#ere were no suc# inter0enin( cause t#at resulted

in #is (oin( astra'. ow could petitioner escape responsi+ilit'

)etitioner, and petitioner alone, could +e e;pected to %urnis# suc# a cause. #o would

+enet t#ere+' 8#e answer cannot +e in dou+t. 8#rou(# suc# circustance, wet#er

intended or ot#erwise, a +asis was laid %or at least a dela' o% t#e %ulllent o% a =ust clai.

or it is to +e noted t#at t#ere is no, as t#ere could not +e an', 0alid (round %or den'in(

copensation to respondent $+itria on t#e %acts as %ound. Considerin( #ow (reat and

pressin( t#e la+orerTs need %or t#e copensation due #i was and t#e conse*uent

teptation to settle %or less i% in t#e eanw#ile, t#e one' #e #ad t#e ri(#t to e;pect, wasnot %ort#coin(, petitioner, as t#e eplo'er lia+le, #ad e0er't#in( to (ain and not#in( to

lose +' suc# a turn o% e0ents. E0en i% it were an #onest istae, t#e conse*uences were still

deplora+le.

It is *uite re0ealin( t#at in not one o% t#e pleadin(s led +' petitioner did it e0er indicate

#ow it could 0alidl' a0oid its lia+ilit' under t#e orenTs Copensation Coission w#ic#

disclosed t#at t#e ailent suGered +' respondent $+itria w#ile in its eplo'ent was

indeed copensa+le. Neit#er in its eorandu su+itted on Octo+er 19, 1927 nor

re=oinder o% No0e+er 1, 1927, did it e0er occur to petitioner to alle(e t#at i% (i0en t#e

opportunit' %or #earin( it could interpose a plausi+le, not to sa' a 0alid de%ense. It did not do

so +ecause it could not do so. Our decisions as to t#e undenia+le lia+ilit' o% an eplo'ersiilarl' situated are ipressi0e %or t#eir nu+er and unaniit'.13

It would t#us +e (ril' ironic i% t#e due process concept, in itsel% an assurance and a

(uarant' o% =ustice and %airness, would +e t#e 0er' 0e#icle to 0isit on a #apless and

ipo0eris#ed liti(ant in=ustice and un%airness. 8#e law itsel% would stand in disrepute, i% suc#

a (ross per0ersion o% its dictates were allowed. $n' ot#er 0iew is unt#ina+le. Ot#erwise,

t#ere would +e a stultication o% all our eGorts to proote social =ustice1@and a ocer' o%

t#e constitutional ideal o% protection to la+or.1>

Considerin( t#e a+o0e, it is not enou(# t#at petitioner +e re*uired to pa' %ort#wit# t#e su

due respondent $+itria. 8#e unseel' conduct, under t#e a+o0e circustances disclosed, o%

petitionerTs counsel, $ttorne' anuel $. CorpuB calls %or words o% reproo%.

It is one t#in( to e;ert to t#e utost oneTs a+ilit' to protect t#e interest o% oneTs client. It is

*uite anot#er t#in(, and t#is is to put it at its ildest, to tae ad0anta(e o% an' un%oreseen

turn o% e0ents, i% not to create one, to dela' i% not to de%eat t#e reco0er' o% w#at is =ustl' due

and deanda+le, especiall' so, w#en as in t#is case, t#e o+li(ee is a necessitous and

po0ert'-stricen an suGerin( %ro a dreaded disease, t#at un%ortunatel' aYicts so an'


28/102

o% our countr'en and e0en ore un%ortunatel' re*uires an outla' %ar +e'ond t#e eans o%

our po0ert' stricen asses.

8#e ancient and learned pro%ession o% t#e law stresses %airness and #onorK t#at ust e0er +e

ept in ind +' e0er'one w#o is enrolled in its rans and w#o e;pects to reain a e+er

in (ood standin(. 8#is 8ri+unal is ri(#t%ull' entrusted wit# t#e serious responsi+ilit' o% seein(

to it t#at no de0iation %ro suc# a nor s#ould +e countenanced. I% w#at occurred #ere

would not +e c#aracteriBed %or t#e s#ocin( t#in( it was, t#en it could +e said t#at t#e law is

less t#an %air and %ar %ro #onora+le. #at #appens t#en to t#e ideal t#at onl' #e is t to

+elon( to suc# a pro%ession w#o reains a %ait#%ul 0otar' at t#e altar o% =ustice Suc# an

ideal a' +e dicult to appro;iate. 8#at is true, +ut let it not +e said t#at w#en suc# a

notorious +reac# o% its lo%t' standard too place, as un%ortunatel' it did in t#is case, t#is

Court e;#i+ited a(nicent unconcern.

E


29/102

8#e c#ecs issued +' coplainant in %a0or o% 8rans%ar were dul' encas#ed upon

presentent. owe0er, t#e c#ecs issued +' respondent to rei+urse coplainant were

dis#onored %or t#e reason /$ccount Closed.5


30/102

Su+se*uentl', #e led #is otion to Disiss!3"dated e+ruar' 7, 44@ on t#e

%ollowin( (rounds

8#at coplainant is not t#e proper part' in interest and #as no cause

o% action.

8#at coplainant #as preaturel' pre=ud(ed respondent relati0e tot#e latter6s intention o% not pa'in( #is de+t as t#e %orer ipresses t#e#onora+le +od' t#at respondent would not pa' at all.

8#at coplainant6s action in t#e &ertin( Diwa case s#ould +eaddressed to t#e unicipal 8rial Court o% Sta. aria, &ulacan and not to t#eI&).5

In t#e a%oresaid otion, respondent ne0er denied and e0en acnowled(ed w#at #edescri+ed as #onest de+ts to ?nisia erc#andisin( and r. 8olin,!@" w#ic# #e aditted #e

was una+le to pa' on tie due to nancial constraints. e added t#at t#e I&), +ein( not a

collection a(enc', was not t#e proper %oru to lod(e t#e coplaint a(ainst #i t#at erel'

concerned t#e collection o% #is onetar' o+li(ations w#ic# were t#en su+=ect o% pendin(

court suits. Siilarl', respondent ar(ued t#at t#e coplaint a(ainst case s#ould +e

addressed to t#e 8C o% Sta. aria, &ulacan.

On $pril F, 44@, t#e I&)-C&D issued an Order !>"den'in( respondent6s otion to

disiss as it is pro#i+ited pleadin( under


31/102

On Jul' 13, 44@, respondent led anot#er !ery -rent Motion for #*tension to +ile

Answer,!14"seein( anot#er period o% ten 14 da's wit#in w#ic# to le #is answer or

responsi0e pleadin(. On Jul' 1, 44@, t#e I&)-C&D issued an Order ndin( t#e (round %or

e;tension not =ustia+le. , t#e I&)-C&D issued an Order (i0in( +ot# parties a period o% ten

14 da's to le t#eir respecti0e 0eried position paper, as %ollows

/, t#e In0esti(atin( I&) Coissioner


32/102

$%ter a care%ul stud' and consideration o% t#e %acts and e0idencepresented, we nd erit to warrant disciplinar' action a(ainstrespondent. is %ailure to answer t#e coplaint %or dis+arent despite duenotice on se0eral occasions and to appear on t#e sc#eduled #earin(s set,s#ows #is :outin( resistance to law%ul orders o% t#e court and illustrates #isdespicienc' %or #is oat# o% oce as a law'er, w#ic# deser0es disciplinar'

sanction. 2ayan v. (uade, 193 SC


33/102

8E &O$


34/102

+ecause t#e latter no lon(er #a0e =urisdiction o0er t#e case w#ic# #ad alread' +een

endorsed to t#is Court %or nal action.


35/102

In :ao v. Medel,!1"we ruled as %ollows

Canon 1 o% t#e Code o% )ro%essional


36/102

is conduct in t#e course o% t#e I&) proceedin(s in t#is case is also a atter o%

serious concern. e su+itted a otion to disiss a%ter re*uestin( se0eral e;tensions o%

tie to le #is answer. is %ailure to attend t#e #earin(s and +elated plea to disiss t#e

case, despite orders to t#e contrar', s#ow a callous disre(ard o% t#e law%ul orders o% t#e dul'

constituted aut#orit', w#ic# caused undue dela' in t#e I&) proceedin(. 8#is conduct runs

counter to t#e precepts o% t#e Code o% )ro%essional " Sadl', #erein respondent6s conduct %alls s#ort o%

t#e e;actin( standards e;pected o% #i as a e+er o% t#e le(al pro%ession. $ccordin(l',

adinistrati0e sanction is warranted +' respondent6s (ross isconduct.

e coe now to t#e penalt' iposa+le in t#is case. In Co v. 4ernardino!2"and :ao v.

Medel!7"we #eld t#at t#e deli+erate %ailure to pa' =ust de+ts and t#e issuance o% wort#less

c#ecs constitute (ross isconduct, %or w#ic# a law'er a' +e sanctioned wit# one-'ear

suspension %ro t#e practice o% law.

owe0er, in t#is case, we dee it reasona+le to ar t#e sanction iposed +' t#e

I&)-C&D, i.e., respondent was ordered suspended %ro t#e practice o% law %or &/o 2F

e"#, +ecause aside %ro issuin( wort#less c#ecs and %ailure to pa' #is de+ts, respondent

also #ad seriousl' +reac#ed #is client6s trust and condence to #is personal ad0anta(e and

#ad s#own a wanton disre(ard o% t#e I&)6s Orders in t#e course o% its proceedin(s.

EREORE, -113 dated Octo+er , 44> o% t#e I&) w#ic#

%ound t#at respondent $tt'. Sal0ador N. o'a II is (uilt' o% (ross isconduct and 0iolation o%

t#e Code o% )ro%essional


37/102

two 'ears %ro t#e practice o% law, eGecti0e upon #is receipt o% t#is Decision. e is warned

t#at a repetition o% t#e sae or a siilar act will +e dealt wit# ore se0erel'.

Let copies o% t#is Decision +e ser0ed on t#e Court $dinistrator w#o s#all circulate itto all courts %or t#eir in%oration and (uidance as well as t#e Oce o% t#e &ar Condant,

w#ic# is directed to append a cop' to respondent6s personal record. Let anot#er cop' +e

%urnis#ed t#e National Oce o% t#e Inte(rated &ar o% t#e )#ilippines.

SO ORDERED.

A.C. No. 7062 Se$&e+e" 26, 2006

[o"e"( C5D C#e No. 04;9::]

RENERIO SA35AJON, RONALD SA35AJON, CRISANTO CONOS, n% REDILYN5ACL5AS,coplainants,0s.ATTY. JOSE A. SIN


38/102

position /*&- 1u(( +'G/@e# %ro date o% disissal until actual reinstateentcoputed as %ollows

3. C4.44 ; 2 da's ; 14 [ 2>,444.44

)39,32.@4

13t# ont# )a'1H1 o% )39,32.@4 [ 19,932.32

SIL)

H12H9F - 1H31H9F [ 14.33os.)19F.44 ; > da's ; 14.33H

1 [ F>.

1H1H99 - 1H31H99 [ 1os.)3.>4 ; > da's ; 1H1 [ 1,117.>4

1H1H44 - 14H34H41 [ 4 [ ,4F3.33 @,4>3.4>


39/102

os.)>4.44 ; > da's ; 4H1

)23,>.F1

; ; ; ;

7. .F1

F..F1

9.


40/102

In a related o0e, coplainants also led a criinal coplaint %or alsication a(ainstrespondent, to(et#er wit# #is clients Jo#nn' and anuel claricator' *uestionin( . . .

; ; ; ;

. . . In t#e case at +ar, t#e *uestion o% w#et#er or not respondent actuall' coittedt#e despica+le act would see to +e %airl' de+ata+le under t#ecircustances.9Ep#asis and underscorin( supplied

8#e &oard o% Ao0ernors o% t#e I&), +' -2, appro0ed and adoptedt#e


41/102

counsel w#o could not reac# #i, #e Sa+a=on #a0in( trans%erred %ro one residence toanot#er.

Ai0in( Sa+a=on t#e +enet o% t#e dou+t +e#ind t#e reason %or t#e 3-da' dela' in lin( t#epresent petition, in t#e interest o% =ustice, t#is Court (i0es #is petition due course.

In respondentTs otion to $end t#e I&) &oard


42/102

so t#at accordin( to t#e soeone as a law'er will represent t#e in t#atproceedin(s.

CO. $&$&$A

' *uer', did it not surprise 'ou t#at no one' was (i0en to 'ou and 'et

t#ere would +e a si(nin( o% uitclai


43/102

8#e uitclai


44/102

uitclais. 8#at #e was re*uested to (o t#ere could onl' ean t#at #e would e;ert 0i(ilanceto protect #is clientsT interest. 8#is #e conceded w#en #e acnowled(ed t#e purpose o% #ispresence at t#e Oce o% La+or $r+iter Santos, t#us

$88. S?INA

8o (o t#ere, our onor, and represent t#e and see t#at t#ese docuent!s"are properl' si(ned and &-& &-e#e $eo$(e "e $"o$e"( *%en&*e% and0eried t#e in %ront o% $r+iter $riel Cadiente Santos.19Ep#asis andunderscorin( supplied

8#at t#ere was an alle(ed precedent in 199F w#en a (roup o% coplainants entered into acoproise a(reeent wit# #is clients in w#ic# #e did not participate and %ro w#ic# nopro+le arose did not e;cuse #i %ro carr'in( out t#e aditted purpose o% (oin( to t#eLa+or $r+iterTs oce ] t#at !t#e coplainants" are properl' identied . . . in %ront o% !t#e"$r+iter.

&esides, +' respondentTs own in%oration, La+or $r+iter Santos was entertainin( dou+ts ont#e true identit' o% t#ose w#o e;ecuted t#e


45/102

CO. $&$&$A

Oa', uulitin o #a, ta(alo( na an( tanon( o sa i'o #a #indi na En(lis#. Ito+an(


46/102

Siple an( tanon( o #a. Intindi#in o una. Wanino o ina+otan( +% sa naala(a' dito sa


47/102

ATTY. SIN

our onor,

CO. $&$&$A

)a+a'aan o una. ITll coe to t#at. a(ano un( i'on( natatandaan an(peran( ina+ot a' $tt'. Suin(


48/102

TE PILIPPINE NATIONAL 5AN,plaintiG-appellant,0s.

Y TEN< PIAO,de%endant-appellee.

2at. M. 4al$oa and Dominador '. #ndria for appellant.

Antonio )onzales for appellee.

VICERS,J.:

8#is is an appeal +' t#e plaintiG a decision o% t#e Court o% irst Instance o% anila a+sol0in(

t#e de%endant %ro t#e coplaint, wit#out a special ndin( as to costs.

8#e appellant aes t#e %ollowin( assi(nents o% error

8#e trial court erred

1. In ndin( t#at one r. )ecson (a0e a proise to appellee ?' 8en( )iao to condone

t#e +alance o% t#e =ud(ent rendered a(ainst t#e said ?' 8en( )iao and in %a0or o%

t#e )#ilippine National &an in ci0il case No. 23F o% t#e Court o irst Instance o%

anila.

. In ndin( t#at erel' in sellin( t#e propert' descri+ed in certicate o% title No.

117@ situated at up to t#e 'ear 1934 is una

senal ine*ui0oca una prue+a e0idente o% t#e condonation o% t#e +alance o% t#e said

=ud(ent.

2. In ndin( t#at +' t#e sale o% t#e said propert' to ariano Santos %or t#e su o%)F,244, t#e said =ud(ent in ci0il case No. 23F #as +een ore t#an %ull' paid e0en

discountin( t#e su o% )1,344 w#ic# appellant paid as t#e #i(#est +idder %or t#e said

propert'.

7. In declarin( t#at t#e oGer o% appellee ?' 8en( )iao as s#own +' E;#i+its D and D-1,

re:ects onl' t#e desire o% t#e said appellee ?' 8en( )iao to a0oid #a0in( a case wit#

t#e appellant +an.


49/102

F. In nall' a+sol0in( appellee ?' 8en( )iao and in not sentencin( #i to pa' t#e

aount claied in t#e coplaint wit# costs.

On Septe+er 9, 19@, t#e Court o% irst Instance o% anila rendered a =ud(ent in %a0or o%

t#e )#ilippine National &an and a(ainst ?' 8en( )iao in ci0il case No. 23F %or t#e su o%

)17,3.@ wit# interest at 7 per cent per annu %ro June 1, 19@, plus 14 per cent o% t#e

su aount %or attorne'Ts %ees and costs. 8#e court ordered t#e de%endant to deposit said

aount wit# t#e cler o% t#e court wit#in t#ree ont#s %ro t#e date o% t#e =ud(ent, and

in case o% #is %ailure to do so t#at t#e ort(a(ed properties descri+ed in trans%er certicates

o% title Nos. 72@ and F7@ s#ould +e sold at pu+lic auction in accordance wit# t#e law and

t#e proceeds applied to t#e pa'ent o% t#e =ud(ent.

?' 8en( )iao %ailed to copl' wit# t#e order o% t#e court, and t#e s#eriG o% t#e Cit' o% anila

sold t#e two parcels o% land at pu+lic auction to t#e )#ilippine National &an on Octo+er 1@,

19@ %or )344 and )1,444 respecti0el'.

On e+ruar' 11, 19>, t#e )#ilippine National &an secured %ro ?' 8en( )iao a wai0er o%

#is ri(#t to redee t#e propert' descri+ed in 8rans%er Certicate o% 8itle No. F7@, and ont#e sae date t#e +an sold said propert' to ariano Santos %or )F,244.1awphil.net

E0identl' t#e ot#er parcel, 8rans%er Certicate o% 8itle No. 72@, was su+se*uentl' resold +'

t#e +an %or ),744, +ecause t#e account o% t#e de%endant was credited wit# t#e su o%

)11,344. In ot#er words, t#e +an credited t#e de%endant wit# t#e %ull aount realiBed +' it

w#en it resold t#e two parcels o% land.

8#e +an +rou(#t t#e present action to re0i0e t#e =ud(ent %or t#e +alance o% )11,>[email protected],

wit# interest at 7 per cent per annu %ro $u(ust 1, 1934.

In #is aended answer t#e de%endant alle(ed as a special de%ense t#at #e wai0ed #is ri(#tto redee t#e land descri+ed in trans%er certicate o% title No. F7@ in consideration o% an

understandin( +etween #i and t#e +an t#at t#e +an would not collect %ro #i t#e

+alance o% t#e =ud(ent. It was on t#is (round t#at t#e trial court a+sol0ed t#e de%endant

%ro t#e coplaint.

In our opinion t#e de%endant #as %ailed to pro0e an' 0alid a(reeent on t#e part o% t#e +an

not to collect %ro #i t#e reainder o% t#e =ud(ent. 8#e alle(ed a(reeent rests upon

t#e uncorro+orated testion' o% t#e de%endant, t#e pertinent part o% w#ose testion' on

direct e;aination was as %ollows

). En este docuento aparece *ue usted, por consideracion de 0alor reci+ido del

&anco Nacional deandante en la presente causa, renuncia a su derec#o de

recopra de la propiedad 0endida por el S#eriG en pu+lica su+asta el catorce de

octu+re de il no0ecientos 0eintecuatro a %a0or del &anco NacionalK ^*uiere usted

e;plicar al onora+le JuB(ado, cual es esta consideracion de 0alor ]


50/102

). ^uien es ese seUor )ecson ]


51/102

J?RA$DO. )uede contestar.

Sr. END


52/102

suc# a(reeent %or t#e +an. Onl' t#e +oard o% directors or t#e persons epowered +' t#e

+oard o% directors could +ind t#e +an +' suc# an a(reeent. 8#ere is no erit in t#e

contention t#at since t#e +an accepted t#e +enet o% t#e wai0er it cannot now repudiate

t#e alle(ed a(reeent. 8#e %act t#at t#e +an a%ter #a0in( +ou(#t t#e land %or )1,444 resold

it at t#e instance o% t#e de%endant %or )F,244 and credited t#e de%endant wit# t#e %ull

aount o% t#e resale was a sucient consideration %or t#e e;ecution o% de%endantTs wai0er

o% #is ri(#t to redee.

or t#e %ore(oin( reasons, t#e decision appealed %ro is re0ersed, and t#e de%endant is

condened to pa' t#e plaintiG t#e su o% )11,>[email protected] wit# interest t#ereon at t#e rate o% 7

per cent per annu %ro $u(ust 1, 1934, and t#e costs o% +ot# instances.

Malcolm, !illamor, strand, !illa


53/102

8#ese acts were done e0en a%ter t#eir leaders #ad +een recei0ed +' Justices )edro L. ap

and arcelo &. ernan as C#airen o% t#e Di0isions w#ere t#eir cases are pendin(, and $tt'.

Jose C. Espinas, counsel o% t#e ?nion o% ilipro Eplo'ees, #ad +een called in order t#at t#e

picets i(#t +e in%ored t#at t#e deonstration ust cease iediatel' %or t#e sae

constitutes direct contept o% court and t#at t#e Court would not entertain t#eir petitions %or

as lon( as t#e picets were aintained. 8#us, on Jul' 14, 19F7, t#e Court en $ancissued a

resolution (i0in( t#e said unions t#e opportunit' to wit#draw (raciousl' and re*uirin(

essrs. 8on' $0elino. Lito )a'a+'a+, Eu(ene San )edro, Dante Escasura, Eil Sa'ao and

Nelson Centeno, union leaders o% respondent ?nion o% ilipro Eplo'ees in t#e Nestle case

and t#eir counsel o% record, $tt'. Jose C. EspinasK and essrs. Ernesto acundo, austo

AapuB, Jr. and $ntonio AonBales, union leaders o% petitioner Wi+erl' Independent La+or

?nion %or Solidarit', $cti0is and Nationalis-Olalia in t#e Wi+erl' case to appear +e%ore

t#e Court on Jul' 1@, 19F7 at 1434 $.. and t#en and t#ere to SO C$?SE w#' t#e'

s#ould not +e #eld in contept o% court. $tt'. Jose C. Espinas was %urt#er re*uired to SO

C$?SE w#' #e s#ould not +e adinistrati0el' dealt wit#.

On t#e appointed date and tie, t#e a+o0e-naed indi0iduals appeared +e%ore t#e Court,

represented +' $tt'. Jose C. Espinas, in t#e a+sence o% $tt'. )otenciano lores, counsel o%record o% petitioner in A. unions in t#e Sout#ern 8a(alo( area, and not +' eit#er t#e ?nion o% ilipro

Eplo'ees or t#e Wi+erl' Independent La+or ?nion.

2

$tt'. Espinas %urt#er stated t#at #e #ad e;plained to t#e piceters t#at an' dela' in t#e

resolution o% t#eir cases is usuall' %or causes +e'ond t#e control o% t#e Court and t#at t#e

Supree Court #as alwa's reained stead%ast in its role as t#e (uardian o% t#e Constitution.

8o conr %or t#e record t#at t#e person cited %or contept %ull' understood t#e reason %or

t#e citation and t#at t#e' wi( a+ide +' t#eir proise t#at said incident will not +e repeated,

t#e Court re*uired t#e respondents to su+it a written ani%estation to t#is eGect, w#ic#

respondents coplied wit# on Jul' 17, 19F7.

e accept t#e apolo(ies oGered +' t#e respondents and at t#is tie, %ore(o t#e iposition

o% t#e sanction warranted +' t#e conteptuous acts descri+ed earlier. 8#e li+eral stancetaen +' t#is Court in t#ese cases as well as in t#e earlier case o%A%8P%3:3PP32#8

#MP:##8 -232 vs. 2A(32A: :A4& :A(328 CMM38832, et al., A.


54/102

0entilated t#rou(# t#e proper c#annels, i.e., t#rou(# appropriate petitions, otions or ot#er

pleadin(s in eepin( wit# t#e respect due to t#e Courts as ipartial adinistrators o% =ustice

entitled to proceed to t#e disposition o% its +usiness in an orderl' anner, %ree %ro outside

inter%erence o+structi0e o% its %unctions and tendin( to e+arrass t#e adinistration o%

=ustice.

8#e ri(#t o% petition is conceded to +e an in#erent ri(#t o% t#e citiBen under all %ree

(o0ernents. owe0er, suc# ri(#t, natural and in#erent t#ou(# it a' +e, #as ne0er +een

in0oed to s#atter t#e standards o% propriet' entertained %or t#e conduct o% courts. or it is

a traditional con0iction o% ci0iliBed societ' e0er'w#ere t#at courts and =uries, in t#e decision

o% issues o% %act and law s#ould +e iune %ro e0er' e;traneous in:uenceK t#at %acts

s#ould +e decided upon e0idence produced in courtK and t#at t#e deterination o% suc#

%acts s#ould +e unin:uenced +' +ias, pre=udice or s'pat#ies. 4

oreo0er, parties #a0e a constitutional ri(#t to #a0e t#eir causes tried %airl' in court +' an

ipartial tri+unal, unin:uenced +' pu+lication or pu+lic claor. E0er' citiBen #as a pro%ound

personal interest in t#e en%orceent o% t#e %undaental ri(#t to #a0e =ustice adinistered

+' t#e courts, under t#e protection and %ors o% law %ree %ro outside coercion orinter%erence. :8#e a%orecited acts o% t#e respondents are t#ere%ore not onl' an aGront to

t#e di(nit' o% t#is Court, +ut e*ualit' a 0iolation o% t#e a+o0e-stated ri(#t o% t#e ad0erse

parties and t#e citiBenr' at lar(e.

e realiBe t#at t#e indi0iduals #erein cited w#o are non-law'ers are not nowled(ea+le in

#er intricacies o% su+stanti0e and ad=ecti0e laws. 8#e' are not aware t#at e0en as t#e ri(#ts

o% %ree speec# and o% asse+l' are protected +' t#e Constitution, an' attept to pressure or

in:uence courts o% =ustice t#rou(# t#e e;ercise o% eit#er ri(#t aounts to an a+use t#ereo%,

is no lon(er wit#in t#e a+it o% constitutional protection, nor did t#e' realiBe t#at an' suc#

eGorts to in:uence t#e course o% =ustice constitutes contept o% court. 68#e dut' and

responsi+ilit' o% ad0isin( t#e, t#ere%ore, rest priaril' and #ea0il' upon t#e s#oulders o%t#eir counsel o% record. $tt'. Jose C. Espinas, w#en #is attention was called +' t#is Court, did

#is +est to deonstrate to t#e picets t#e untena+ilit' o% t#eir acts and posture. Let t#is

incident t#ere%ore ser0e as a reinder to all e+ers o% t#e le(al pro%ession t#at it is t#eir

dut' as ocers o% t#e court to properl' apprise t#eir clients on atters o% decoru and

proper attitude toward courts o% =ustice, and to la+or leaders o% t#e iportance o% a

continuin( educational pro(ra %or t#eir e+ers.

E


55/102

OLIVER OEN L.


56/102

On $pril 2, 443, t#e I&) &oard denied t#e re*uest %or reconsideration in its &esolution

2o. @!


57/102

+ot# t#e to June 4, 447, t#e EV) iediatel' +e%ore t#en will

autoaticall' assue t#e post o% I&) National )resident.

)etitioners asse0erate t#at it is in t#is li(#t t#at respondent De Vera #ad trans%erred #is

I&) e+ers#ip %ro t#e )asa', )arana*ue, Las )inas and untinlupa ))L C#apter to

$(usan del Sur C#apter, stressin( t#at #e indeed co0ets t#e I&) presidenc'. !F"8#e trans%er o%

I&) e+ers#ip to $(usan del Sur, t#e petitioners went on, is a +raBen a+use and isuse o%

t#e rotation rule, a ocer' o% t#e doicile rule and a (reat insult to law'ers %ro Easternindanao %or it iplies t#at t#ere is no law'er %ro t#e re(ion *ualied and willin( to ser0e

t#e I&).!9"

$d0ertin( to t#e oral tness re*uired o% a candidate %or t#e oces o% re(ional

(o0ernor, e;ecuti0e 0ice-president and national president, t#e petitioners su+it t#at

respondent De Vera lacs t#e re*uisite oral aptitude. $ccordin( to t#e, respondent De

Vera was sanctioned +' t#e Supree Court %or irresponsi+l' attacin( t#e inte(rit' o% t#e SC

Justices durin( t#e deli+erations on t#e constitutionalit' o% t#e plunder law. 8#e' add t#at #e

could #a0e +een dis+arred in t#e ?nited States %or isappropriatin( #is client6s %unds #ad #e

not surrendered #is Cali%ornia license to practice law. inall', t#e' accuse #i o% #a0in(

acti0el' capai(ned %or t#e position o% Eastern indanao Ao0ernor durin( t#e I&) NationalCon0ention #eld on a' -@, 443, a pro#i+ited act under t#e I&) &'-Laws.!14"

$%ter seein( lea0e o% court, respondent De Vera led on June 9, 443 a &espectful

Comment E11Fon t#e Petition.

In #is de%ense, respondent De Vera raises new issues. e ar(ues t#at t#is Court #as no

=urisdiction o0er t#e present contro0ers', contendin( t#at t#e election o% t#e Ocers o% t#e

I&), includin( t#e deterination o% t#e *ualication o% t#ose w#o want to ser0e t#e

or(aniBation, is purel' an internal atter, (o0erned as it is +' t#e I&) &'-Laws and

e;clusi0el' re(ulated and adinistered +' t#e I&).


58/102

eetin( t#e petitioners6 contention #ead on, respondent De Vera a0ers t#at an I&)

e+er is entitled to select, c#an(e or trans%er #is c#apter e+ers#ip. !13"e cites t#e last

para(rap# o% Section 19, $rticle II and Section 9-, $rticle IV o% t#e I&) &'-Laws, t#us

$rticle II, Section 19.


59/102

clai t#at #e or #is #andlers #ad +illeted t#e dele(ates %ro #is re(ion at t#e Centur' )ar

otel.!1>"

On Jul' 7, 443, t#e petitioners led t#eir &eplyE16Fto t#e &espectful Comment o%

respondent De Vera w#o, on Jul' 1>, 443, led anAnswer and &e"oinder.E1;F

In a &esolutionE1IFdated > $u(ust 443, t#e Court directed t#e ot#er respondent in t#is

case, t#e I&) &oard, to le its coent on t#e Petition.8#e I&) &oard, t#rou(# its Aeneral

Counsel, led a ManifestationE1HFdated 9 $u(ust 443, reiteratin( t#e position stated in

its &esolution dated 9 a' 443 t#at /it nds t#e petition to +e preature considerin( t#at

no noination #as as 'et +een ade %or t#e election o% I&)


60/102

rules s#all pro0ide a siplied and ine;pensi0e procedure %or t#e speed'

disposition o% cases, s#all +e uni%or %or all courts o% t#e sae (rade, and s#all not

diinis#, increase, or odi%' su+stanti0e ri(#ts. Constitution.

Section 13, $rt. VIII t#ereo% (ranted t#e Supree Court t#e power to proul(ate rules

concernin( t#e adission to t#e practice o% law. It reads

SEC8ION 13. 8#e Supree Court s#all #a0e t#e power to proul(ate rules concernin(

pleadin(, practice, and procedure in all courts, and t#e adission to t#e practice o% law. Said

rules s#all +e uni%or %or all courts o% t#e sae (rade and s#all not diinis#, increase, or

odi%' su+stanti0e ri(#ts. 8#e e;istin( laws on pleadin(, practice, and procedure are #ere+'

repealed as statutes, and are declared "o% t#e I&) &'-Laws

0ests on t#e Court t#e power to aend, odi%' or repeal t#e I&) &'-Laws, eit#er motu

propio or upon recoendation o% t#e &oard o% Ao0ernors o% t#e I&). $lso in Section 1>,!2" t#e Court is aut#oriBed to send o+ser0ers in I&) elections, w#et#er local or national.

Section @@!7"epowers t#e Court to #a0e t#e nal decision on t#e reo0al o% t#e e+ers

o% t#e &oard o% Ao0ernors.

On t#e +asis o% its power o% super0ision o0er t#e I&), t#e Supree Court looed into t#e

irre(ularities w#ic# attended t#e 19F9 elections o% t#e I&) National Ocers. In &ar atter

No. @91 entitled J3n the Matter of the 3nKuiry into the 1HIH #lections of the 3nterated 4ar of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn27


61/102

the PhilippinesL t#e Court %ored a coittee to ae an in*uir' into t#e 19F9 elections.

8#e results o% t#e in0esti(ation s#owed t#at t#e elections were arred +' irre(ularities, wit#

t#e principal candidates %or election coittin( acts in 0iolation o% Section 1@ o% t#e I&) &'-

Laws.F8#e Court in0alidated t#e elections and directed t#e conduct o% special elections, as

well as e;plicitl' dis*ualied %ro runnin( t#ereat t#e I&) e+ers w#o were %ound

in0ol0ed in t#e irre(ularities in t#e elections, in order to /ipress upon t#e participants, in

t#at electoral e;ercise t#e seriousness o% t#e isconduct w#ic# attended it and t#e stern

disappro0al wit# w#ic# it is 0iewed +' t#is Court, and to restore t#e non-political c#aracter o%

t#e I&) and reduce, i% not entirel' eliinate, e;pensi0e electioneerin(.5

8#e Court liewise aended se0eral pro0isions o% t#e I&) &'-Laws. irst, it reo0ed

direct election +' t#e ouse o% Dele(ates o% t#e a ocers o% t#e ouse o% Dele(atesK +

I&) )residentK and c E;ecuti0e Vice-)resident EV). Second, it restored t#e %orer s'ste

o% t#e I&) &oard c#oosin( t#e I&) )resident and t#e E;ecuti0e Vice )resident EV) %ro

aon( t#esel0es on a rotation +asis Section @7 o% t#e &'-Laws, as aended and t#e

autoatic succession +' t#e EV) to t#e position o% t#e )resident upon t#e e;piration o% t#eir

coon two-'ear ter. 8#ird, it aended Sections 37 and 39 +' pro0idin( t#at t#e


62/102

w#o s#all %ort#wit# resol0e t#e appeal +' pluralit' 0ote. Votin( s#all +e +' raisin( o% #ands.

8#e decision o% t#e Dele(ates s#all +e nal, and t#e elections s#all t#erea%ter proceed.


63/102


64/102

It is clearl' stated in t#e a%ore-*uoted section o% t#e &'-Laws t#at it is not autoatic

t#at a law'er will +ecoe a e+er o% t#e c#apter w#ere #is place o% residence or wor is

located. e #as t#e discretion to c#oose t#e particular c#apter w#ere #e wis#es to (ain

e+ers#ip. Onl' w#en #e does not re(ister #is pre%erence t#at #e will +ecoe a e+er

o% t#e C#apter o% t#e place w#ere #e resides or aintains #is oce. 8#e onl' proscription in

re(isterin( one6s pre%erence is t#at a law'er cannot +e a e+er o% ore t#an one c#apter

at t#e sae tie.

8#e sae is pro0ided in Section 9- o% t#e I&) &'-Laws. In %act, under t#is Section,

trans%er o% I&) e+ers#ip is allowed as lon( as t#e law'er coplies wit# t#e conditions set

%ort# t#erein, t#us

SEC8ION 9-. Mem$ership - 8#e C#apter coprises all e+ers re(istered in its

e+ers#ip roll. Eac# e+er s#all aintain #is e+ers#ip until t#e sae is terinated

on an' o% t#e (rounds set %ort# in t#e &'-Laws o% t#e Inte(rated &ar, or #e trans%ers #is

e+ers#ip to anot#er C#apter as certied +' t#e Secretar' o% t#e latter, pro0ided t#at t#e

trans%er is ade not less t#an t#ree ont#s iediatel' precedin( an' C#apter election.

8#e onl' condition re*uired under t#e %ore(oin( rule is t#at t#e trans%er ust +e ade

not less t#an t#ree ont#s prior to t#e election o% ocers in t#e c#apter to w#ic# t#e law'er

wis#es to trans%er.

In t#e case at +ar, respondent De Vera re*uested t#e trans%er o% #is I&) e+ers#ip to

$(usan del Sur on 1 $u(ust 441. One ont# t#erea%ter, I&) National Secretar' Jaie .

Vi+ar wrote a letter3>addressed to $tt'. $ador R. 8olentino, Jr., Secretar' o% I&) ))LC#apter and $tt'. L'ndon J.


65/102

8#ere is not#in( in t#e &'-Laws w#ic# e;plicitl' pro0ides t#at one ust +e orall' t

+e%ore #e can run %or I&) (o0ernors#ip. or one, t#is is so +ecause t#e deterination o%

oral tness o% a candidates lies in t#e indi0idual =ud(ent o% t#e e+ers o% t#e ouse o%

Dele(ates. Indeed, +ased on eac# e+er6s standard o% oralit', #e is %ree to noinate

and elect an' e+er, so lon( as t#e latter possesses t#e +asic re*uireents under t#e law.

or anot#er, +asicall' t#e dis*ualication o% a candidate in0ol0in( lac o% oral tness

s#ould eanate %ro #is dis+arent or suspension %ro t#e practice o% law +' t#is Court, or

con0iction +' nal =ud(ent o% an oGense w#ic# in0ol0es oral turpitude.

)etitioners, in assailin( t#e oralit' o% respondent De Vera on t#e +asis o% t#e alle(ed

sanction iposed +' t#e Supree Court durin( t#e deli+eration on t#e constitutionalit' o%

t#e plunder law, is apparentl' re%errin( to t#is Court6s Decision dated 9 Jul' 44 in 3n &e

Pu$lished Alleed (hreats Aainst Mem$ers of the Court in the Plunder :aw Case %urled $y

Atty. :eonard De !era.1In t#is case, respondent De Vera was %ound (uilt' o% indirect

contept o% court and was iposed a ne in t#e aount o% 8went' 8#ousand )esos

)4,444.44 %or #is rears contained in two newspaper articles pu+lis#ed in

t#e 3nKuirer. uoted #ereunder are t#e pertinent portions o% t#e report, wit# De Vera6s

stateents written in italics.

)ILI))INE D$IL IN?Ied the 8upreme Court to dispel rumors that it would vote in favor of a petition

5led $y #stradas lawyers to declare the plunder law unconstitutional for its supposedvaueness.

De Vera said #e and #is (roup were /(reatl' distur+ed5 +' t#e ruors %ro Supree Court

insiders.

44 illion slus# %und %ro t#e a+orted power (ra+ t#at a'-will

ost liel' result in a pro-Estrada decision declarin( t#e )lunder Law eit#er unconstitutional

or 0a(ue,5 t#e (roup said.@

)ILI))INE D$IL IN?I


66/102

SC under pressure %ro Erap pals, %oes

P;;

/)eople are (ettin( dan(erousl', passionate.. .eotionall' c#ar(ed.5 said law'er Leonard De

Vera o% t#e E*ual Justice %or $ll o0eent and a leadin( e+er o% t#e Estrada


67/102

Cali%ornia Supree Court ndin( #i (uilt' o% t#e c#ar(e. e surrendered #is license to

protest t#e discriination #e suGered at t#e #ands o% t#e in0esti(ator and #e %ound it

ipractical to pursue t#e case to t#e end. e nd t#ese e;planations satis%actor' in t#e

a+sence o% contrar' proo%. It is a +asic rule on e0idence t#at #e w#o alle(es a %act #as t#e

+urden to pro0e t#e sae.>1In t#is case, t#e petitioners #a0e not s#own #ow t#eadinistrati0e coplaint aGects respondent De Vera6s oral tness to run %or (o0ernor.

inall', on t#e alle(ation t#at respondent de Vera or #is #andlers #ad #oused t#e

dele(ates %ro Eastern indanao in t#e Centur' )ar otel to (et t#eir support %or #is

candidac', a(ain petitioners did not present an' proo% to su+stantiate t#e sae. It ust +e

ep#asiBed t#at +are alle(ations, unsu+stantiated +' e0idence, are not e*ui0alent to proo%

under our

EREORE, t#e Petition to dis*uali%' respondent $tt'. Leonard De Vera to run %or t#eposition o% I&) Ao0ernor %or Eastern indanao in t#e 12t# election o% t#e I&) &oard o%

Ao0ernors is #ere+' DISISSED. 8#e (emporary &estrainin rder issued +' t#is Court on 34

a' 443 w#ic# en=oined t#e conduct o% t#e election %or t#e I&) 7 in

connection wit# t#e illin( o% anuel onro' w#ic# too place on June 1>, 19>3 in )asa'

Cit'. 8o +etter understand t#e present case and its iplications, t#e %ollowin( %acts (at#ered

%ro t#e pleadin(s and t#e eoranda led +' t#e parties, a' +e stated.

ollowin( t#e illin( o% anuel onro' in 19>3 a nu+er o% persons were accused as

in0ol0ed and iplicated in said crie. $%ter a lon( trial, t#e Court o% irst Instance o% )asa'

Cit' %ound Oscar Castelo, Jose de Jesus, ipolito &oni%acio, &ien0enido endoBa, rancis

&erdu(o and ot#ers (uilt' o% t#e crie o% urder and sentenced t#e to deat#. 8#e' all

appealed t#e sentence alt#ou(# wit#out said appeal, in 0iew o% t#e iposition o% t#e

e;tree penalt', t#e case would #a0e to +e re0iewed autoaticall' +' t#is Court. Oscar

Castelo sou(#t a new trial w#ic# was (ranted and upon retrial, #e was a(ain %ound (uilt'

and #is %orer con0iction o% sentence was ared and reiterated +' t#e sae trial court.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2003/dec2003/ac_6052.htm#_ftn52


68/102

It sees t#at pendin( appeal, t#e late )resident a(sa'sa' ordered a rein0esti(ation o% t#e

case. 8#e purpose o% said rein0esti(ation does not appear in t#e record. $n'wa',

intelli(ence a(ents o% t#e )#ilippine Consta+ular' and in0esti(ators o% alacaUan(

conducted t#e in0esti(ation %or t#e C#ie% E;ecuti0e, *uestioned a nu+er o% people and

o+tained w#at would appear to +e con%ession, pointin( to persons, ot#er t#an t#ose

con0icted and sentenced +' t#e trial court, as t#e real illers o% anuel onro'.

Counsel %or Oscar Castelo and #is co-de%endants wrote to respondent iscal Sal0a to conduct

a rein0esti(ation o% t#e case presua+l' on t#e +asis o% t#e ada0its and con%essions

o+tained +' t#ose w#o #ad in0esti(ated t#e case at t#e instance o% alacaUan(. iscal Sal0a

con%erred wit# t#e Solicitor Aeneral as to w#at steps #e s#ould tae. $ con%erence was #eld

wit# t#e Secretar' o% Justice w#o decided to #a0e t#e results o% t#e in0esti(ation +' t#e

)#ilippine Consta+ular' and alacaUan( in0esti(ators ade a0aila+le to counsel %or t#e

appellants.

8ain( ad0anta(e o% t#is opportunit', counsel %or t#e appellants led a otion %or new trial

wit# t#is 8ri+unal supportin( t#e sae wit# t#e so-called ada0its and con%essions o% soe

o% t#ose persons in0esti(ated, suc# as t#e con%essions o% Ser(io Eduardo ' de AuBan,Oscar Ca'o, )a+lo Canlas, and written stateents o% se0eral ot#ers. &' resolution o% t#is

8ri+unal, action on said otion %or new trial was de%erred until t#e case was studied and

deterined on t#e erits. In t#e eantie, t#e C#ie%, )#ilippine Consta+ular', #ead sent to

t#e Oce o% iscal Sal0a copies o% t#e sae ada0its and con%essions and written

stateents, o% w#ic# t#e otion %or new trial was +ased, and respondent Sal0a proceeded to

conduct a rein0esti(ation desi(natin( %or said purposes a coittee o% t#ree coposed o%

#isel% as c#airan and $ssistant Cit' $ttorne's erinio $. $0endaUio and Ernesto $.

&erna+e.

In connection wit# said preliinar' in0esti(ation +ein( conducted +' t#e coittee,

petitioner 8ioteo CruB was su+poenaed +' respondent to appear at #is oce onSepte+er 1, 19>7, to testi%' upon oat# +e%ore e in a certain criinal in0esti(ation to +e

conducted at t#e tie and place +' t#is oce a(ainst 'ou and Ser(io Eduardo, et al., %or

urder. On Septe+er 19, 19>7, petitioner 8ioteo CruB wrote to respondent Sal0a asin(

%or t#e trans%er o% t#e preliinar' in0esti(ation %ro Septe+er 1, due to t#e %act t#at t#is

counsel, $tt'. Crispin &aiBas, would attend a #earin( on t#at sae da' in Na(a Cit'. $ctin(

upon said re*uest %or postponeent, iscal Sal0a set t#e preliinar' in0esti(ation on

Septe+er @. On t#at da', $tt'. &aiBas appeared %or petitioner CruB, *uestioned t#e

=urisdiction o% t#e coittee, particularl' respondent Sal0a, to conduct t#e preliinar'

in0esti(ation in 0iew o% t#e %act t#at t#e sae case in0ol0in( t#e illin( o% anuel onro'

was pendin( appeal in t#is Court, and on t#e sae da' led t#e present petition %or

certiorari and pro#i+ition. 8#is 8ri+unal (a0e due course to t#e petition %or certiorari and

pro#i+ition and upon t#e lin( o% a cas# +ond o% )44.44 issued a writ o% preliinar'in=unction t#ere+' stoppin( t#e preliinar' in0esti(ation +ein( conducted +' respondent

Sal0a.

8#e connection, i% an', t#at petitioner CruB #ad wit# t#e preliinar' in0esti(ation +ein(

conducted +' respondent Sal0a and #is coittee was t#at ada0its and con%essions sent

to Sal0a +' t#e C#ie%, )#ilippine Consta+ular', and w#ic# were +ein( in0esti(ated,


69/102

iplicated petitioner CruB, e0en picturin( #i as t#e insti(ator and asterind in t#e illin(

o% anuel onro'.

8#e position taen +' petitioner CruB in t#is case is t#at inasuc# as t#e principal case

o% People vs. scar Castelo, et al., A.


70/102

#ad sc#eduled t#e #earin( at an earl' date, t#at is in $u(ust, 19>7. >2

it# respect to t#e ri(#t o% respondent Sal0a to cite petitioner to appear and testi%' +e%ore

#i at t#e sc#eduled preliinar' in0esti(ation, under t#e law, petitioner #ad a ri(#t to +e

present at t#at in0esti(ation since as was alread' stated, #e was ore or less deepl'

in0ol0ed and iplicated in t#e illin( o% onro' accordin( to t#e aants w#ose con%essions,

ada0its and testionies respondent Sal0a was considerin( or was to consider at said

preliinar' in0esti(ation. &ut #e need not +e present at said in0esti(ation +ecause #is

presence t#ere iplies, and was ore o% a ri(#t rat#er t#an a dut' or le(al o+li(ation.

Conse*uentl', e0en i%, as claied +' respondent Sal0a, petitioner e;pressed t#e desire to +e(i0en an opportunit' to +e present at t#e said in0esti(ation, i% #e latter c#an(ed #is ind

and renounced #is ri(#t, and e0en strenuousl' o+=ected to +ein( ade to appear at said

in0esti(ation, #e could not +e copelled to do so.

Now we coe to t#e anner in w#ic# said in0esti(ation was conducted +' t#e respondent.

I%, as contended +' #i, t#e purpose o% said in0esti(ation was onl' to ac*uaint #isel% wit#

and e0aluate t#e e0idence in0ol0ed in t#e ada0its and con%essions o% Ser(io Eduardo,


71/102

Cose Cao and ot#ers +' *uestionin( t#e, t#en #e, respondent, could well #a0e

conducted t#e in0esti(ation in #is oce, *uietl', uno+trusi0el' and wit#out uc# %an%are,

uc# less pu+licit'.

owe0er, accordin( to t#e petitioner and not denied +' t#e respondent, t#e in0esti(ation

was conducted not in respondentTs oce +ut in t#e session #all o% t#e unicipal Court o%

)asa' Cit' e0identl', to accoodate t#e +i( crowd t#at wanted to witness t#e proceedin(,

includin( e+ers o% t#e press. $ nu+er o% icrop#ones were installed.


72/102

Soe o% t#e e+ers o% t#e Court w#o appeared to %eel ore stron(l' t#an t#e ot#ers

%a0ored t#e iposition o% a ore or less se0ere penal sanction. $%ter ature deli+eration, we

#a0e nall' a(reed t#at a pu+lic censure would, %or t#e present, +e sucient.

In conclusion, we nd and #old t#at respondent Sal0a was warranted in #oldin( t#e

preliinar' in0esti(ation in0ol0ed in t#is case, inso%ar as Sal0ador ar, 'r. for

respondents.

CASTRO,J.:

8#is case presents anot#er aspect o% t#e court-artial proceedin(s a(ainst t#e petitioner,

a=or Eduardo artelino, alias $+dul Lati% artelino, o% t#e $red orces o% t#e )#ilippines,

and t#e ocers and en under #i, %or 0iolation o% t#e 9@t# and 97t# $rticles o% ar, as a

result o% t#e alle(ed s#ootin( on arc# 1F, 192F o% soe usli recruits t#en under(oin(

coando trainin( on t#e island o% Corre(idor. Once +e%ore t#e *uestion was raised +e%ore

t#is Court w#et#er t#e (eneral court-artial, con0ened on $pril 2, 192F to tr' t#e case

a(ainst t#e petitioners, ac*uired =urisdiction o0er t#e case despite t#e %act t#at earlier, on

arc# 3, a coplaint %or %rustrated urder #ad +een led in t#e scalTs oce o% Ca0ite Cit'

+' Ji+in $rula w#o claied to #a0e +een wounded in t#e incident a(ainst soe o% t#e


73/102

#erein petitioners. 8#e proceedin(s #ad to +e suspended until t#e =urisdiction issue could +e

decided. On June 3, 1929 t#is Court ruled in %a0or o% t#e =urisdiction o% t#e ilitar' court.9

8#e =urisdiction *uestion t#us settled, attention once a(ain s#i%ted to t#e (eneral court-

artial, +ut no sooner #ad t#e proceedin(s resued t#an anot#er #itc# de0eloped. 8#is

cae a+out as t#e petitioners, t#e accused in t#e court-artial proceedin(s, in turn cae to

t#is Court, seein( relie% a(ainst certain orders o% t#e (eneral court-artial.

It appears t#at at t#e #earin( on $u(ust 1, 1929 t#e petitioner artelino sou(#t t#e

dis*ualication o% t#e )resident o% t#e (eneral court-artial, %ollowin( t#e latterTs adission

t#at #e read newspaper stories o% t#e Corre(idor incident. 8#e petitioner contended t#at t#e

case #ad recei0ed suc# an aount o% pu+licit' in t#e press and ot#er news edia and in %act

was +ein( e;ploited %or political purposes in connection wit# t#e presidential election on

No0e+er 11, 1929 as to iperil #is ri(#t to a %air trial. $%ter deli+eratin(, t#e ilitar' court

denied t#e c#allen(e.

8#erea%ter t#e petitioners raised pereptor' c#allen(es a(ainst Col. $le=andro, as president

o% t#e court-artial, and Col. Olndo, Lt. Col. Caa(a', Lt. Col. Valones, Lt. Col. &lanco andCol. ali(, as e+ers. it# re(ard to pereptor' c#allen(es it was t#e petitionersT

position t#at %or eac# specication eac# accused was entitled to one suc# c#allen(e. 8#e'

later c#an(ed t#eir stand and adopted t#at o% t#e trial =ud(e ad0ocate t#at %or eac#

specication =ointl' tried, all o% t#e accused are entitled to onl' 1 pereptor' c#allen(eK and

t#at wit# respect to t#e specications tried coonl', eac# one o% t#e accused is entitled to

one pereptor' c#allen(e. 8#e' t#ere contended t#at t#e' were entitled to a total o%

ele0en pereptor' c#allen(es. On t#e ot#er #and t#e court-artial ruled t#at t#e accused

were entitled to onl' one pereptor' c#allen(e as t#e specications were +ein( =ointl' tried.

8#e petitioners t#ere%ore led t#is petition %or certiorari and pro#i+ition, to nulli%' t#e orders

o% t#e court-artial den'in( t#eir c#allen(es, +ot# pereptor' and %or cause. 8#e' alle(et#at t#e ad0erse pu+licit' (i0en in t#e ass edia to t#e Corre(idor incident, coupled wit#

t#e %act t#at it +ecae an issue a(ainst t#e adinistration in t#e 1929 elections, was suc#

as to undul' in:uence t#e e+ers o% t#e court-artial. it# respect to pereptor'

c#allen(es, t#e' contend t#at t#e' are entitled to ele0en suc# c#allen(es, one %or eac#

specication.

On $u(ust 9, 1929 t#is Court (a0e due course to t#e petition, re*uired t#e respondents as

e+ers o% t#e (eneral court-artial to answer and, in t#e eantie, restrained t#e %ro

proceedin( wit# t#e case.

In t#eir answer t#e respondents assert t#at despite t#e pu+licit' w#ic# t#e case #ad

recei0ed, no proo% #as +een presented s#owin( t#at t#e court-artialTs presidentTs %airness

and ipartialit' #a0e +een ipaired. On t#e contrar', t#e' clai, t#e petitionerTs own

counsel e;pressed condence in t#e inte(rit', e;perience and +ac(round o% t#e e+ers

o% t#e court. $s a preliinar' consideration, t#e respondents ur(e t#is Court to t#row out t#e

petition on t#e (round t#at it #as no power to re0iew t#e proceedin(s o% t#e court-artial,

e;cept %or t#e purpose o% ascertainin( w#et#er t#e ilitar' court #ad =urisdiction o% t#e

person and su+=ect atter, and w#et#er, t#ou(# #a0in( suc# =urisdiction, it #ad e;ceeded its


74/102

powers in t#e sentence pronounced, and t#at at an' rate t#e petitioners %ailed to e;#aust

reedies a0aila+le to t#e wit#in t#e ilitar' =ustice s'ste.

I

It is true t#at ci0il courts as a rule e;ercise no super0ision or correctin( power o0er t#e

proceedin(s o% courts-artial, and t#at ere errors in t#eir proceedin(s are not open to

consideration. 8#e sin(le in*uir', t#e test, is =urisdiction.2&ut it is e*uall' true t#at in t#ee;ercise o% t#eir undou+ted discretion, courts-artial a' coit suc# an a+use o%

discretion ] w#at in t#e lan(ua(e o% is re%erred to as (ra0e a+use o% discretion ]

as to (i0e rise to a de%ect in t#eir =urisdiction.8#is is precisel' t#e point at issue in t#isaction su((ested +' its nature as one %or certiorari and pro#i+ition, nael', w#et#er in

o0errulin( t#e petitionersT c#allen(es, t#e (eneral court-artial coitted suc# an a+use o%

discretion as to call %or t#e e;ercise o% t#e correcti0e powers o% t#is Court. It is t#us o+0ious

t#at no ot#er wa' is open to t#is Court +' w#ic# it a' a0oid passin( upon t#e constitutional

issue t#rust upon it. Nor will t#e %act t#at t#ere a' +e a0aila+le reedies wit#in t#e s'ste

o% ilitar' =ustice +ar re0iew considerin( t#at t#e *uestions raised are *uestions o% law. 4

$nd so t#e t#res#old *uestion is w#et#er t#e pu+licit' (i0en to t#e case a(ainst t#e

petitioners was suc# as to pre=udice t#eir ri(#t to a %air trial. $s alread' stated, t#e petitioner

artelino c#allen(ed t#e court-artial president on t#e (round t#at newspaper accounts o%

w#at #ad coe to +e re%erred to as t#e Corre(idor assacre i(#t undul' in:uence t#e

trial o% t#eir case. 8#e petitionerTs counsel re%erred to a news ite appearin( in t#e Jul' 9,

1929 issue o% t#e Daily Mirror and cited ot#er news reports to t#e eGect t#at cons are

+ein( prepared %or t#e )resident o% t#e )#ilippines in Jolo, t#at accordin( to Senator

$*uino assacre 0ictis were (i0en sea +urial, and t#at Senator a(sa'sa', opposition

Vice )resident candidate, #ad (one to Corre(idor and %ound +ullet s#ells. In addition t#e

petitioners cite in t#is Court a Manila (imes editorial o% $u(ust 2, 1929 w#ic# states t#at

8#e Ja+ida# !code nae o% t#e trainin( operations" issue was +ound to coe up in t#ecourse o% t#e election capai(n. 8#e opposition could not possi+l' i(nore an issue t#at is

#ea0il' loaded a(ainst t#e adinistration. 8#e petitioners ar(ue t#at under t#e

circustances t#e' could not e;pect a =ust and %air trial and t#at, in o0errulin( t#eir

c#allen(e %or cause +ased on t#is (round, t#e (eneral court-artial coitted a (ra0e

a+use o% discretion. In support o% t#eir contention t#e' in0oe t#e rulin(s o% t#e ?nited

States Supree Court in 3rvin v. Dowd,:&ideau vs. :ouisiana,6#stes v. (e*as,7and 8hepardv. Ma*well.8

$n e;aination o% t#e cases cited, #owe0er, will s#ow t#at t#e' are widel' disparate %ro

t#is case in a %undaental sense. In Ir0in, %or instance, t#e Supree Court %ound t#at s#ortl'

a%ter t#e petitionerTs arrest in connection wit# si; urders coitted in Vander+ur(#

Count', Indiana, t#e prosecutor and police ocials issued press releases statin( t#at t#epetitioner #ad con%essed to t#e si; urders and t#at a +arra(e o% newspaper #eadlines

articles, cartoons and pictures was unleas#ed a(ainst #i durin( t#e si; or se0en ont#s

precedin( #is trial. In re0ersin( #is con0iction, t#e Court said

ere t#e pattern o% deep and +itter pre=udiceT s#own to +e present

t#rou(#out t#e counit', ... was clearl' re:ected in t#e su total o% t#e voir

dire e;aination o% a a=orit' o% t#e =urors nall' placed in t#e =ur' +o;. Ei(#t


75/102

out o% t#e 1 t#ou(#t petitioner was (uilt'. it# suc# an opinion pereatin(

t#eir inds, it would +e dicult to sa' t#at eac# could e;clude t#is

preconception o% (uilt %ro #is deli+erations. 8#e in:uence t#at lurs in an

opinion once %ored is so persistent t#at it unconsciousl' (#ts detac#ent

%ro t#e processes o% t#e a0era(e an. ... #ere oneTs li%e is at stae ] and

accountin( %or t#e %railties o% #uan nature ] we can onl' sa' t#at in t#e

li(#t o% t#e circustances #ere t#e ndin( o% ipartialit' does not eet t#e

constitutional standard.=

3rvin ars t#e rst tie a state con0iction was struc down solel' on t#e (round o%

pre=udicial pu+licit'. 90 In t#e earlier case o% 8hepherd v. +lorida, 99 w#ic# in0ol0edeleents o% pu+licit', t#e re0ersal o% t#e con0iction was +ased solel' on racial discriination

in t#e selection o% t#e =ur', alt#ou(# to concurrin( Justice Jacson, w#o was =oined +' Justice

ran%urter, It is #ard to ia(ine a ore pre=udicial in:uence t#an a press release +' t#e

ocer o% t#e court c#ar(ed wit# de%endantsT custod' statin( t#at t#e' #ad con%essed, and

#ere =ust suc# a stateent unsworn to, unseen, uncross-e;ained and uncontradicted, was

con0e'ed +' t#e press to t#e =ur'. 92

In &ideau, t#e petitioner, suspect in t#e ro++er' o% a +an in Lae C#arles, Louisiana and in

t#e idnappin( o% t#ree o% its eplo'ees, and in t#e illin( o% one o% t#e, was siilarl'

(i0en trial +' pu+licit'. 8#us, t#e da' a%ter #is arrest, a o0in( picture l was taen o%

#i in an inter0iew wit# t#e s#eriG. 8#e inter0iew, w#ic# lasted appro;iatel' 4

inutes, consisted o% interro(ation +' t#e s#eriG and adission +'


76/102

in w#ic# a s#owin( o% actual pre=udice is not a prere*uisite to re0ersal. 8#is is

suc# a case. It is true t#at in ost cases in0ol0in( clais o% due process

depri0ations we re*uire a s#owin( o% identia+le pre=udice to t#e accused.

Ne0ert#eless, at ties a procedure eplo'ed +' t#e State in0ol0es suc# a

pro+a+ilit' t#at pre=udice will result t#at it is in#erentl' lacin( in due

process. 94

In 8heppard, t#e cele+rated urder case o% Sa S#eppard, w#o was accused o% t#e urder

o% #is wi%e aril'n, t#e Supree Court o+ser0ed a carni0al atosp#ere in w#ic# +edla

rei(ned at t#e court#ouse ... and newsen too o0er practicall' t#e entire courtroo,

#oundin( ost o% t#e participants in t#e trial, especiall' S#eppard. It o+ser0ed t#at despite

t#e e;tent and nature o% t#e pu+licit' to w#ic# t#e =ur' was e;posed durin( t#e trial, t#e

=ud(e re%used de%ense counselTs ot#er re*uests t#at t#e =ur' +e ased w#et#er t#e' #ad

read or #eard specic pre=udicial coent a+out t#e case. ... In t#ese circustances, we

assue t#at soe o% t#is aterial reac#ed e+ers o% t#e =ur'. 8#e Court #eld

ro t#e cases coin( #ere we note t#at un%air and pre=udicial news

coent on pendin( trials #as +ecoe increasin(l' pre0alent. Due processre*uires t#at t#e accused recei0e a trial +' an ipartial =ur' %ree %ro outside

in:uences. Ai0en t#e per0asi0eness o% odern counications and t#e

dicult' o% eGacin( pre=udicial pu+licit' %ro t#e inds o% t#e =urors, t#e trial

courts ust tae stron( easures to ensure t#at t#e +alance is ne0er wei(#ed

a(ainst t#e accused. $nd appellate tri+unals #a0e t#e dut' to ae an

independent e0aluation o% t#e circustances. O% course, t#ere is not#in( t#at

proscri+es t#e press %ro reportin( e0ents t#at transpire in t#e courtroo. &ut

w#ere t#ere is a reasona+le lieli#ood t#at pre=udicial news prior to trial will

pre0ent a %air trial, t#e =ud(e s#ould continue t#e case until t#e t#reat a+ates,

or trans%er it to anot#er count' not so pereated wit# pu+licit'. In addition

se*uestration o% t#e =ur' was soet#in( t#e =ud(e s#ould #a0e suasponte wit# counsel. I% pu+licit' durin( t#e proceedin( t#reatens t#e %airness

o% t#e trial, a new trial s#ould +e ordered. &ut we ust ree+er t#at

re0ersals are +ut palliati0esK t#e cure lies in t#ose reedial easures t#at will

pre0ent t#e pre=udice at its inception. 8#e courts ust tae suc# steps +' rule

and re(ulation t#at will protect t#eir processes %ro pre=udicial outside

inter%erence. Neit#er prosecutors, counsel %or de%ense, t#e accused,

witnesses, court staG nor en%orceent ocers coin( under t#e =urisdiction

o% t#e court s#ould +e peritted to %rustrate its %unction. Colla+oration

+etween counsel and t#e press as to in%oration aGectin( t#e %airness o% a

criinal trial is not onl' su+=ect to re(ulation, +ut is #i(#l' censura+le and

wort#' o% disciplinar' easure. 9:

In contrast t#e spate o% pu+licit' in t#is case +e%ore us did not %ocus on t#e (uilt o% t#e

petitioners +ut rat#er on t#e responsi+ilit' o% t#e Ao0ernent %or w#at was claied to +e a

assacre o% usli trainees. I% t#ere was a trial +' newspaper at all, it was not o% t#e

petitioners +ut o% t#e Ao0ernent. $+sent #ere is a s#owin( o% %ailure o% t#e court-artial to

protect t#e accused %ro assi0e pu+licit' encoura(ed +' t#ose connected wit# t#e

conduct o% t#e trial 96 eit#er +' a %ailure to control t#e release o% in%oration or to reo0et#e trial to anot#er 0enue or to postpone it until t#e delu(e o% pre=udicial pu+licit' s#all #a0e


77/102

su+sided. Indeed we cannot sa' t#at t#e trial o% t#e petitioners was +ein( #eld under

circustances w#ic# did not perit t#e o+ser0ance o% t#ose iperati0e decencies o%

procedure w#ic# #a0e coe to +e identied wit# due process.

$t all e0ents, e0en (rantin( t#e e;istence o% assi0e and pre=udicial pu+licit', since t#e

petitioners #ere do not contend t#at t#e respondents #a0e +een undul' in:uenced +ut

sipl' t#at t#e' i(#t +e +' t#e +arra(e o% pu+licit', we t#in t#at t#e suspension o% t#e

court-artial proceedin(s #as accoplis#ed t#e purpose sou(#t +' t#e petitionersT

c#allen(e %or cause, +' postponin( t#e trial o% t#e petitioner until caler ties #a0e

returned. 8#e atosp#ere #as since +een cleared and t#e pu+licit' surroundin( t#e

Corre(idor incident #as so %ar a+ated t#at we +elie0e t#e trial a' now +e resued in

tran*uilit'.

II

$rticle o% ar 1F pro0ides t#at Eac# side s#all +e entitled to one pereptor' c#allen(e, +ut

t#e law e+er o% t#e court s#all not +e c#allen(ed e;cept %or cause. 8#e (eneral court-

artial ori(inall' interpreted t#is pro0ision to ean t#at t#e entire de%ense was entitledto only one pereptor' c#allen(e. Su+se*uentl', on $u(ust 7, 1929, it c#an(ed its rulin(

and #eld t#at t#e de%ense was entitled to eiht pereptor' c#allen(es, +ut t#e petitioners

declined to e;ercise t#eir ri(#t to c#allen(e on t#e (round t#at t#is Court #ad earlier

restrained %urt#er proceedin(s in t#e court-artial.

It is t#e su+ission o% t#e petitioners t#at %or e0er' c#ar(e, eac# side a' e;ercise one

pereptor' c#allen(e, and t#ere%ore +ecause t#ere are ele0en c#ar(es t#e' are entitled to

ele0en separate pereptor' c#allen(es. 8#e respondents, upon t#e ot#er #and, ar(ue t#at

%or eac# specication =ointl' tried, all o% t#e accused are entitled to onl' one pereptor'

c#allen(e and t#at wit# respect to specications tried coonl' eac# o% t#e accused is

entitled to one pereptor' c#allen(e. $lt#ou(# t#ere are actuall' a total o% ele0enspecications a(ainst t#e petitioners, t#ree o% t#ese s#ould +e considered as er(ed wit#

two ot#er specications, since in %act t#e' alle(e t#e sae oGenses coitted in

conspirac', t#us lea0in( a +alance o% ei(#t specications. 8#e (eneral court-artial t#ereo%

taes t#e position t#at all t#e 3 petitioners are entitled to a total o% onl' ei(#t pereptor'

c#allen(es.

e t#us inescapa+l' con%ront, and t#ere%ore now address, t#e issue #ere posed.

e are o% t#e 0iew t#at +ot# t#e petitioners and t#e (eneral court-artial isappre#end t#e

true eanin(, intent and scope o% $rticle o% ar 1F. $s will #ereina%ter +e

deonstrated, each o% t#e petitioners is entitled as a atter o% ri(#t to one pereptor'

c#allen(e. 8#e nu+er o% specications andHor c#ar(es, and w#et#er t#e accused are +ein(

=ointl' tried or under(oin( a coon trial, are o% no oent.

In t#e earl' %orati0e 'ears o% t#e in%ant )#ilippine $r', a%ter t#e passa(e in 193> o%

Coonwealt# $ct No. 1 ot#erwise nown as t#e National De%ense $ct, e;cept %or a

#and%ul o% )#ilippine Scout ocers and (raduates o% t#e ?nited States ilitar' and na0al

acadeies w#o were on dut' wit# t#e )#ilippine $r', t#ere was a coplete deart# o%

ocers learned in ilitar' law, t#is aside %ro t#e %act t#at t#e ocer corps o% t#e


78/102

de0elopin( ar' was nuericall' inade*uate %or t#e deands o% t#e strictl' ilitar' aspects

o% t#e national de%ense pro(ra. &ecause o% t#ese considerations it was t#e

Date post:	22-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pamelamariepatawaran
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

Ethics assigned cases

Documents