August 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > August 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-132-CA-J : August 26, 2008] ALMABELLA E. SALVADOR V. JUSTICE RAMON M. BATO, JR., COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA :
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-132-CA-J : August 26, 2008]
ALMABELLA E. SALVADOR V. JUSTICE RAMON M. BATO, JR., COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 26, 2008
A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-132-CA-J (Almabella E. Salvador v. Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., Court of Appeals, Manila). This refers to the letter complaint dated July 8, 2008 addressed to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno from Almabella E. Salvador, surviving spouse of Antonio S. Salvador, charging Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Ramon Bato, Jr., with gross ignorance of the law and for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment relative to the case of "Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v. Antonio Salvador," CA-G.R. CV No. 87207.
Complainant alleged that she received a copy of the Resolution dated February 4, 2008 of the Special Sixth Division penned by respondent Justice Bato, the dispositive portion thereof reads:
Eventually, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement resulting in the dismissal of the civil case.
In December 2000, IBC-13 Hied an action to annul the Compromise Agreement on the ground that this was not endorsed to the PCGG which had acquired the property from Roberto Benedicto, and that after a thorough review by 1BC President Boots Anson Roa, there was no basis for Salvador's claims.
On January 8, 2001, claiming that he had complied with his obligations set forth in the Compromise Agreement, Salvador filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against IBC-13, seeking to recover the money allegedly due him. Said complaint was consolidated with the original case.
On September 16, 2003, Salvador tiled a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment alleging that the totality of his money claims is now P540,000,000.00 considering the increase in prices/rates. Subsequently, Salvador, alleging that there were no genuine issues in the 2 consolidated cases, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the trial court. Acting on the motion, the trial court ruled in favor of Salvador and ordered IBC-13 to pay ANTONIO SALVADOR the sum of: (1) Php540,000,000.00 representing the rounded monetized value of the 5,980 (out of 6,080) ainimes (sic) spots with 12% interest per annum thereon from the time of the filing of the complaint in January 2001 until fully paid; and (2) Php 100,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees."[2]
Consequently, IBC-13 appealed to the CA. On November 6, 2006, Salvador filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal with the CA. Thereafter, Antonio Salvador died and was substituted by his heirs.
On February 4, 2008, the CA, through Justice Ramon Bato, denied the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the Resolution dated June 5, 2008.
Aggrieved by the denial of their Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, herein complainant, wife of Antonio Salvador, claimed that respondent's resolutions were rendered with "manifest bias and partiality, gross ignorance of the law and jurisprudence'" and Justice Bato should be held administratively liable. She claims that there are valid grounds for the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal considering that IBC-13 has already succeeded in disposing its properties and they would be left holding an empty bag, so to speak. She faults Justice Bato for taking cognizance of the case when the petition filed by IBC-13 with the CA questioning the propriety of the summary judgment is a legal issue which must be raised before the SC.
In an indorsement dated July 16, 2008, Justice Bato was asked to comment on the administrative complaint and to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him as a lawyer pursuant to the Resolution dated September 17, 2002 in A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC.
At the outset, respondent points out that he is the only one being charged administratively when the resolutions were concurred in by the two other justices of the Special Sixth Division, namely, Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Arcangelka Romilla-Lontok.
Respondent disagrees with the complainant that CA-G.R. CV No. 87207 involves a purely legal issue only. There are mixed questions of fact and law, as clearly alleged in the appellant's brief and in the Complaint for Annulment of the Compromise Agreement, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The pleadings reveal the existence of fraud and mistake and absence of consideration in the execution of the Compromise Agreement sought to be annulled which necessarily require the reception of oral and documentary evidence, further, respondent points out that complainant is estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction after filing the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal with the CA. By seeking affirmative relief from the CA, Salvador cannot take an inconsistent position by questioning the court's jurisdiction.
He clarifies that the grant of the motion for execution pending appeal is discretionary upon the courts. In this case, he found no good reasons justifiable for discretionary execution. The amount of P540,000,000.00, considering that the original claim was only about P8,000,000.00, is rather questionable.
The administrative complaint is bereft of merit.
It must be stressed that as a matter of policy, the acts of magistrates in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. Me cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative - for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Indeed, judges or justices must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation or fear of sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions; and it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute, that Justices are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith.[3]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the administrative complaint filed against Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Velasco, J., on leave.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-132-CA-J (Almabella E. Salvador v. Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., Court of Appeals, Manila). This refers to the letter complaint dated July 8, 2008 addressed to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno from Almabella E. Salvador, surviving spouse of Antonio S. Salvador, charging Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Ramon Bato, Jr., with gross ignorance of the law and for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment relative to the case of "Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation v. Antonio Salvador," CA-G.R. CV No. 87207.
Complainant alleged that she received a copy of the Resolution dated February 4, 2008 of the Special Sixth Division penned by respondent Justice Bato, the dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby resolves to DENY Salvador's Motion for Execution Pending Appeal dated November 6, 2006, Motion to Dismiss dated June 21, 2007, and tBC-LVs Motion for Leave to Take Deposition of Witness - Jose Jalandoon dated October 1, 2007 for lack of merit. However, Salvador's Motion for Substitution of Heirs dated October 31, 20007 is GRANTED and the Heirs of Antonio Salvador named therein are hereby substituted as Appellees.As backgrounder, this administrative complaint stemmed from a civil suit filed by Antonio S. Salvador in February 1996 against IBC-13 before the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 88 (docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-43036), where he alleged that he had a contract with IBC-13 for the exhibition of his movie films and sought to recover: (1) P6,215,023.16 as remaining balance of purchase price plus interests for films sold to IBC-13; (2) P1,000,000.00 as moral damages; (3) P500,000.00 as actual and compensatory damages; (4) P500,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (5) P500,000.00 as attorney's fees.[1]
Eventually, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement resulting in the dismissal of the civil case.
In December 2000, IBC-13 Hied an action to annul the Compromise Agreement on the ground that this was not endorsed to the PCGG which had acquired the property from Roberto Benedicto, and that after a thorough review by 1BC President Boots Anson Roa, there was no basis for Salvador's claims.
On January 8, 2001, claiming that he had complied with his obligations set forth in the Compromise Agreement, Salvador filed a Complaint for Specific Performance against IBC-13, seeking to recover the money allegedly due him. Said complaint was consolidated with the original case.
On September 16, 2003, Salvador tiled a Motion for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Attachment alleging that the totality of his money claims is now P540,000,000.00 considering the increase in prices/rates. Subsequently, Salvador, alleging that there were no genuine issues in the 2 consolidated cases, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment which was granted by the trial court. Acting on the motion, the trial court ruled in favor of Salvador and ordered IBC-13 to pay ANTONIO SALVADOR the sum of: (1) Php540,000,000.00 representing the rounded monetized value of the 5,980 (out of 6,080) ainimes (sic) spots with 12% interest per annum thereon from the time of the filing of the complaint in January 2001 until fully paid; and (2) Php 100,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees."[2]
Consequently, IBC-13 appealed to the CA. On November 6, 2006, Salvador filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal with the CA. Thereafter, Antonio Salvador died and was substituted by his heirs.
On February 4, 2008, the CA, through Justice Ramon Bato, denied the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. The motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the Resolution dated June 5, 2008.
Aggrieved by the denial of their Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, herein complainant, wife of Antonio Salvador, claimed that respondent's resolutions were rendered with "manifest bias and partiality, gross ignorance of the law and jurisprudence'" and Justice Bato should be held administratively liable. She claims that there are valid grounds for the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal considering that IBC-13 has already succeeded in disposing its properties and they would be left holding an empty bag, so to speak. She faults Justice Bato for taking cognizance of the case when the petition filed by IBC-13 with the CA questioning the propriety of the summary judgment is a legal issue which must be raised before the SC.
In an indorsement dated July 16, 2008, Justice Bato was asked to comment on the administrative complaint and to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against him as a lawyer pursuant to the Resolution dated September 17, 2002 in A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC.
At the outset, respondent points out that he is the only one being charged administratively when the resolutions were concurred in by the two other justices of the Special Sixth Division, namely, Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Arcangelka Romilla-Lontok.
Respondent disagrees with the complainant that CA-G.R. CV No. 87207 involves a purely legal issue only. There are mixed questions of fact and law, as clearly alleged in the appellant's brief and in the Complaint for Annulment of the Compromise Agreement, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals. The pleadings reveal the existence of fraud and mistake and absence of consideration in the execution of the Compromise Agreement sought to be annulled which necessarily require the reception of oral and documentary evidence, further, respondent points out that complainant is estopped from questioning the court's jurisdiction after filing the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal with the CA. By seeking affirmative relief from the CA, Salvador cannot take an inconsistent position by questioning the court's jurisdiction.
He clarifies that the grant of the motion for execution pending appeal is discretionary upon the courts. In this case, he found no good reasons justifiable for discretionary execution. The amount of P540,000,000.00, considering that the original claim was only about P8,000,000.00, is rather questionable.
The administrative complaint is bereft of merit.
It must be stressed that as a matter of policy, the acts of magistrates in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. Me cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative - for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Indeed, judges or justices must be free to judge, without pressure or influence from external forces or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation or fear of sanctions for acts they may do and dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties and functions; and it is sound rule, which must be recognized independently of statute, that Justices are not generally liable for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good faith.[3]
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the administrative complaint filed against Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Velasco, J., on leave.
Very truly yours, | |
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA | |
Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
[1] CA Resolution, p. 2.
[2] Id. at 5.
[3] See In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, A.M. No. 93-7-696-0, February 21. 1995, 241 SCRA 405, 464-465.
