November 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 123346 : November 18, 2008] MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL. V. CLT REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.) ; G.R. NO. 134385 (ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, INC. V. HEIRS OF JOSE DIMSON, ETC., ET AL.) ; G.R. NO. 148767 (STO. NINO KAPITBAHAYAN ASSOCIATION, INC., V. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION):
[G.R. No. 123346 : November 18, 2008]
MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL. V. CLT REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.) ; G.R. NO. 134385 (ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, INC. V. HEIRS OF JOSE DIMSON, ETC., ET AL.) ; G.R. NO. 148767 (STO. NINO KAPITBAHAYAN ASSOCIATION, INC., V. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated November 18, 2008
" G.R. No. 123346 (Manotok Realty, Inc. et al. v. CLT Realty and Development Corporation, et al.); G.R. No. 134385 (Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. v. Heirs of Jose Dimson, etc., et al.); G.R. No. 148767 (Sto. Nino Kapitbahayan Association, Inc., v. CLT Realty Development Corporation).- This relatively incidental matter stemmed from an Urgent Omnibus Motion (Ask Leave in this Honorable Court to Quash/Amend and Set Aside the Resolution dated December 14, 2007) dated 3 June 2008 filed by Francisco Nieto, purportedly on his own behalf and on behalf of "the lawful and forced heirs" of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. That motion was resolved by this Court in a Resolution dated 15 July 2008 in this wise:
Nieto responded to this Resolution with an undated letter received by the Court on 11 September 2008, addressed to Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. He manifested therein that he "honestly believes under the maxim law (sic), without the least intention to any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE' and NOT CREATING HAVOC or ASSAILING (sic) the Highest Court of the land, since then to present(sic)." At the same time, Nieto devoted the bulk of his letter to reiterating his earlier arguments concerning the supposed continuing efficacy of Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 and how such fact should affect the disposition of these current petitions.
The Court, through a Resolution dated 23 September 2008 required Nieto to manifest whether he was willing to submit the indirect contempt citation for resolution based on his Omnibus Motion and the undated letter. In response, Nieto filed a 'Urgent Verified Manifestation As Nunc Pru Tune Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 dated April 25, Not (29), 1894, Presented by Movant-Intervenor's Don Fabian B. Castillo." Suffice it to say, nothing in that submission is directly responsive to the query posed by the Court to Nieto in its 23 September 2008 Resolution. Instead, this new submission again rehashes Nieto's arguments relating to Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136. Nonetheless, the Court deems it proper to resolve this pending incident at this juncture.
This is neither the first time nor the first case wherein Nieto had tried to intervene in a petition where he is not a party, invoking the very Titulo de Propriedad declared null and void in 1996. He attempted to do so in Firestone Ceramics v. CA [1], and was rebuffed by the Court in a Resolution dated 14 November 20002 [2] as his motion therein was filed only after the promulgation of the Court's decision on that petition on 2 September 1999, and also because the same Titulo de Propriedad he invoked then was the one declared null and void by the Court in 1996.
Prior to the promulgation of our decision in Intestate Estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro v. Court of Appeals,[3] the Court could well have indulged in arguments on the efficacy of Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136. But that title, the source of what the Court had called "the most fantastic land claim in the history of the Philippines," was declared null and void in Intestate Estate, and from that point on, it cannot receive any legal recognition from any court in the land. Just as much was pointed out to Nieto in our 1996 decision, in Firestone, and recently in our 15 July 2008 Resolution. Unfortunately, Nieto has seemingly cut off his ears to the rulings of the Court, as he persists in his exceedingly headstrong insistence on the continuing validity of his Titulo de Propriedad, which "appears to cover lands in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and Quezon; and such Metro Manila cities as Quezon City, Caloocan City, Pasay City, City of Pasig and City of Manila, thus affecting in general lands extending from Malolos, Bulacan to the City Hall of Quezon City and the land area between Dingalan Bay in the north and Tayabas Bay in the south,"[4]
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice party-litigants or their witnesses during litigation. It signifies not only a willful disregard of or disobedience to the court's orders, but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice.[5] Nieto's baseless insistence on relitigating a long-extinct case in subsequent cases where he is not a party works to distract the Court in its duties in the administration of justice. His continued invocation of the null and void Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 not only manifests his utter lack of respect for this Court and its final rulings, but evinces his steadfast defiance of the 1996 ruling of the Court declaring the nullity of said Titulo.
Nieto may go on thinking that the ruling is erroneous and the Court is powerless to change his mind. That is his privilege to a point. Thus, when he chooses to be obdurate such as when he insists on seeking any judicial relief arising from the voided title in any case that to him presents an opportunity for the nonce, then such conduct constitutes a brazen defiance of the Court and its long final decision for which he may be cited and punished for contempt of court.[6] The power to punish for contempt is inherent in ail courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice.[7]
Under Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. Under the circumstances, a fine of ten thousand pesos serves as the appropriate penalty for Nieto.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Francisco C. Nieto GUILTY of INDIRECT CONTEMPT and imposes on him a FINE of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00). The Court warns that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall merit a more severe penalty. "
" G.R. No. 123346 (Manotok Realty, Inc. et al. v. CLT Realty and Development Corporation, et al.); G.R. No. 134385 (Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Inc. v. Heirs of Jose Dimson, etc., et al.); G.R. No. 148767 (Sto. Nino Kapitbahayan Association, Inc., v. CLT Realty Development Corporation).- This relatively incidental matter stemmed from an Urgent Omnibus Motion (Ask Leave in this Honorable Court to Quash/Amend and Set Aside the Resolution dated December 14, 2007) dated 3 June 2008 filed by Francisco Nieto, purportedly on his own behalf and on behalf of "the lawful and forced heirs" of Don Mariano San Pedro y Esteban. That motion was resolved by this Court in a Resolution dated 15 July 2008 in this wise:
...[T]he Court RESOLVED to DENY the motion, which is patently without merit, since movant is not a party to these cases and the relief he seeks is premised on the continuing efficacy of the so-called Titido de Propriedad Numero 4136, which the Court had already declared null and void in the long-final decision in Intestate Estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103727 and 106496, 18 August 1996, 265 SCRA 732.
The Court further RESOLVED to REQUIRE movant Adm. Francisco C. Nieto to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution why he should not be found guilty of Indirect Contempt under Rule 71, Section 3(d). or for "any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice" by invoking the same Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 which the Court had long declared null and void in Intestate Estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro San Pedro v. Court of Appeals.
Nieto responded to this Resolution with an undated letter received by the Court on 11 September 2008, addressed to Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. He manifested therein that he "honestly believes under the maxim law (sic), without the least intention to any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the 'ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE' and NOT CREATING HAVOC or ASSAILING (sic) the Highest Court of the land, since then to present(sic)." At the same time, Nieto devoted the bulk of his letter to reiterating his earlier arguments concerning the supposed continuing efficacy of Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 and how such fact should affect the disposition of these current petitions.
The Court, through a Resolution dated 23 September 2008 required Nieto to manifest whether he was willing to submit the indirect contempt citation for resolution based on his Omnibus Motion and the undated letter. In response, Nieto filed a 'Urgent Verified Manifestation As Nunc Pru Tune Titulo de Propriedad No. 4136 dated April 25, Not (29), 1894, Presented by Movant-Intervenor's Don Fabian B. Castillo." Suffice it to say, nothing in that submission is directly responsive to the query posed by the Court to Nieto in its 23 September 2008 Resolution. Instead, this new submission again rehashes Nieto's arguments relating to Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136. Nonetheless, the Court deems it proper to resolve this pending incident at this juncture.
This is neither the first time nor the first case wherein Nieto had tried to intervene in a petition where he is not a party, invoking the very Titulo de Propriedad declared null and void in 1996. He attempted to do so in Firestone Ceramics v. CA [1], and was rebuffed by the Court in a Resolution dated 14 November 20002 [2] as his motion therein was filed only after the promulgation of the Court's decision on that petition on 2 September 1999, and also because the same Titulo de Propriedad he invoked then was the one declared null and void by the Court in 1996.
Prior to the promulgation of our decision in Intestate Estate of the late Don Mariano San Pedro v. Court of Appeals,[3] the Court could well have indulged in arguments on the efficacy of Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136. But that title, the source of what the Court had called "the most fantastic land claim in the history of the Philippines," was declared null and void in Intestate Estate, and from that point on, it cannot receive any legal recognition from any court in the land. Just as much was pointed out to Nieto in our 1996 decision, in Firestone, and recently in our 15 July 2008 Resolution. Unfortunately, Nieto has seemingly cut off his ears to the rulings of the Court, as he persists in his exceedingly headstrong insistence on the continuing validity of his Titulo de Propriedad, which "appears to cover lands in the provinces of Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and Quezon; and such Metro Manila cities as Quezon City, Caloocan City, Pasay City, City of Pasig and City of Manila, thus affecting in general lands extending from Malolos, Bulacan to the City Hall of Quezon City and the land area between Dingalan Bay in the north and Tayabas Bay in the south,"[4]
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or prejudice party-litigants or their witnesses during litigation. It signifies not only a willful disregard of or disobedience to the court's orders, but such conduct as tends to bring the authority of the court and the administration of law into disrepute or in some manner to impede the due administration of justice.[5] Nieto's baseless insistence on relitigating a long-extinct case in subsequent cases where he is not a party works to distract the Court in its duties in the administration of justice. His continued invocation of the null and void Titulo de Propriedad Numero 4136 not only manifests his utter lack of respect for this Court and its final rulings, but evinces his steadfast defiance of the 1996 ruling of the Court declaring the nullity of said Titulo.
Nieto may go on thinking that the ruling is erroneous and the Court is powerless to change his mind. That is his privilege to a point. Thus, when he chooses to be obdurate such as when he insists on seeking any judicial relief arising from the voided title in any case that to him presents an opportunity for the nonce, then such conduct constitutes a brazen defiance of the Court and its long final decision for which he may be cited and punished for contempt of court.[6] The power to punish for contempt is inherent in ail courts and is essential to the preservation of order in judicial proceedings and to the enforcement of judgments, orders, and mandates of the court, and consequently, to the due administration of justice.[7]
Under Section 7, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, indirect contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or both. Under the circumstances, a fine of ten thousand pesos serves as the appropriate penalty for Nieto.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Francisco C. Nieto GUILTY of INDIRECT CONTEMPT and imposes on him a FINE of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00). The Court warns that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall merit a more severe penalty. "
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VlLLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VlLLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] G.R. No. 127022.
[2] See http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/resolutions/ToC2000/..enbanc2000ENov127022.htm.
[3] G.R. Nos. J03727 and 106496, IS August 1996, 265 SCRA 732.
[4] ld. at 736.
[5] Regalado v. Go, G.R. No. 167988, 6 February 2007, 514 SCRA 616, 627,
[6] In a similar situation, the Court declared, "Meycauayan's continuing resistance to this Court's judgment is an affront to the Court and to the sovereign dignity with which it is clothed. Meycauayan's persistent attempts to raise issues long since laid to rest by a final and executory judgment of no less than the highest tribunal of the land constitute contumacious defiance of the authority of this Court and impede the speedy administration of justice." Heirs of Trinidad de Leon vda, de Roxas G.R.No. 138660, 5 February 2004,422 SCRA 101, 115.
[7] Ruiz v. Judge How, 459 Phil. 728, 738 (2003).
