January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 188807 : January 18, 2010] JUDGE VICENTE S. PULIDO, PETITIONER VS. HI-WOOD AGRI-INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ENGR. LEONARDO P. DIMACULANGAN, RESPONDENTS.:
[G.R. No. 188807 : January 18, 2010]
JUDGE VICENTE S. PULIDO, PETITIONER VS. HI-WOOD AGRI-INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ENGR. LEONARDO P. DIMACULANGAN, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 18 January 2010:
G.R. No. 188807 - JUDGE VICENTE S. PULIDO, petitioner -versus- HI-WOOD AGRI-INDUSTRIES, INC. and ENGR. LEONARDO P. DIMACULANGAN, respondents.
On August 4, 2009, the petitioner filed an "Urgent Petition to Declare Null and Void Ah Initio the Following: a) The Judgment of the CA dated May 18, 2006; and b) the Minute Resolutions of this Court dated January 21, 2008 and April 14, 2008, respectively, addressed to the Court En Banc."
On October 5, 2009, this Court (Second Division) issued a Resolution dismissing the Petition on the ground that a final and executory judgment of the Court is not appealable to the Court En Banc. We also directed Atty. Marcial Morfe Magsino, petitioner's counsel, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for filing the petition.
In light of the CA findings of gross negligence and misconduct against Atty. Napoleon Apostol (former counsel of Hi-wood Agri-Industries, the defendant before the RTC), the Court in the same Resolution determined to: (1) treat the CA finding as an administrative complaint against Atty. Napoleon L. Apostol, (2) direct the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to docket the complaint as a regular administrative matter, and (3) refer the case to the OBC for appropriate action.
On November 24, 2009, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider our Resolution of October 5, 2009, and to inhibit the Second Division from deciding the case. The petitioner reiterated his previous arguments stated in his petition that the January 21, 2008 and April 14, 2008 Resolutions of this Court are null and void for having been rendered in violation of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the doctrines of res judicata, hierarchy of courts, stare decisis and forum shopping, as well as of several Supreme Court decisions. The petitioner posited, too, that the Second Division has no jurisdiction to decide the case, and at the same time moved for its inhibition "to assure himself of fair and impartial judgment for his peace of mind."
After due consideration of the petitioner's motion and its prayers, and the COMPLIANCE dated November 23, 2009 filed by Atty. Marcial Morfe Magsino (stating that he merely assisted former Judge Vicente S. Pulido based on his interpretation of the facts and the law as relayed to him by the latter and that he had not done anything irregular or improper in assisting Judge Pulido), we are satisfied with the explanation and, accordingly, absolve Atty. Marcial Morfe Magsino from any liability for contempt of court.
In light of the CA findings of extrinsic fraud that has officially been brought to our attention, we direct the petitioner, former Judge Vicente S. Pulido, to explain within ten (10) days why no administrative charge for gross misconduct as a member of the bar should be lodged against him for his direct participation/complicity in the extrinsic fraud the CA found in CA-GR. SP No. 87889.
For lack of merit, we DENY the motion for reconsideration for the inhibition of the Second Division, and REITERATE our DENIAL of the motion to refer the case to the Court En Bane.
We hold in abeyance our action on the motion to reconsider our Resolution of October 5, 2009 dismissing the petition, until after former Judge Vicente S. Pulido shall have submitted his explanation.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 18th day of January, 2010.
G.R. No. 188807 - JUDGE VICENTE S. PULIDO, petitioner -versus- HI-WOOD AGRI-INDUSTRIES, INC. and ENGR. LEONARDO P. DIMACULANGAN, respondents.
On August 4, 2009, the petitioner filed an "Urgent Petition to Declare Null and Void Ah Initio the Following: a) The Judgment of the CA dated May 18, 2006; and b) the Minute Resolutions of this Court dated January 21, 2008 and April 14, 2008, respectively, addressed to the Court En Banc."
On October 5, 2009, this Court (Second Division) issued a Resolution dismissing the Petition on the ground that a final and executory judgment of the Court is not appealable to the Court En Banc. We also directed Atty. Marcial Morfe Magsino, petitioner's counsel, to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for filing the petition.
In light of the CA findings of gross negligence and misconduct against Atty. Napoleon Apostol (former counsel of Hi-wood Agri-Industries, the defendant before the RTC), the Court in the same Resolution determined to: (1) treat the CA finding as an administrative complaint against Atty. Napoleon L. Apostol, (2) direct the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to docket the complaint as a regular administrative matter, and (3) refer the case to the OBC for appropriate action.
On November 24, 2009, the petitioner filed a motion to reconsider our Resolution of October 5, 2009, and to inhibit the Second Division from deciding the case. The petitioner reiterated his previous arguments stated in his petition that the January 21, 2008 and April 14, 2008 Resolutions of this Court are null and void for having been rendered in violation of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court, the doctrines of res judicata, hierarchy of courts, stare decisis and forum shopping, as well as of several Supreme Court decisions. The petitioner posited, too, that the Second Division has no jurisdiction to decide the case, and at the same time moved for its inhibition "to assure himself of fair and impartial judgment for his peace of mind."
After due consideration of the petitioner's motion and its prayers, and the COMPLIANCE dated November 23, 2009 filed by Atty. Marcial Morfe Magsino (stating that he merely assisted former Judge Vicente S. Pulido based on his interpretation of the facts and the law as relayed to him by the latter and that he had not done anything irregular or improper in assisting Judge Pulido), we are satisfied with the explanation and, accordingly, absolve Atty. Marcial Morfe Magsino from any liability for contempt of court.
In light of the CA findings of extrinsic fraud that has officially been brought to our attention, we direct the petitioner, former Judge Vicente S. Pulido, to explain within ten (10) days why no administrative charge for gross misconduct as a member of the bar should be lodged against him for his direct participation/complicity in the extrinsic fraud the CA found in CA-GR. SP No. 87889.
For lack of merit, we DENY the motion for reconsideration for the inhibition of the Second Division, and REITERATE our DENIAL of the motion to refer the case to the Court En Bane.
We hold in abeyance our action on the motion to reconsider our Resolution of October 5, 2009 dismissing the petition, until after former Judge Vicente S. Pulido shall have submitted his explanation.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 18th day of January, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court