October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 145817 : October 17, 2011]
URBAN BANK V. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA
G. R. No. 145817 — Urban Bank v. Magdaleno M. Peña; G. R. No. 145822 — Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., Benjamin L. De Leon, and Eric L. Lee v. Magdaleno M. Peña; G. R. No. 162562 — Magdaleno M. Peña, v. Urban Bank, Inc., Teodoro Borlongan, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., Benjamin L. de Leon, P. Siervo H. Dizon, Eric L. Lee, Ben T. Lim, Jr., Corazon Bejasa, and Arturo Manuel, Jr. — The Court NOTES WITHOUT ACTION the Motion for Leave to File and to Admit Comment and the Comment itself both dated 26 September 2011 filed by Benjamin L. de Leon, Delfin C Gonzalez, Jr., and Eric L. Lee, considering that the Very Urgent Motion to Inhibit, which is the subject matter of their Comment had already been denied by the Court. (c/f SC Resolution dated 31 August 2011)
Furthermore, the Court DENIES the following: (a) the Motion for Re-Raffle dated 01 September 2011, and (b) the Supplement to Very Urgent Motion for Re-Raffle dated 20 September 2011, both filed by Atty. Peña for lack of merit.
His Motion for Re-raffle is anchored on general and unfounded suspicions of partiality of some of the Justices of the Court. These suspicions are without any specific, credible and extrinsic evidence that would indicate prejudice or bias on their part. Specifically, the Court draws his attention to the fact that Justice Antonio T. Carpio has taken no part in the proceedings of this case since 2003.
The Court is concerned with the repeated attempts of Atty. Peña throughout the entire course of these proceedings (whether through a direct motion to inhibit, administrative ethics complaint, or, indirectly, through a motion for re-raffle) to cause the inhibition of members of this Court. Eleven (11) Justices so far have all been asked by Atty. Peña to inhibit themselves. Atty. Peña's inclination to disqualify members of the Court, whom he perceives to be potentially adversarial to his cause, has certainly caused unwarranted and unnecessary delay in the resolution of the case.
These motions, letter-complaint, and allegations are in the following: 1. Respondent Peña's Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Artemio V. Panganiban) dated 12 January 2001; 2. Urgent Motion to Inhibit dated 20 August 2001 (Re: Justice Arturo Buena); 3. Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 18 February 2002; 4. Reply (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 15 March 2001; 5. Urgent Motion to Inhibit (re: ponente) dated 30 January 2003; 6. Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Eduardo Antonio B. Nachura) dated 17 December 2007; 7. Motion for Inhibition (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 28 December 2004; 8. Reiteratory Motion to Recuse dated 03 March 2006 (Re: Justice Panganiban) 9. Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Nachura) dated 07 January 2008; 10. Urgent Consolidated Motion to Reiterate Request for Inhibition (Re: Justice Antonio T. Carpio) dated 02 June 2008; 11. Urgent Motion for Re-Raffle (Re: Justice Presbitero J. Velasco) dated 10 July 2008; 12. Supplement to the Urgent Motion for Re-Raffle (Re: Justices Conchita Carpio Morales and Dante O. Tinga) dated 04 August 2008; 13. Urgent Consolidated Motion for Re-Raffle (Re: Justices Carpio Morales, Tinga and Velasco) dated 14 August 2008; 14. Urgent Consolidated Motion for Re-Raffle (Re: Justices Arturo D. Brion, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Carpio Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Quisumbing) dated 28 August 2008; 15. Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Carpio) dated 21 January 2010; 16. Very Urgent Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justices Carpio Morales and Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno) dated 30 March 2011; 17. Very Urgent Motion to Inhibit dated 22 August 2011 (Re: Justice Sereno); 18. Very Urgent Motion to Re-Raffle dated 01 September 2011 (Re: Justices Carpio, Jose Perez and Sereno); and 19. Letter-Complaint dated 16 September 2011 (Re: Justices Carpio and Sereno) in the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards.
The Court sees through Atty. Peña's attempts to inhibit justices before whom he fears, even slightly, the possibility of losing. Thus, he resorts to all kinds of speculations to cast doubt on the integrity and impartiality of these justices.
Absent any sufficient evidence to prove a manifest showing of bias and partiality on their part, Atty. Peña is advised to be more circumspect and cautious in resorting to such moves in the future.
In the interest of a speedy resolution of this case which has languished since 2000, no further delays of this case coming from the baseless accusations of Atty. Peña shall be brooked or entertained by the Court.
We reiterate "the policy of the Court not to tolerate acts of litigants who, for just about any conceivable reason, seek to disqualify a judge (or justice) for their own purpose, under a plea of bias, hostility, prejudice or prejudgment." (Pasricha v. Don Luis Dison Realty, Inc., G. R. No. 136409, 14 March 2008, 548 SCRA 273, 288, citing People v. Serrano, 203 SCRA 171, 186 [1991]) (Brion, J., Acting Chairperson, Villarama, J., additional member vice Carpio, J., per Raffle dated 7 June 2010; Mendoza, J., additional member vice Reyes, J., per Raffle dated 17 October 2011; Bernabe, J., additional member vice Perez, J., per S.O. No. 1114)
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Division Clerk of Court