June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.C. No. 6332 : June 26, 2012]
RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 28, 2003 IN G.R. NO. 145817 AND G.R. NO. 145822 (ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, RESPONDENT)
"A.C. No. 6332 (RE: Supreme Court Resolution dated April 28, 2003 in G.R. No. 145817 and G.R. No. 145822 (Atty. Magdaleno M. Pe�a, Respondent). � Before this Court is the Motion for Reconsideration dated 28 May 2012 filed by Atty. Magdaleno M. Pe�a against the Decision dated 17 April 2012, which ordered his disbarment from the practice of law. In his Motion, Atty. Pe�a repeats his previous argument that the Supplemental Agenda of the Court�s First Division (Annex "B"), a copy of which he obtained, was not a falsified document. However, the Court has dealt with this issue at length in the Decision, and no further explanation is necessary.
To support his plea for reinstatement to the practice, Atty. Pe�a attached the Affidavit dated 25 May 2012 of Ms. Fe Malou B. Castelo. Ms. Castelo attested that Annex "B" was indeed a photocopy of the Supplemental Agenda of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr., based on her alleged familiarity with the handwritten notes therein. Throughout her tenure as Court Stenographer in the Supreme Court from 1997 to 2006, she also declared that she had never experienced an instance when any Justice had changed the actions agreed upon during the deliberations without having the particular case called again.
Significantly, Ms. Castelo had been the subject of an administrative case for her habitual tardiness and was subsequently suspended. (Imposition of corresponding penalties for Habitual Tardiness, A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC, 14 August 2003, 409 SCRA 9) Moreover, it took Atty. Pe�a six years from the time that Ms. Castelo left the Supreme Court in 2006 to secure her Affidavit and present it for consideration of the Court.
If measured against the oral and written confirmation by the Members of the First Division as to their official actions on the Motions in the main case in G.R. Nos. 145817, 145822 and 162562, specifically, their confirmation that the Resolution dated 13 November 2002 was their genuine and collective action, the unsupported Affidavit of Ms. Castelo attesting to the general practice of the Court and to the purported veracity of the photocopy of the Supplemental Agenda (Annex "B") is irrelevant and deserves no credence.cralaw
Considering that the arguments of Atty. Pe�a have already been raised and dealt with by this Court, his Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for utter lack of merit."
Carpio, Velasco, Jr., and Del Castillo, JJ., no part.
Mendoza, J., on official leave.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., no part.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court