ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 124554. March 8, 1999]

ETERNAL GARDENS MEMORIAL PARK CORP. vs. CA, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 8, 1999.

G.R. No. 124554 (Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and North Philippines Union Mission of the Seventh Day Adventist.)

For resolution is a Motion To Inhibit filed February 19, 1999 by petitioner in G.R. No. 124554 entitled "Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation vs. Court of Appeals and North Philippines Union Mission of the Seventh Day Adventist."

Petitioner makes the following allegations in its motion:

1. On 26 May 1996 petitioner filed the instant case which this Honorable Court denied in a Resolution, dated 9 December 1997, penned by Justice Santiago M. Kapunan.

2. On 24 December 1997, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. This motion remains pending.

3. On 2 October 1998, a petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Marriage with Prayer for Support Pendente Lite was filed with Branch 89 of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, entitled "VERONICA HAIN CABANGON, petitioner versus THADEUS ANTHONY C. CABANGON, respondent." A certified true copy of the petition is hereto attached and marked as Annex "A."

4. The counsel of petitioner in the petition marked Annex "A" is Santiago A.R. Kapunan of the SANTIAGO 1 [Should be KAPUNAN] IMPERIAL PANAGUITON AND BONGOLAN LAW OFFICES. Atty. Santiago A.R. Kapunan, Incidentally, is the son of Justice Santiago M. Kapunan, a member of the First Division of the Supreme Court, the same Honorable Justice who penned the decision of December 9, 1997, dismissing the petition of Eternal Gardens. Whereas the respondent Thaddeus Anthony C. Cabangon is the son of Ret. Col. Antonio L. Cabangon Chua, a stockholder to the extent of nine percent (9%) of the capital stock of herein petitioner/movant. A certified true copy of the Articles of Incorporation of Eternal Gardens is hereto attached and marked as Annex "B."

5. It is relevant to mention that in paragraph 11 of the petition marked as Annex "A," therein petitioner alleges that one of the properties comprising the absolute community of property is the share of stock of respondent Thaddeus Anthony C. Cabangon in Eternal Gardens Memorial Park Corporation-Batangas. This particular corporation is involved in this case, it being among those subjected to garnishment when on 7 January 1997 Presiding Judge Jaime D. Discaya of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 120 of Caloocan City issued a Writ of Execution to satisfy the judgment of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 04869, dated 15 January 1996, which is also the very same judgment assailed by the Petitioner in this instant case.

Atty Kapunan advocates in behalf of his client, Ms. Veronica Hain Cabangon, the shares of stocks of Thaddeus Anthony C. Cabangon in Eternal Gardens-Batangas is part of the absolute community property. Understandably so, as a lawyer must look after the best interest of his client. However, this situation might engender a conflict of interest on the part of the Honorable Justice by extension, owing to his relationship with above-mentioned counsel, notwithstanding the absence of malicious intent.

This representation is urgently constrained to file this Motion to Inhibit in view that it was Justice Kapunan who penned the Decision dismissing herein movant's petition. Being its ponente the Honorable Justice wields considerable influence in the outcome of the resolution. Humbly, petitioner wishes to express its doubt that his Honor could act on this instant case detached and with the cold neutrality of a judge.

From the above premise, petitioner prays for the inhibition of the undersigned "from participating in the deliberation and resolution of its motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of the instant case."2 [Motion, p. 1.]

Administrative Circular No. 12-94-A dated December 10, 1996 states the rules on the inhibition of Division Members of the Supreme Court. The rules pertinent here are thus:

2. Whenever a Member of a Division was counsel or member of a law firm which was counsel in a case before the Division, or he his spouse or child is pecuniarily interested in a case before the Division, as heir, legatee, creditor, or otherwise, or he is related to either party in the case within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to an attorney who is counsel of record in the case or is a partner in the law firm (whether or not named in the firm name) which is counsel of record in the case, within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or he has been executor, administrator, guardian or trustee in the case, or he was an official, or is the spouse of an official or former official of a government agency or private entity which is party to a case before the Division, said Member shall inhibit himself from the case, and the same shall be raffled among the Members of the other two (2) Divisions of the Court.

x x x��� x x x��� x x x

5. For a compelling reason other than those mentioned in nos. 1 and 2, above, a Divission Member may also inhibit himself from a case before the Division but the case shall not be raffled among the members of the other two (2) Divisions. Instead, if the inhibiting Member is the ponente in the Division, the case shall be re-assigned by the Division Chairman to another member of the same Division in accordance with its ruled on re-assignment of cases within the Division.

Petitioner's allegation is that the son of the undersigned, Santiago Angelo, is the counsel of the wife of the son of a stockholder in petitioner corporation, is a civil case (not in this particular case), for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage with support pendente lite - filed sometime in October, 1998 with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. This circumstance does not lie within the purview of the compulsory ground for disqualification under No. 2 above, even under any strained interpretation.

Petitioner's further allegation is that the shares in petitioner corporation in the name of the abovementioned stockholder (per Articles of Incorporation annexed to the motion) are being purported as belonging to the motion) are being purported as belonging to the stockholder's son and wife's community of property. Any alleged interrelatedness of the instant petition and the civil case is highly conjectural. Notably, the party involved in the instant case is the corporation itself which as a juridical entity is distinct and separate from its stockholders, and more so, the stockholders' relations.

Neither does it see any compelling reason, mentioned in No. 5 of Administrative Circular No. 12-96-A, that calls for the undersigned's voluntary inhibition. Petitioner's allegation that "[t]he particulars surrounding this case merely make it difficult for his Honor to be uninfluenced by factors, circumstances, conditions and considerations other than the applicable law and the evidence" is tenuous. Impartiality is state of mind requiring some manifestation of its reality.3 [Fernandez v. Presbitero, 79 SCRA 60 (1977).] That the undersigned was the ponente of the resolution adverse to petitioner is not such manifestation of partiality; even if, in the language of petitioner, such fact "is compounded by the fact that the undersigned's sons, Atty. Santiago A.R. Kapunan, is the counsel of Veronica Hain Cabangon against Thaddeus Anthony C. Cabangon who in turn is the son of Ret. Col. Antonio L. Cabangon Chua, a stockholder of petitioner Eternal Gardens."4 [Motion, p. 6.]

It bears emphasizing that the petition here has been resolved way back in December, 1997, and that the resolution was concurred in by Justices Davide, Bellosillo and Vitug, the members then of the First Division with no dissent. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is pending, and relief is not foreclosed to petitioner should it be able to raise meritorious grounds therefor.

One last note. In his March 2, 1999 column The Breakfast Table in the Philippine Inquirer, Adrian Cristobal pursues the very same agenda as petitioner and makes the same advocacy in its behalf, referring explicitly to petitioner's motion now for resolution. Resort to for a other than this Court is uncalled for, and results in nothing but undermining the integrity of the Court and the Justices in the public's perception.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned Resolves to deny petitioner's Motion to Inhibit filed February 19, 1999.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE