ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 143315.February 14, 2001]
NORECO 2, et al. vs. UMBAC
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 14 2001.
G.R. No. 143315 (Negros Oriental Electric Cooperative [NORECO 2], et al. vs. Arturo V Umbac.)
For consideration of the Court are (1) the motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration by petitioners of the resolution of July 12, 2000 denying their petition for failure to attach either a duplicate original or a certified true copy of the resolution of the Court of Appeals as required by Rule 45, ��4 and 5 in relation to Rule 56, �5(d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and (2) the letter, dated October 4, 2000, of petitioners' counsel, Atty. Whelma V. Siton-Yap, denouncing alleged "connections" of respondent Arturo V. Umbac's son to "some clerks in the Supreme Court" as the reason for the denial of their petition.
In view of the serious allegations made in the letter of Atty. Siton-Yap to the Chief Justice, the Court, in its resolution of October 23, 2000, required counsel to give the names of the parties allegedly involved in the irregularity and specify the acts allegedly done by the parties in order to enable the Court to look into her complaint. In the meantime, the Court held in abeyance resolution of petitioners' motion for reconsideration and the supplement thereto.
Complying with the resolution of October 23, 2000, Atty. Siton-Yap informs the Court that even when the case was still pending in the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), Atty. Tiburcio Umbac, son of respondent Arturo V. Umbac, was already following up the case. Atty. Umbac was then employed in the office of then Presiding Justice Jesus V. Elbinias. According to Atty. Siton-Yap, "Logic, therefore, dictates that if Atty. Tiburcio Umbac intervened in the NLRC, Cebu City, how much more in the Court of Appeals, and eventually in the Supreme Court to cause the inadvertent dismissal on technicality ('unsigned decision [sic] from the Court of Appeals') which was not even the fault of the petitioner[s]?" Counsel contends that since the practice in the courts is to issue unsigned minute resolutions, she concluded in good faith that the dismissal of the petition was due to "outside intervention."
Atty. Siton-Yap points out
(1) that the decision of Labor Arbiter Jose Gutierrez, reinstated by the Court
of Appeals, awards a total of P8 million (actually, only half of that
amount) to respondent, showing manifest bias and partiality, and she thus invokes
the rule of evidence res ipsa loquitur; (2)
that while petitioners' motion for reconsideration was still pending in the
NLRC, respondent Arturo V. Umbac filed a petition for certiorari in the
Court of Appeals which issued without notice and hearing a temporary restraining
order (TRO) on June 23, 2000 telegram;
and (3)
that, up to the present,
her complaint with respect to
the
issuance of the TRO, indorsed by the Chief Justice to the Presiding Justice of
the Court of Appeals, still has to be acted upon. She, therefore, prays for an
investigation of Labor Arbiter Jose Gutierrez, Atty. Tiburcio Umbac, and the
Court of Appeals Justices involved in the assailed decision.
It appears thus that counsel's allegations are based on her "honest" belief that considering the foregoing circumstances, the denial of the petition was the doing of some clerks in the Court in unholy alliance with the adverse party's son. Otherwise, she has no evidence to prove her allegations. She could not even give the names of Court employees engaged in the nefarious activity she thought had been committed.
Counsel's actuation is censurable because, as an officer of this Court, she has a duty to protect the integrity of the judicial system from baseless and irresponsible charges. Her conduct becomes doubly censurable because her letter to the Chief Justice shows her to be the president of the Federacion International de Abogadas (Negros Oriental Chapter). The fact is that she appears to make the charge so as to shift the blame for her personal failure to comply with Rules regarding the filing of a duplicate original or, certified true copy of the challenged decisions and resolutions of the Court of Appeals or other courts. Counsel insists that the resolution attached to the petition is a duplicate original. However, Administrative Circular No. 3-96, par. 2, of the Court provides:
The duplicate original must be duly signed or initialed by the authorities or the corresponding officer or representative of the issuing entity, or shall at least bear the dry seal thereof or any other official indication of the authenticity and completeness of such copy. For this purpose, all courts, offices, or agencies furnishing such copies which may be used in accordance with Paragraph (3) of Revised Circular No. 1-88 shall make arrangements for and designate the personnel who shall be charged with the implementation of this requirement. (Emphasis added)
Petitioners themselves impliedly admitted that they failed to comply with the Rules by belatedly submitting a duly signed certified xerox copy of the assailed Court of Appeals resolution in their supplemental motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners claim that they attached the very same copy which they had received from the Court of Appeals so that they thought the same to be a duplicate original. They submit a letter, dated November 13, 2000, from Court of Appeals Division Clerk of Court Ma. Ramona L. Ledesma, stating that petitioners were inadvertently sent an unsigned copy of the Court of Appeals resolution "although an authentic duplicate original."
In Ortiz v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 708 (1998), this Court upheld the dismissal of the petition concerned on the ground that strict compliance with procedural requirements in taking an appeal cannot be substituted by good faith compliance. To rule otherwise would defeat the very purpose of the rules of procedure, i.e., to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.
Petitioners' argument that in any case the signatures of the Court of Appeals Justices taking part are not required because the Court also comes out with minute resolutions signed only by the Clerk of Court is similarly without merit. Unlike this Court, the Court of Appeals does not keep minutes of its deliberations. Hence, the need for signatures of the Justices concerned. Moreover, to require members of this Court to sign all resolutions would not only unduly delay the issuance of the resolutions but also entail a great amount of their time which can be better spent in the study and disposition of cases (Minute Res., G.R. No. 822773, Joaquin T. Borromeo v. Court of Appeals, June 1, 1990).
Finally, petitioners says that their petition is meritorious. Meritorious though their case may be, that alone does not warrant reconsideration.
Indeed, under Administrative Circular No. 3-96, par. 5, the fact alone that a party has a meritorious case is not sufficient. It must also be shown that the failure to observe the requirements was not in any way attributable to the party who must have exercised due diligence. The circular clearly makes it "the duty and responsibility of the party using the documents required by Paragraph (3) of Circular No. 1-88 to verify and ensure compliance with all the requirements therefor as detailed in the preceding paragraphs." Thus, it was incumbent on petitioners to ensure that they have complied with the requisites under Administrative Circular No. 3-96. Granting they had been furnished an unsigned copy by the Court of Appeals Division Clerk of Court, they could have obtained a signed copy (as what in fact they subsequently did). Their failure to do so when they filed their petition shows that they did not exercise due diligence in this case.
Atty. Siton-Yap's allegations against Labor Arbiter Jose Gutierrez, the Court of Appeals Justices who rendered the appealed decision, and respondent's son Atty. Tiburcio Umbac should be ventilated in the appropriate administrative proceeding brought against them and not in the instant case.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to CENSURE Atty. Whelma V. Siton-Yap for making irresponsible and baseless charges which reflect on the integrity of the Court and to DENY for lack of merit and with FINALITY petitioners' motion to refer this case to the Court en banc and their motion and supplemental motion for reconsideration of the resolution of this Court dated July 12, 2000.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
