ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. CA-01-32.� January 14, 2003]
REYES vs. DEMETRIA
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 14 2003 .
A.M. No. CA-01-32 (Heirs of the Late Justice Jose B.L. Reyes vs. Justices Demetrio G. Demetria, Ramon A. Barcelona and Roberto A. Barrios [Special Third Division]; Atty. Teresita A. Marigomen, Division Clerk of Court, Special Fourth Division and Mr. Efren R. Rivamonte, Special Sheriff, Mailing Section.)
This refers to the Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Demetrio G. Demetria praying that the Resolution en banc dated January 23, 2002 be reconsidered and that he be absolved of all administrative charges leveled against him. In compliance with our Resolution dated July 16, 2002, Division Clerk of Court Caroline G. Ocampo-Peralta, of the Court of Appeals, and complainants Heirs of the late Justice Jose B.L. Reyes, filed their respective Comments.
In Our Resolution, respondent Demetria was found guilty of gross *misconduct: (a) by issuing a temporary restraining order with the signature of only two out of three justices of the Court of Appeals; (b) by enforcing the decision of the appellate court notwithstanding the fact that the same is pending appeal with the Supreme Court and (c) by showing his keen interest in the immediate execution of the decision despite the lack of authority of the Court of Appeals to appoint a Special Sheriff.
In support of his motion, respondent claims that: he was denied due process; he is not guilty of gross misconduct for the failure of one of the Justices of the Court of Appeals to sign the Resolution granting the issuance of a temporary restraining order; and, he is not guilty of misconduct "in allegedly directing the appointment of a special sheriff".
After reviewing our Decision promulgated on January 23, 2002 and the records of the case, we find that respondent's motion for reconsideration is partly meritorious.
Respondent was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for disregarding existing rules of procedure in issuing a temporary restraining order which bore the signatures of only two justices of the Court of Appeals. We are constrained to rectify the same considering the provisions of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, to wit:
"Section 5.��� xxx������������������ xxx������������������ xxx
"xxx. The effectivity of a temporary restraining order is not extendible without need of any judicial declaration to that effect and no court shall have authority to extend or renew the same on the ground for which it was issued.
"However, if issued by the Court of Appeals or a member thereof, the temporary restraining order shall be effective for sixty (60) days from service on the party or person sought to be enjoined. A restraining order issued by the Supreme Court or a member thereof shall be effective until further orders." (emphasis supplied)
and Sections 9 and 10, Rule 3 of the then prevailing Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals which provide:
"Section 9.��� Action by a Justice. - The following may be considered and acted upon by the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report:
"xxx�������������������������� xxx������������������������������ xxx;
"b. Motion or petition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, restraining order, and other auxiliary writs;
"xxx�������������������������� xxx������������������������������ xxx"
"Section 10.� Absence of the Justice Assigned to the Study and Report. -When the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report is absent, the motions and incidents enumerated in the proceeding section may be acted upon by the Chairman or by the other member of the Division to which that Justice belongs. If the members of the division are all absent, any motion for the issuance of a restraining order shall be referred to the Presiding Justice for appropriate action.
"All other matters not mentioned in the proceeding section shall be cognizable by the Division." (emphasis supplied)
Clearly therefrom, even only one (1) member of the Court of Appeals * may issue a temporary restraining order. Thus, on this matter, respondent ** could not be held guilty of gross misconduct.
Nevertheless, we maintain that the issuance of temporary restraining order by only one or two justices of the Court of Appeals must be exercised sparingly, that is, only in case of extreme necessity where there is compelling reason to abate or avoid a grave injury to a party.
However, we find no justifiable reason to sustain respondent's claim that he was not given due process when the Court found that he is guilty*** of gross misconduct in directing the appointment of a special sheriff in the absence of any hearing or investigation. Movant-respondent insist that he merely inquired as to the possibility of the appointment of a sheriff and points to the fact that the directive to the Chief of the Mailing Section to appoint a special sheriff to carry out the writ of execution pending appeal was made by all three members of the Division and not solely by him.
An examination of the record reveals that the directive referred to by respondent is Annex "B" attached to the Comment of Justices Ramon Barcelona (now retired) and Roberto Barrios which reads as follows:
"Sirs:
"Quoted hereunder for your information is a resolution of this Court.......SECOND.........DIVISION) dated....September 21, 1998....
"CA. G.R. SP No. 47156���� METRO MANILA BUILDERS, INC.,
"CA-G.R. SP NO. 47720 ����versus HON. Cesar_____ ET.AL..
"In view of the letter of Justice Demetrio Demetria (Ponente) dated September 21, 1998, the Chief of the Mailing Section is hereby directed to appoint a special sheriff to execute the decision of this Court dated August 21, 1998.
"WITNESS the Honorable...EMETERIO C. CUI...Chairman, Honorable..RAMON A. BARCELONA...and the Honorable...DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA...Members this 21st .of..September.1998.
"Very truly yours,
"(Sgd.) CAROLINE G. OCAMPO-PERALTA
"Division Clerk of Court"1
Respondent, in his present motion for reconsideration, does not refute the letter mentioned in the about-quoted minute resolution of the former Second Division showing indubitably that it was upon his instruction that a special sheriff is appointed. Instead, respondent merely insists in his present motion for reconsideration that the appointment of a special sheriff was authorized by all three (3) Justices of the Court of Appeals which however does not justify the wrongful appointment of a sheriff in said court.
Needless to emphasize, respondent had been given the opportunity to be heard and as pointed out by complaints in their Comment, respondent had been explicit in his Comment dated June 18, 2001 that he "does not see the need for him to file his Comment to the instant complaint considering that he had already been dismissed from office in A.M. No. 00-7-09 and, even in the event that said dismissal is reconsidered, he would nevertheless resign or retire from the service, hence, this case has been or will be rendered moot and academic"2.
*�
Considering that respondent is guilty of gross misconduct in enforcing the
decision of the Court of Appeals despite knowledge of the designation of the
pendency of the appeal in the Supreme Court and in causing the designation of a
special sheriff despite utter lack of authority to do so thereby showing
unusual interest therein, the imposition of a fine of P20,000.00 is in
accordance with the prevailing jurisprudence in 19983, when the complained resolution
were issued.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.
(Justice Jose C. Vitug took no part)
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
* "ignorance of the law" changed to "misconduct"
* "Phrase " on this matter" added.
** "ignorance of the law" changed to "misconduct"
*** Word "gross" added.
1 Rollo, p. 70.
2 Rollo, pp. 73-74.
* "ignorance of the law" changed to "misconduct"
3 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Veneracion, 334 SCRA 145 (2000); Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Marcelino L. Sayo, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1587 and RTJ-00-1540, May 7, 2002.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
