ChanRobles Virtual law Library

FIRST DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 10 2005.

G.R. No. 162236 ( Rafael Jose Consing vs. Unicapital, Inc.)

In his 12 January 2005 "Very Respectful Motion," counsel for petitioner requested the "voluntary inhibition of Mr. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr."

In the Resolution of 16 February 2005, counsel for petitioner was required to explain why only the Chief Justice should inhibit from this case and for what reason.

In his Omnibus Motion dated 19 February 2005, petitioner asked for leave to admit his Second Motion for Reconsideration and reiterated his motion for the voluntary inhibition of the Chief Justice. In the Resolution of 13 April 2005, the Court deferred action on this omnibus motion pending compliance by counsel for petitioner with the resolution of 16 February 2005.

The compliance with the Resolution of 16 February 2005 is embodied in a "Very Respectful Explanation" dated 4 April 2005.

The compliance assumes that the Chief Justice is the ponente in this case and asserts that "in almost all instances , two practices characterize the modus decidendi of this Honorable Court," namely, (a) "whenever a Justice who is the ponente of a case in a division reaches a tentative decision on any matter pending before a division, the remaining four (4) members of the division, as a matter of courtesy and respect, give their conformity, trusting exclusively in the ponente's wisdom, and without proceeding to further analyze the rollo on the matter"; and (b) "an assigned ponente , most of the time, does not have the time to read the rollo of a case, and therefore merely assigns the work to his clerical staff, which submits a recommendation, and which recommendation is for the most, accepted by the ponente in all its entirety (except in exceptional or in high public interest cases)."

Counsel for petitioner then concludes that, being the ponente in this case, the Chief Justice "was the only member of the First Division who actually reviewed the rollo," and even asserts that the Chief Justice could not even have done so but "only through his staff" and that the Chief Justice's staff" made a recommendation premised upon human error in appreciating the facts and the law and there was no other way to get justice for his petitioner client except by seeking a self-recusal." The other members of the Division "only participated in passive fashion by granting a customary conformity."

While the explanation is captioned "Very Respectful Explanation," it is in fact shot with sarcasm, with the use of the words "utmost respect," "in all respect," "in all humility," and "humble and respectful belief," despite his claim of the alleged "practices." There is not only malice, but also arrogance in this style.

In his conclusion and apology , counsel for petitioner maintains that his explanation "was premised upon the generic thinking of practicing lawyers and, perhaps, said generic thinking is incorrect." He claims he acted in good faith.

Counsel for petitioner does not categorically explain why he knows that the Chief Justice is the ponente in this case. His claim of the alleged two practices are malicious, Unfounded and baseless.

WHEREFORE , counsel for petitioner, Atty. Vicente B. Chuidian, is hereby directed to (a) categorically state the factual basis of his claim that the Chief Justice is the ponente in this case, and if the information thereon was obtained from an informant, the name of the latter; and (b) to show cause, within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution, why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt of Court for falsely and maliciously charging the members of the Division (even of the entire Court) with the so-called practices mentioned in his Very Respectful Explanation dated 4 April 2005.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE