ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-98-CA-J. April 18, 2006]
COL. BRIGIDO P. MESINA, JR. v. ASSOCIATE JUSTICES ROBERTO A. BARRIOS, AMELITA G. TOLENTINO AND VICENTE S.E. VELOSO, NINTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS
En Banc
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR. 18, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-98-CA-J (Col. Brigido P. Mesina, Jr. v. Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios, Amelita G. Tolentino and Vicente S.E. Veloso, Ninth Division, Court of Appeals)
This concerns the Memorandum [1] cralaw dated 21 March 2006 filed by then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., regarding the letter dated 10 October 2005 of Col. Brigido P. Mesina, Jr., forwarding his Verified Affidavit Complaint [2] cralaw of even date accusing Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios, Amelita G. Tolentino, and Vicente S.E. Veloso, of the Ninth Division, Court of Appeals, with violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.03, Canon 2, Rule 2.03, Canon 3, Rules 3.01, 3.02, 3.08, 3.09 and 3.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary for engaging in "Decision for Sale" through an intermediary. Complainant, in his capacity as President of NACPU (National Association of Corruption Prevention Units) Foundation, Inc., alleged in his letter that he had personal knowledge of this illegal conduct since the respondents' intermediary, a certain Atty. Padernal, approached him with the proposal. He rejected the proposal since "the price quoted is quite high and beyond our capacity to pay" and because the transaction was illegal. Complainant averred the following in his complaint:
1. That in a Court DECISION promulgated on May 25, 2005 under CA-G.R. CV No. 70852 between Kings Court vs. Linkworld Construction and the City of Manila, penned by Justice Vicente Veloso and concurred [in] by the two other justices, there appeared a near perfect similarity with the judicial decision peddled by a certain Atty. Padernal, who alleged to his close personal and professional relationship with the ponente, for a considerable sum of money; x x x
2.� That except for that portion OUR RULING, every word, comma, period and even the font used were strikingly similar in form and substance, leading to our suspicion that the same was peddled likewise to the Defendant-Appellee for a certain sum of money and was accepted and hence a favorable decision was promulgated in their favor. x x x
[if gte vml 1]>
3.� That we tried to arrange a meeting with
Justice Vicente Veloso to seek enlightenment and in the presence of Sr. Supt.
Arturo Paglinawan, chief of the General Assignments Section of the Western
Police District, we agreed to seek out the presence of Atty. Padernal who
reportedly hold[s] court at Sulo Hotel, Quezon City, for him to explain the source of this
confidential document;
4.� Much to our astonishment, nothing has come out of that discussion and on August 12, 2005, a resolution [3] cralaw was released upholding the judicial decision earlier promulgated, leading again to our suspicion that indeed a financial settlement regarding the favorable decision and resolution was finally consummated between the Defendant-Appellee and the CA justices thru the intercession of a certain Atty. Padernal. x x x
5.� With all of the scandals emanating from the executive and legislative branches of the government, we are equally appalled at this anomalous CASE FOR SALE being perpetrated within the confines of the Court of Appeals, and as an NGO organized to prevent and/or ferret out corrupt practices in government, we have no other recourse but to file a formal complaint against these erring magistrates before the highest court of the land for violation of the New Code of Judicial conduct made effective on June 1,2004;
���� x x x x [4] cralaw
Respondents were required to comment on the complaint. All three denied the charge of misconduct and knowing Atty. Padernal.
In his Comment
[5]
cralaw
dated 21 November 2005, respondent Veloso avers that on 25 May 2005, the Ninth
Division of the Court of Appeals, with as ponente,
rendered a Decision dismissing the appeal of King's Court Consultants, Co.,
Ltd. in CA-G.R. CV No. 70852. Complainant is the General Manager of appellant King's Court. Respondent Veloso maintains that on 9 June
2005, complainant, representing himself as a representative from "The
Enquirer," went to the office of the Division Clerk of Court claiming that
there was something wrong with the subject Decision. He showed two versions of the subject
decision: one was a plain photocopy of
the Decision promulgated on 25 May 2005, and the other was the incomplete[if gte vml 1]>
version of a purported "Draft"
granting the appeal in favor of complainant. He then threatened the employees of the office, saying that, "Kailangan
kong makausap si Justice Veloso, bago ko ilabas
ito! Kung hindi malaking gulo ito!," and finally ending his tirade, "Nag-file kami ng M.R. Ayusin niyo na
lang para wala ng gulo!"
Respondent Veloso decided to conduct an investigation of the matter and sought
the assistance of the PNP Western Police District, who sent Sr. Supt. Arturo
Paglinawan, Chief of the WPD's General Assignments
Section, to aid them in the investigation.
Complainant subsequently returned to respondent Veloso's office. In that meeting, respondent Veloso categorically disowned the "Draft" presented by complainant and explained to him that a decision on a case undergoes deliberation and concurrence by the other members of the Division before promulgation, and that these proceedings are confidential. Respondent Veloso also made it clear to complainant that he does not know Atty. Padernal nor is he a member of his staff. Sr. Supt. Paglinawan was also called on to apprehend complainant but the latter apologized and so was not apprehended.
Respondent Veloso further explains in his Comment that the "Draft" decision allegedly peddled to complainant did not emanate from his office since draft reports submitted by his legal researchers bear his "OK" stamp and his initial in each and every page. The approved draft report becomes the basis of the final decision which, after due deliberation among the members of the Division, is also initialized by respondent Veloso. The alleged "Draft" in complainant's possession does not contain these marks and is therefore clearly a fabrication. This may merely be a scheme to harass the members of the Court of Appeals into reversing the decision upon a motion for reconsideration by plaintiff-appellee.
In her Comment [6] cralaw dated 25 November 2005, respondent Tolentino denies the charge and avers that the allegations in the complaint are unsubstantiated and are purely based on surmises and speculations. She does not know complainant or Atty. Padernal. The only decision she knows of and had seen was the Decision promulgated on 25 May 2005 in which she has concurred after due deliberation with the other members of the Division, the same being in accordance with law, jurisprudence, and evidence and facts on record. Complainant has failed to prove the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence and the presumption that she has regularly performed her duties should prevail, respondent Tolentino sums up.
Respondent Barrios, in his Comment [7] cralaw dated 29 November 2005, avers that the complaint should be dismissed since there is no reason or cause charge or discipline him. The complaint and its supporting documents do allege or prove that he committed or breached any law, canon of conduct or oath of office. Beyond the fact that he concurred in the ponencia of respondent Veloso, he did not have any further knowledge or participation in the case. He never met nor knew complainant and Atty. Padernal, and he has never seen the alleged "Draft" nor have any knowledge of how it came into existence either.
Complainant filed a Reply to Comment [8] cralaw dated 15 December 2004, alleging that Atty. Padernal is actually Atty. Domingo Palarca, President of the Central Institute of Technology, located at the corner of Alfonso Mendoza St. and Padre Paredes St., Sampaloc Manila, in form the Central Public Market in Quiapo. Since Atty. Palarca has been identified as the broker who tried to sell the Decision in the subject case for five million pesos, complainant suggests that the Court summon Atty. Palarca to give his side. Complainant also asserts that the "Draft" and the promulgated Decision were drafted, typed and released by persons working in the Ninth Division with the blessings of either one and/or all of respondents.
Respondent Veloso, in his Rejoinder [9] cralaw dated 21 December 2005, reiterates that he does not know Atty. Padernal or Atty. Palanca, nor has he seen or talked to them, and suggests that these people may be fictitious or imagined characters only. Complainant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the said Atty. Padernal worked under respondent Veloso's or the members of the Ninth Division's authority. Complainant's malicious allegations do not satisfy the quantum of evidence sufficient to find respondent Veloso guilty of grave misconduct.
On 15 March 2006, respondent Veloso submitted as supplemental evidence, an affidavit [10] cralaw of Sr. Supt. Paglinawan, stating that on 9 June 2005, he went to the Court of Appeals upon instruction of their Director to assist respondent Veloso in the investigation of an "alleged leak of a draft decision" and interviewed the employees who had talked to complainant. Paglinawan came to the conclusion that complainant's "Draft" was sourced elsewhere and was intended to coerce or blackmail herein respondents because: (1) respondent Veloso's initial did not appear on any of the pages of complainant's copy of the "Draft"; (2) said "Draft" did not contain the first page which was supposed to contain respondent Veloso's "OK" stamp; and (3) complainant's threat that he filed a motion for reconsideration that respondents should take care of "para wala ng gulo " was clearly intended to obtain a favorable judgment at that stage of the case. He also insists that the "Draft" is different from the promulgated decision since the contents of page 2 of the "Draft" do not tally with page 2 of the Decision, and the vertical and horizontal arrangement of the series of sentences in complainant's copy varied from those appearing in the Decision.
In his Memorandum dated 21 March 2006, then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recommends that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. Since this is an administrative complaint, complainant is behooved to prove his allegations with substantial evidence. This complainant has failed to do.
Complainant alleges that he had been approached by a certain Atty. Padernal who asked for five million pesos for the promulgation of a "Draft" which favored him. Complainant suspects that said Atty. Padernal was under the employ of respondent Velasco or the other members of the Ninth Division, and that the "Draft" offered to him came from the office of respondent Velasco. In addition, he surmises that respondents and defendant-appellant Linkworld Construction entered into a financial agreement for a favorable decision to be promulgated in favor of Linkworld. However, beyond mere allegations, complainant has not able to present any evidence to substantiate his claims. Complainant claims that Atty. Padernal is none other than one Atty. Domingo Palarca. However, the Office of the Court Administrator was able to talk to Atty. Palarca who vehemently denied knowing complainant or the respondents. [11] cralaw Complainant was not able to present proof that the alleged "Draft" came from respondent Velasco's office. In fact, after a perusal of the "Draft" and the promulgated decision, Justice Velasco came to the conclusion that the "Draft" is different from the finalized draft of the promulgated decision and was obtained from sources other than the offices of respondents. There was also no proof to the allegation that defendant-appellant Linkworld paid for a favorable decision. A reading of the complaint itself also shows that it is based only on mere suspicions and speculations and not on personal knowledge, thus:
4, That except for that portion OUR RULING, every word, comma, period and even the font used were strikingly similar in form and substance, leading to our suspicion that the same was peddled likewise to the Defendant-Appellee for a certain sum of money and was accepted and hence a favorable decision was promulgated in their favor. x x x
���� x x x
6. Much to our astonishment, nothing has come out of that discussion and on August 12, 2005, a resolution was released upholding the judicial decision earlier promulgated, leading again to our suspicion that indeed a financial settlement regarding the favorable decision and resolution was finally consummated between the Defendant-Appellee and the CA justices thru the intercession of a certain Atty. Padernal. x x x [12] cralaw (Emphasis supplied.)
The complaint should be dismissed as recommended. The Court has repeatedly held that the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his or her official duties. [13] cralaw In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. Failing this, Court cannot give credence to the allegations in the complaint. In the case at bar, the record is bereft of any showing of wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct on the part of respondent justices.
WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondents Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios, Amelita G. Tolentino, and Vicente S.E. Veloso is DISMISSED for lack of merit."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 1-15.
[2] cralaw Id. at 17-18.
[3] cralaw Referring to the Resolution dated 12 August 2005 denying the Motion for Reconsideration filed by plaintiff-appellant King's Court Consultants Co., Ltd. Annex "C," of the Affidavit-Complaint, id. at 45-47.
[4] cralaw Rollo , p. 17.
[5] cralaw Id. at 80-95.
[6] cralaw Id. at 151-162.
[7] cralaw Id. at 54-57.
[8] cralaw Id. at 198-199.
[9] cralaw Id. at 200-208.
[10] cralaw Id. at 76-77.
[11] cralaw Id. at 12.
[12] cralaw Supra note 4.
[13] cralaw Espa�ol v. Mupas , A.M. No. MTJ-01-1348, 11 November 2004, 442 SCRA 13, 37.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
