ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. NO. 160445. August 8, 2006]

JOSE TEOFILO T. MERCADO AND MA. AGNES R. MERCADO, PETITIONERS, versus SECURITY BANK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 8 2006 .

G.R. NO. 160445 (Jose Teofilo T. Mercado and Ma. Agnes R. Mercado, Petitioners, versus Security Bank Corporation, Respondent.)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

On March 21, 2006, Atty. Jose P. Villanueva filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's Resolution dated February 16, 2006 ^[1] cralaw finding him and petitioner Jose Teofilo T. Mercado guilty of indirect contempt of court and imposing on each of them a fine of P50,000.00 with a warning that a repetition of similar act will warrant a more severe penalty.

In a bid for exoneration, movant contends that: first, his giving of information to Mercado, then his client, that he knows Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez and that she was present in the wake of his mother are indications of honesty and should not be taken against him; and second, the Court should have considered his memorandum filed with the office of Justice Renato C. Dacudao enumerating "concrete indications" of Mercado's propensity to concoct stories.

Movant thus prays that the Court reverse its February 7, 2006 Resolution and absolve him of indirect contempt of court. He further asks that it "extends compassion and forgiveness to a desperate man like Mercado."

The motion must be denied.

At the inception, let it be stressed that the filing of a motion for reconsideration does not impose on this Court the obligation to deal individually and specifically with the grounds relied upon in much the same way that this Court does in its decision or final order. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco, ^[2] cralaw it ruled that, "this would be a useless formality of ritual invariably involving merely a reiteration of the reasons already set forth in the judgment or final order for rejecting the arguments advanced by the movant."

The foregoing principle applies squarely to the present motion, it being apparent that the points raised therein are not neoteric matters demanding new judicial determination. They are mere rehash of the arguments previously set forth in movant's comment/explanation which this Court already considered and weighed before it rendered the Resolution sought to be reconsidered.

At any rate, considering that contempt partakes of the nature of a criminal offense, this Court deems it necessary to stress once more its basis in declaring movant in contempt of court.

I.

Movant contends that his admission to Mercado that he personally knows the ponente and that she was present during his mother's wake are indications of honesty which should not be taken against him.

Movant's honesty or credibility is a matter best judged by Justice Dacudao, through whose eyes and ears, this Court observed his demeanor, conduct, and attitude; and listened to his testimonies. This Court examined in detail Justice Dacudao's Investigation Report and Recommendation vis-a-vis the evidence of both parties and found no reason to deviate from his findings and conclusion.

II.

Movant also contends that he could have been exonerated had the Court considered his memorandum submitted to Justice Dacudao where he enumerated "concrete indications" of Mercado's propensity to concoct stories.

It may appease movant's mind to know that the Court, in rendering the assailed Resolution, fully considered his memorandum stating Mercado's tendency to tailor circumstances, enumerated therein, in order to give a semblance of truth to his suspicions. But his guilt does not equate with movant's innocence. Mercado might have a tendency to concoct tales, but still, it cannot be denied that movant supplied him with details that he, as a lawyer, is forbidden to reveal. In short, the ringing truth here is - movant placed the entire Court, together with Chief Justice Davide and the ponente, under a cloud of suspicion. He violated Rule 15.06 and Rule 15.07 of Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Incidentally, the Court cannot grant movant's prayer to "extend compassion and forgiveness to a desperate man like Mercado." Compassion and forgiveness are for Mercado to ask for, not for herein movant. It has been observed that after the issuance of the assailed Resolution, nothing was heard from Mercado. Neither did he file a motion for reconsideration nor apologize for his acts. By his silence, he accepted the Court's disposition of this case as fair and just.

It must be emphasized that here, there is no vindictive reprisal involved. The Court penalized movant for contempt of court to preserve its honor and dignity. It cannot yield to the assaults of disrespect. Indeed, the reason for the inherent power of courts to punish for contempt is that respect of the courts guarantees the stability of the judicial institution. Without such guarantee, said institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation. ^[3] cralaw

WHEREFORE, we DENY the instant motion for reconsideration with FINALITY.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 530-544.

^[2] cralaw G.R. No. 109645, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 234.

^[3] cralaw Salcedo v. Hernandez, 61 Phil. 724 (1935); Cornejo v. Tan, 85 Phil. 722 (1950); People v. Navarro, 121 SCRA 707 (1983).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011