ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 170605. March 20, 2006]

ANTONIO R. BAUTISTA v. MARIA DELIA CARMELA C. CIOCON

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 20, 2006

G.R. No. 170605 (Antonio R. Bautista v. Maria Delia Carmela C. Ciocon ) and

A.M. No. 05-10-623-RTC (Re: Change of Venue of Crim. Case No. 05-28194 (People v. Bautista) From RTC-Br. 52, Bacolod City to em>Makati or em>Quezon City)

Petitioner Atty. Antonio Bautista (Bautista) filed a petition with the Office of the Court Administrator seeking the transfer of venue of the criminal case referred to in the caption from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacolod City to Makati or Quezon City. Said case, a libel suit initiated by Atty. Ma. Delia Ciocon (Ciocon) against Bautista, is currently pending before the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 52.

Bautista alleges that, with most of the material witnesses being residents of Metro Manila, justice will be best served if these witnesses are able to freely testify with the least inconvenience. He likewise claims that Ciocon belongs to a prominent and influential Bacolod City family, whose influence is evinced by the fact that just one day after the filing of the libel complaint, the Visayan Daily Star newspaper featured the complaint prominently in its issue and that various local newspaper columnists have also attacked him. Bautista adverts to the alleged hostile environment against him in Bacolod City, thus casting doubt as to his obtaining a fair and impartial trial should the case be heard in Bacolod City. Moreover, Bautista refers to his advanced age and deteriorating health as impediments to his frequent travel to Bacolod City for the trial of the case, which will be necessary as he is representing himself in the trial.

In his Memorandum dated January 18, 2006, Court Administrator Presbiterio Velasco, Jr. recommends the denial of the petition. He notes that it will be inconvenient for the witnesses of the complaining party, most of whom are based in Bacolod City, if they are required to travel to Metro Manila for trial. He likewise asserts that the concerns about Bautista's health impeding his repeated travel from Metro Manila to Bacolod City can be adequately addressed if Bautista obtains legal representation instead of defending the case himself.

The considerations cited by the Court Administrator are persuasive. However, he is conspicuously silent on Bautista's claim regarding the prominence of the complainant's family in Bacolod City and the resulting hostile environment against Bautista in that city. In her Comment, Ciocon virtually concedes her family's prominence in Bacolod City, although she stresses that they are not wont to commit undue influence in the administration of justice, adding in that regard that the trial court judge had in fact thrice ruled against her contentions in the case.

It also bears noting that Ciocon's Complaint-Affidavit specifically alleged that Bautista had deliberately circulated the "malicious and defamatory letter" subject of the libel suit "to prominent persons in Bacolod City including the religious and the media", with a presumptive intent to defame Ciocon's name within that locality wherein her family has attained prominence.

The Court has constitutional authority to change venue in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice under Section 5(4), Article VIII of the Constitution. In applying the standard "miscarriage of justice", the Court may evaluate which court would be "in a better position to serve the interests of justice," taking into account (a) the nature of the controversy, (b) the comparative accessibility of the court to the parties and (c) other similar factors. ^[1] cralaw The nature of the controversy and the identity of the parties, insofar as they relate to Bacolod City and its denizens, do leave room for doubt as to whether a Bacolod City court may be positioned to render an impartial verdict free from influences or pressures that would undoubtedly linger, wittingly or unwittingly, within that venue. Considering that these factors would be eliminated if the venue of the trial is transferred from Bacolod City, there is sufficient justification for the Court to grant the petition, if only to leave no doubt as to its objective to avoid a miscarriage of justice.

However, there is no basis to transfer the venue to Metro Manila. In her Comment, Ciocon points out that Bautista, a prominent legal practitioner in his own right, has in the course of his five (5) decades in practice acquired familiarity, if not friendship, with most of the judges and legal practitioners in Metro Manila. The veracity of that claim, of equal import to the allegations by Bautista of a hostile environment in Bacolod City, could not be dismissed lightly, especially considering the paramount concern of the Court in identifying which court "would be in a better position to serve the interests of justice." Moreover, inasmuch as Bautista and his witnesses may be inconvenienced with the travel to Bacolod City, the same could be said as to Ciocon and her witnesses who may be compelled to travel to Metro Manila. Even in granting this petition, the Court is hardly of the inclination to foster convenience for one side to the prejudice of the other.

After due consideration, the Court deems that the RTC of Cebu City will be in the best position "to serve the interests of justice." Cebu City is sufficiently removed from proximity to Bacolod City or Metro Manila to allow for a trial unbeclouded by fears of pressure or partiality from either side. Considering that this Court agrees with the Office of the Court Administrator that inconvenience in travel should not be a factor, Cebu City a venue that would equally burden either side in that respect. Finally, if travel to Cebu City would unduly prejudice the health of Bautista as it allegedly would if the trial were held in Bacolod City, the Court agrees with the observation of the Court Administrator that perhaps his best recourse is to obtain legal representation from that locality.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to PARTIALLY GRANT the Petition. The Court hereby orders the transfer of venue of Criminal Case No. 05-28-104 from the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 52, to the RTC of Cebu City. For this purpose, the Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 52, is hereby DIRECTED to forthwith transmit the records of the case to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Cebu City, who is hereby ORDERED to raffle said case to a branch of the said court therein, in accordance with pertinent rules and with this Resolution.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw See Victronics Computers v. RTC, G.R. No. 104019, January 25, 1993.

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