Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > April 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-30052 April 18, 1969 - CAMILO V. PEÑA Y VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-30052. April 18, 1969.]

CAMILO PEÑA Y VALENZUELA and DOMINGO CAJIPE Y DACUNO, Petitioners, v. THE COURT OF APPEALS (Special Second Division), Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CONTEMPT OF COURT; MAKING FALSE ALLEGATIONS IN PLEADINGS; ATTORNEY IN INSTANT CASE WAS ADMONISHED. — In a second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Camilo Peña in his own behalf and in that of his co-petitioner Domingo Cajipe, Peña made some allegations therein which were not true especially those referring to his first motion for reconsideration as having been included in this Court’s agenda but the resolution thereon not having been released. The Court denied said second motion for reconsideration and required Peña to show cause why he should not be dealt with for contempt of court. Pursuant to such requirement, petitioner filed a manifestation explaining with sincerest apologies his lack of malice and bad faith in preparing said second motion for reconsideration and respectfully praying that the untrue allegations in motion be stricken out from the record. Held. - The explanation and apology were deemed sufficient to make up for petitioner a case of lack of malice and bad faith. However, like any other member of the bar or party in a case before this Court, he was admonished to carefully verify the truth and correctness of the statements of fact made in his pleadings, and that any subsequent similar misconduct on his part will be dealt with more severely.


R E S O L U T I O N


DIZON, J.:


In a second motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Camilo Peña in his own behalf and in that of his co-petitioner Domingo Cajipe, he alleged, inter alia, the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"‘(a) That the instant Certiorari was DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT on January 24, 1969, and copy of the Resolution was received by petitioners on February 4, 1969;

‘(b) That a Motion For Reconsideration was filed by petitioners on February 14, 1969, and included in the agenda of this Court for February 17, 1969;

‘(c) That on said date, February 17, 1969, it was resolved to refer the petition to the Solicitor General for comment which, to the humble opinion and experience of petitioners, is tantamount to giving the petition DUE COURSE;

‘(d) That the resolution aforesaid was not released perhaps due to oversight or inadvertence, and the same Motion For Reconsideration was again naturally included in the agenda of this Court for February 25, 1969;

‘(e) That on February 25, 1969, during the deliberation, the Honorable Justice ‘ponente’ of the case was incidentally absent, and the case was assigned accidentally to the Honorable Justice who dissents most often to the opinion of the absent Justice, and finally, to the misfortune of the poor petitioners, their Motion For Reconsideration was denied, copy of the resolution was received by petitioners on March 6, 1969;

"3) That these were the pure and true things that happened with the case of the poor petitioners herein who simply relied, firstly, in the sense of justice and fairness of all the members of this Highest Court of the land; and, secondly, on their own personal strengths and arguments backed by pure hearts and clear conscience, without twisting, wresting or interpreting what unfortunately transpired therein" ;

In our resolution of March 14, 1969 We denied said second motion for reconsideration, and because some allegations therein made, particularly the ones reproduced above, were not true, petitioner Peña was required to show cause within ten days from notice why he should not be dealt with for contempt of court.

On April 1, 1969 he filed a manifestation stating, inter alia, the following:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) That when he prepared his Second Motion For Reconsideration aforementioned, his mind was in a state of emotional despondency — in frenzied desperation, frantically confused and bewildered, after he had learned that various police authorities were searching for him and scaring his children, armed with Warrant of Arrest issued by CFI Judge Arsenio Solidum, now the subject of petitioners’ URGENT MOTION TO CITE FOR CONTEMPT filed with this Honorable Tribunal on March 14, 1969;

"(2) That petitioner Peña when he prepared the motion aforecited, his residence was under twenty-four hour strict surveillance — his wife being trailed to and from the market, his children closely shadowed to and from the school by the police with whom he learned to play hide and seek, NOT BECAUSE HE INTENDED TO DEFY THE COURT’S ORDER OF ARREST, BUT SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT HE WANTED FIRST, BEFORE HE SURRENDERS, TO TEST THE PROPRIETY, VALIDITY AND LEGALITY OF THE HONORABLE JUDGE SOLIDUM’S ORDER OF ARREST BEFORE THIS HIGHEST TRIBUNAL, CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS AS STILL IS A CERTIORARI PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION — SUB-JUDICE IN NATURE AND, THEREFORE, THE EXECUTION OF SENTENCE SO ENTHUSIASTICALLY AND OVER-ZEALOUSLY BEING PROMULGATED BY SAID HONORABLE JUDGE SOLIDUM WAS FOR CERTAIN PREMATURE, NOT TO SAY ILL-MOTIVATED, OPPRESSIVE, INSPIRED BY HATRED AND ILL WILL, CONTEMPTOUS, DESPOTIC, IF NOT ALTOGETHER UNLAWFUL;

"(3) That petitioner Peña aside from the fact that he was racing with time in the preparation of his Second Motion For Reconsideration (filed on the last day, March 11, 1969), coupled with the fact that he could not even go out to consult with another lawyer for fear of unlawful arrest, and neither had he a fair chance to verify the reports heard by his friends as relayed to him about the status of his first motion for reconsideration in the Supreme Court, all these taken together, he inevitably fell into the pit of gullibility by erroneously swallowing and taking such reports on their face value;

"(4) That upon a belated verification, he was amazed and aghast to discover that his allegations, more particularly those in paragraphs 2(a) to 2(e), have no basis in fact, but purely hearsay and half truth, and for that reason he now withdraws the same, and respectfully moves that they be stricken out from the records, WITH SINCEREST APOLOGIES TO THIS HONORABLE COURT.

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that leniency be extended to petitioner herein, considering his precarious situation and mental state of emotion, desparation and confusion at the time, and that the foregoing manifestation and/or explanation be considered by this Honorable Tribunal as adequately satisfactory."cralaw virtua1aw library

While, considering the circumstances of the case, the above explanation and apology may be deemed sufficient to make up for petitioner a case of lack of malice and bad faith, it is, however, resolved that he, like any other member of the bar or party in a case before this court, is hereby admonished to carefully verify the truth and correctness of the statements of fact made in their pleadings, and that any subsequent similar misconduct on the part of petitioner Camilo Peña will be dealt with more severely.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., did not take part.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





April-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25924 April 18, 1969 - EDUARDO Z. ROMUALDEZ, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO ARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27833 April 18, 1969 - IN RE: ARSENIO GONZALES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-29113 April 18, 1969 - PAZ M. GARCIA v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30052 April 18, 1969 - CAMILO V. PEÑA Y VALENZUELA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-20953 April 21, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE T. VILLAS

  • G.R. No. L-26489 April 21, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ODONCIO TARRAYO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21492 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUITO TAPITAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22452 April 25, 1969 - GEORGE KALITAS v. CATALINO LIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22799 April 25, 1969 - TOMAS L. LANTING v. RESTITUTO GUEVARRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22945 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARASA HAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23652 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: GO AY KOC v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24166 April 25, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24508 April 25, 1969 - CENTRAL SAWMILLS, INC. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25438 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: WILLIAM SAY CHONG HAI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25709 April 25, 1969 - RIZAL SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY v. CUSTOMS ARRASTRE SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26602 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: LIM CHUY TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26416 April 25, 1969 - IN RE: JULIO CHUA LIAN YAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26524 April 25, 1969 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26789 April 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DICTO ARPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29910 April 25, 1969 - ANTONIO FAVIS v. CITY OF BAGUIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20122 April 28, 1969 - FELICIANO A. CASTRO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20268 April 28, 1969 - VENANCIO CASTAÑEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24163 April 28, 1969 - REGINO B. ARO v. ARSENIO NAÑAWA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24813 April 28, 1969 - HERMENEGILDO SERAFICA v. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25437 April 28, 1969 - IN RE: YAP EK SIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27347 April 28, 1969 - JOSE D. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ALFREDO FERNANDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27588 April 28, 1969 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28805 April 28, 1969 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION SUPERVISORS’ UNION v. NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29930 April 28, 1969 - BENITO ARTUYO v. FRANCISCO GONZALVES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20374 April 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SYLVIA ABONITALLA DE RAVIDAS

  • G.R. No. L-21483 April 28, 1969 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22418 April 28, 1969 - FELIX LIMON v. ALEJO CANDIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22012 April 28, 1969 - OTILLA SEVILLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23282 April 28, 1969 - FELIPE GANOB, ET AL. v. REMEDIOS RAMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22587 April 28, 1969 - RUFINO BUENO, ET AL. v. MATEO H. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28747 April 28, 1969 - PAZ M. GARCIA v. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21690 April 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EPIFANIO PUJINIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22341 April 29, 1969 - JOSE RAMOS v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23973 April 29, 1969 - CIPRIANO VERASTIQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25094 April 29, 1969 - PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. v. PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25883 April 29, 1969 - CALTEX (PHILIPPINES) INC. v. CALTEX DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19906 April 30, 1969 - STERLING PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. FARBENFABRIKEN BAYER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22382 April 30, 1969 - REPUBLIC MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-24273 April 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO FIGUEROA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24507 April 30, 1969 - ARSENIO REYES v. REYNALDO B. CHAVOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24402 April 30, 1969 - PEDRO V. C. ENRIQUEZ v. SECRETARY OF FINANCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25604 April 30, 1969 - PAULO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. ABRAJANO & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26679 April 30, 1969 - JOAQUIN UYPUANCO v. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27010 April 30, 1969 - MARLENE DAUDEN-HERNAEZ v. WALFRIDO DELOS ANGELES, ET AL.