Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > February 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. No. 2549-SB : February 06, 2007] LORETA M. GUEVARA V. HON. MANUEL PAMARAN, ET AL. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 6, 2007.

A.M. No. 2549-SB - (LORETA M. GUEVARA v. HON. MANUEL PAMARAN, et al.)

For resolution is the Ex-Parte Motion to Revive filed on August 3, 2006 by complainant Loreto M. Guevara, former Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of Santo Tomas, Batangas, praying for the revival of the above-captioned administrative complaint (complaint) against Hon. Manuel Pamaran, Hon. Bernardo Fernandez, and Hon. Romeo Escarreal which this Court dismissed for prematurity by Resolution dated August 13, 1981.

Respondents are former Justices of the Sandiganbayan, who, by Decision dated February 6, 1981 rendered in Criminal Case No. 687, "People of the Philippines vs. Loreto Guevara y Maldia," found the therein accused-herein complainant guilty of violating Section 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment ranging from Four (4) Years and One (1) Day as minimum to Seven (7) Years and One (1) Day as maximum, with the accessory penalty of perpetual disqualification from holding public office.

Following the promulgation of the above-said decision convicting him on May 16, 1981, complainant filed a Petition for Certiorari before this Court seeking its review and reversal. The petition was docketed as G.R. No. 56629.

Complainant subsequently filed the present complaint charging respondent with malfeasance and misfeasance, consisting of the following alleged acts and omissions:

1. KNOWINGLY RENDERING AN UNJUST JUDGMENT; and/or
   
   
2. GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND/OR IGNORANCE OF THE LAW AND PROCEDURE IN RENDERING JUDGMENT; and/or
   
   
3. GROSS MISCONDUCT AND/OR MISBEHAVIOR IN THE PERFORMANCE AND EXECUTION OF THEIR FUNCTIONS;
   
   
4. CONDUCT AND/OR BEHAVIOR UNBECOMING OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY/SANDIGANBAYAN.^[1]
   

As mentioned early on, this Court dismissed the complaint for being premature, the Sandiganbayan decision on which the same was predicated being then pending review with this Court.

By Resolution dated September 8, 1983, this Court dismissed the Petition for Certiorari filed by complainant in G.R. No. 56629 on the ground that the issues raised therein were factual in nature.^[2] The same Resolution became final and executory by Entry of Judgment dated January 17, 1984.^[3]

Complainant now asserts in the instant motion that, while his petition in G.R. No. 56629 had been terminated, "the issues, many serious issues were not resolved" and "neither were the issues raised in the . . . petition for certiorari . . .," hence, his prayer for revival on the ground of public interest.

The Court finds the motion bereft of merit.

Contrary to complainant's characterization of the dismissal of his complaint as "provisional," the Resolution of this Court dated August 13, 1981 clearly states:

"x x x the Court Resolved to DISMISS this case for prematurity, since the questions in this case are substantially the same as those involved in complainant's petition for certiorari filed with this Court and docketed as G.R. No. 56629 (Loreto Guevarra y Maldia vs. People of the Philippines and the Honorable Sandiganbayan) which is pending and therefore subjudice." (Underscoring supplied)

The dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prematurity may not, by that fact alone, be considered only provisional in nature, especially given that there is no statement to that effect in the above-quoted Resolution. Thus, it cannot be revived by mere motion.

It need not be stressed that this Court found the complaint premature precisely because any finding of malfeasance or misfeasance against respondents would depend on whether any defect constituting thereof could be ascribed to them in the rendition of their decision which was pending review by this Court.

This Court's dismissal of complainant's Petition for Certiorari on the ground that the issues raised therein were factual in nature clearly means that none of the alleged defects in respondents' decision merited its reversal on appeal. Complainant did not thus have any ground to hold respondents administratively liable on the basis of that decision.

This Court has, in fact, taken a second hard look at the records of G.R. No. 56629, and is satisfied that complainant's appeal of respondents' decision was correctly dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the Ex-Parte Motion to Revive is hereby DENIED.

The Court Further Resolved to NOTE the Memorandum dated January 30, 2006 filed by Clerk of Court Ma. Luisa D. Villarama in compliance with the resolution of January 16, 2007.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo (G.R. No. 56629), p. 497.

^[2] Id. at 595.

^[3] Id. at 650.