December 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > December 2008 Resolutions >
[OCA IPI No. 08-137-CA-J : December 09, 2008] TERESA R. IGNACIO AND ROBERTO R. IGNACIO V. JUSTICES MONINA AREVALO ZEÑAROSA AND ESTELA AL PERLAS-BERNABE, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA :
[OCA IPI No. 08-137-CA-J : December 09, 2008]
TERESA R. IGNACIO AND ROBERTO R. IGNACIO V. JUSTICES MONINA AREVALO ZEÑAROSA AND ESTELA AL PERLAS-BERNABE, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated December 9, 2008
OCA IPI No. 08-137-CA-J - (Teresa R. Ignacio and Roberto R. Ignacio v. Justices Monina Arevalo Zenarosa and Estela Al Perlas-Bernabe, Court of Appeals, Manila)
Teresa R. Ignacio and Roberto R. Ignacio (complainants) filed before the Court a Letter-Complaint dated August 5, 2008 charging Justices Monina Arevalo Ze�arosa (Justice Ze�arosa) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (Justice Bernabe) of the Court of Appeals (CA) Manila, with grossly improper and unlawful conduct.
Complainants allege: They are the respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 103294, a petition for certiorari entitled "Pastor v. Hon. Morallos" which seeks to prevent the implementation of the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 44, Manila in Civil Case No. 97-86042, requiring the City of Manila to pay the share of the Estate of Florencio Reyes, Sr. in the expropriation proceeds through the duly appointed administratrix, complainant Teresa. Even before the petition was filed, petitioner Clara Pastor (Clara) already boasted that they would surely win in the CA because they had a relative there who promised to help them. The relative's maiden name is Monina Arevalo, niece of Tony Arevalo, husband of Oliva who was the first administratrix of the estate. During the pendency of the petition, Clara again boasted that Justice Ze�arosa would talk to the handling justice, Justice Bernabe, in order to ensure a favorable decision for them. The petition was raffled to the 2nd Division and on May 7, 2008, Justice Bernabe issued a resolution giving respondents 10 days to file comment. Respondents filed their Comment on June 12, 2008 and on exactly the same date, Justice Bernabe issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) restraining the RTC from enforcing its Orders. Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) praying that the Resolution be reconsidered, or that the TRO be lifted, or in the alternative, increase the amount of the bond since the P2M bond is grossly disproportionate to the P20M involved in the case. Instead of resolving the MR, however, Justice Bernabe, this time sitting as a member of the 17th Division, issued another resolution dated July 14, 2008 immediately granting the petition for certiorari and invalidating the orders of the RTC, without even tilling on the other issues raised, such as the insufficiency of the bond and the availability of other remedies.
Complainants point out that it was always Justice Bernabe who handled the case regardless of where the case was raffled and assert that Clara et al. were treated with undue favor by Justice Bernabe, through Justice Zenarosa, as shown by the dizzying speed with which the TRO and the Decision in the case were released.
Justice Bernabe filed her Comment dated November 11,2008, averring that: the July 14, 2008 Decision was resolved by the members of the 17th Division in accordance with law, rules and jurisprudence, as it simply modified the RTC Orders to conform to the already final and executory Supreme Court Resolution dated July 17,2006 in G.R. No. 172385[[1] denying the Intestate Estate's petition for review from the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 71586[2] which upheld the intestate court's Order [3] in SP Case No. 5442 allowing the direct distribution to the heirs of the 11/20 share of the estate from the proceeds of the expropriation case; if complainants were aggrieved by the Decision dated July 14, 2008 and convinced that an error of judgment was committed, they were not precluded from challenging the same before the proper court in an appropriate proceeding; an administrative complaint was not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse was still available, unless the assailed order or decision was tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty which was not present in this case; complainants merely anchored their accusations on the supposed boast of one of the petitioners that Justice Ze�arosa would talk to the handling justice.
Justice Bernabe unequivocally declares that Justice Ze�arosa or anyone else has not in any manner discussed the case with her; neither has she or Justice Ze�arosa ever been reputed to engage in influence peddling; that she is not related to any of the parties to the case, nor is she interested materially or beneficially in the outcome of the same; that she has conscientiously observed the highest standards of ethical and moral conduct required of a Justice of the CA, answering only to the dictates of her own conscience; that the letter-complaint was filed only on August 5, 2008 after complainants received a copy of the Decision dated July 14, 2008.
Justice Bernabe argues that if the supposed boast happened even before the filing of the petition and was repeated during the course of its pendency, why did complainants fail to bring the matter to the attention of the Court at the earliest opportunity and not after an adverse decision had already been rendered? The letter-complaint is therefore nothing more than a ploy by disgruntled litigants to justify their perceived grievance.
Justice Bernabe further asserts that: there is no basis for complainants' malicious insinuation that it was always her who was handling the case, regardless of where the case was raffled; the case was raffled only once to her as ponente and remained part of her caseload despite her transfer of division pursuant to the Internal Rules of the CA;[4] as to the charge that she issued the TRO with undue haste, suffice it to state that upon a finding of extreme urgency and merit, a TRO may be granted without waiting for any comment; considering that petitioners filed an Urgent Motion citing as additional ground the RTC Order dated May 23, 2008 allowing discretionary execution of the assailed orders subject of the petition, she and the other members of the Division issued the Resolution dated June 12, 2008, enjoining the enforcement of the RTC Orders so as not to render the substantive issues raised moot and academic; TRO is also the most reasonable means by which to preserve the status quo between the parties pending disposition of the case on the merits; her performance report would also show that she has no backlog in her docket; considering her very manageable caseload and in view of SC AM No. 07-7-12-SC enjoining the prompt disposition of cases in which a TRO has been issued, she, instead of further acting on the Omnibus Motion of Ignacio, opted to directly resolve the substantive issues raised in the petition as all the necessary pleadings had already been filed; with the disposition of the case on the merits, the Omnibus Motion assailing the TRO was rendered moot and academic; it should also be stressed that the period between the filing of petitioners' reply and the promulgation of the decision was more than enough for her to review and analyze the arguments raised in both parties' pleadings as well as for the other members of the division to look into the propriety of the decision that she penned. She prays that the complaint be dismissed outright for lack of merit.
Justice Ze�arosa also filed her Comment dated November 17, 2008 alleging that: she is the niece of the late Antonio B. Arevalo who was married to Oliva Reyes, who, as she understands, is the sister of both Teresa and Clara, a fact, complainants failed to mention; Justice Ze�arosa's family was never close to her late uncle's wife, much less to his wife's clan; the fact that complainants thought that their relationship with her would matter in carrying out the function of her office shows how detached they are from each other; otherwise, they would not have dared accuse her of such perversion; she vehemently denies that she knows that Clara filed a petition for certiorari, nor does she know about the RTC case of which she is not in the least interested; she denies having ever talked to Justice Bernabe about the case or any other case for that matter; her relationship with Justice Bernabe is purely professional; the presumption of complainants that they treated Clara et al. with undue favor is a foul statement that offends them and which she denies as a brazen lie; she has been in the judiciary since 1990, and this is the first time that she is ever complained of regarding her conduct and official actuations; complainants mention the "actuations of both justices" relative to CA GR SP No. 1 -3294 without giving specifics of what she did based on their own knowledge. She prays for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
The complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.[5] The Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion or speculation.[6] In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondents have regularly performed their official duties.[7] Furthermore, in order to be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against respondents should be competent and derived from direct knowledge.[8] Complainant's proof must at the least be clear, solid and convincing to compel the exercise of disciplinary power over the persons indicted.[9]
As pointed out by Justice Ze�arosa, complainants anchor their accusations on the fact that their opponent in the civil case "boasted" that they had a relative in the Court of Appeals who could sway the outcome of their petition. Complainants however failed to show, or even allege, having personal information that the Justice referred to actually influenced the outcome of such case. Complainants also failed to mention that they are likewise related to the said Justice, a crucial feet which weakens their accusation of bias.
Complainants bewail the fact that Justice Bernabe always handled the case, even though the case was "raffled" to another division. As adequately explained by Justice Bernabe, however, the Internal Rules of the CA provides that every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division in the same Station. The accusation of complainants on this point is therefore inaccurate and without basis.
Finally, complainants claim that the two Justices gave Clara et. al. undue favor as shown by the haste with which Justice Bernabe issued the TRO and the Decision on the case.
As explained by Justice Bernabe, there was nothing irregular with the way the TRO and the Decision were issued. The Division granted the TRO, finding merit in the application thereof and upon filing of the required bond, while all the responsive pleadings had been filed, i.e., the Comment and Reply upon which the ponente based her decision.
As correctly pointed out by Justice Bernabe, if complainants feel that they have been aggrieved by the Decision, they are not precluded from filing the necessary appeal in the proper forum. Judges will not be held administratively liable for mere errors of judgment in their rulings or decisions, absent a showing of malice or gross ignorance on their part; and bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party.[10]
This Court has always pronounced that although it wall never tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary, neither will it hesitate to shield those under its employ from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[11]
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Justices Monina Arevalo-Ze�arosa and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe is DISMISSED.
OCA IPI No. 08-137-CA-J - (Teresa R. Ignacio and Roberto R. Ignacio v. Justices Monina Arevalo Zenarosa and Estela Al Perlas-Bernabe, Court of Appeals, Manila)
Teresa R. Ignacio and Roberto R. Ignacio (complainants) filed before the Court a Letter-Complaint dated August 5, 2008 charging Justices Monina Arevalo Ze�arosa (Justice Ze�arosa) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (Justice Bernabe) of the Court of Appeals (CA) Manila, with grossly improper and unlawful conduct.
Complainants allege: They are the respondents in CA-G.R. SP No. 103294, a petition for certiorari entitled "Pastor v. Hon. Morallos" which seeks to prevent the implementation of the Orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 44, Manila in Civil Case No. 97-86042, requiring the City of Manila to pay the share of the Estate of Florencio Reyes, Sr. in the expropriation proceeds through the duly appointed administratrix, complainant Teresa. Even before the petition was filed, petitioner Clara Pastor (Clara) already boasted that they would surely win in the CA because they had a relative there who promised to help them. The relative's maiden name is Monina Arevalo, niece of Tony Arevalo, husband of Oliva who was the first administratrix of the estate. During the pendency of the petition, Clara again boasted that Justice Ze�arosa would talk to the handling justice, Justice Bernabe, in order to ensure a favorable decision for them. The petition was raffled to the 2nd Division and on May 7, 2008, Justice Bernabe issued a resolution giving respondents 10 days to file comment. Respondents filed their Comment on June 12, 2008 and on exactly the same date, Justice Bernabe issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) restraining the RTC from enforcing its Orders. Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration (MR) praying that the Resolution be reconsidered, or that the TRO be lifted, or in the alternative, increase the amount of the bond since the P2M bond is grossly disproportionate to the P20M involved in the case. Instead of resolving the MR, however, Justice Bernabe, this time sitting as a member of the 17th Division, issued another resolution dated July 14, 2008 immediately granting the petition for certiorari and invalidating the orders of the RTC, without even tilling on the other issues raised, such as the insufficiency of the bond and the availability of other remedies.
Complainants point out that it was always Justice Bernabe who handled the case regardless of where the case was raffled and assert that Clara et al. were treated with undue favor by Justice Bernabe, through Justice Zenarosa, as shown by the dizzying speed with which the TRO and the Decision in the case were released.
Justice Bernabe filed her Comment dated November 11,2008, averring that: the July 14, 2008 Decision was resolved by the members of the 17th Division in accordance with law, rules and jurisprudence, as it simply modified the RTC Orders to conform to the already final and executory Supreme Court Resolution dated July 17,2006 in G.R. No. 172385[[1] denying the Intestate Estate's petition for review from the Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 71586[2] which upheld the intestate court's Order [3] in SP Case No. 5442 allowing the direct distribution to the heirs of the 11/20 share of the estate from the proceeds of the expropriation case; if complainants were aggrieved by the Decision dated July 14, 2008 and convinced that an error of judgment was committed, they were not precluded from challenging the same before the proper court in an appropriate proceeding; an administrative complaint was not the appropriate remedy where judicial recourse was still available, unless the assailed order or decision was tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty which was not present in this case; complainants merely anchored their accusations on the supposed boast of one of the petitioners that Justice Ze�arosa would talk to the handling justice.
Justice Bernabe unequivocally declares that Justice Ze�arosa or anyone else has not in any manner discussed the case with her; neither has she or Justice Ze�arosa ever been reputed to engage in influence peddling; that she is not related to any of the parties to the case, nor is she interested materially or beneficially in the outcome of the same; that she has conscientiously observed the highest standards of ethical and moral conduct required of a Justice of the CA, answering only to the dictates of her own conscience; that the letter-complaint was filed only on August 5, 2008 after complainants received a copy of the Decision dated July 14, 2008.
Justice Bernabe argues that if the supposed boast happened even before the filing of the petition and was repeated during the course of its pendency, why did complainants fail to bring the matter to the attention of the Court at the earliest opportunity and not after an adverse decision had already been rendered? The letter-complaint is therefore nothing more than a ploy by disgruntled litigants to justify their perceived grievance.
Justice Bernabe further asserts that: there is no basis for complainants' malicious insinuation that it was always her who was handling the case, regardless of where the case was raffled; the case was raffled only once to her as ponente and remained part of her caseload despite her transfer of division pursuant to the Internal Rules of the CA;[4] as to the charge that she issued the TRO with undue haste, suffice it to state that upon a finding of extreme urgency and merit, a TRO may be granted without waiting for any comment; considering that petitioners filed an Urgent Motion citing as additional ground the RTC Order dated May 23, 2008 allowing discretionary execution of the assailed orders subject of the petition, she and the other members of the Division issued the Resolution dated June 12, 2008, enjoining the enforcement of the RTC Orders so as not to render the substantive issues raised moot and academic; TRO is also the most reasonable means by which to preserve the status quo between the parties pending disposition of the case on the merits; her performance report would also show that she has no backlog in her docket; considering her very manageable caseload and in view of SC AM No. 07-7-12-SC enjoining the prompt disposition of cases in which a TRO has been issued, she, instead of further acting on the Omnibus Motion of Ignacio, opted to directly resolve the substantive issues raised in the petition as all the necessary pleadings had already been filed; with the disposition of the case on the merits, the Omnibus Motion assailing the TRO was rendered moot and academic; it should also be stressed that the period between the filing of petitioners' reply and the promulgation of the decision was more than enough for her to review and analyze the arguments raised in both parties' pleadings as well as for the other members of the division to look into the propriety of the decision that she penned. She prays that the complaint be dismissed outright for lack of merit.
Justice Ze�arosa also filed her Comment dated November 17, 2008 alleging that: she is the niece of the late Antonio B. Arevalo who was married to Oliva Reyes, who, as she understands, is the sister of both Teresa and Clara, a fact, complainants failed to mention; Justice Ze�arosa's family was never close to her late uncle's wife, much less to his wife's clan; the fact that complainants thought that their relationship with her would matter in carrying out the function of her office shows how detached they are from each other; otherwise, they would not have dared accuse her of such perversion; she vehemently denies that she knows that Clara filed a petition for certiorari, nor does she know about the RTC case of which she is not in the least interested; she denies having ever talked to Justice Bernabe about the case or any other case for that matter; her relationship with Justice Bernabe is purely professional; the presumption of complainants that they treated Clara et al. with undue favor is a foul statement that offends them and which she denies as a brazen lie; she has been in the judiciary since 1990, and this is the first time that she is ever complained of regarding her conduct and official actuations; complainants mention the "actuations of both justices" relative to CA GR SP No. 1 -3294 without giving specifics of what she did based on their own knowledge. She prays for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit.
The complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.[5] The Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere suspicion or speculation.[6] In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondents have regularly performed their official duties.[7] Furthermore, in order to be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against respondents should be competent and derived from direct knowledge.[8] Complainant's proof must at the least be clear, solid and convincing to compel the exercise of disciplinary power over the persons indicted.[9]
As pointed out by Justice Ze�arosa, complainants anchor their accusations on the fact that their opponent in the civil case "boasted" that they had a relative in the Court of Appeals who could sway the outcome of their petition. Complainants however failed to show, or even allege, having personal information that the Justice referred to actually influenced the outcome of such case. Complainants also failed to mention that they are likewise related to the said Justice, a crucial feet which weakens their accusation of bias.
Complainants bewail the fact that Justice Bernabe always handled the case, even though the case was "raffled" to another division. As adequately explained by Justice Bernabe, however, the Internal Rules of the CA provides that every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division in the same Station. The accusation of complainants on this point is therefore inaccurate and without basis.
Finally, complainants claim that the two Justices gave Clara et. al. undue favor as shown by the haste with which Justice Bernabe issued the TRO and the Decision on the case.
As explained by Justice Bernabe, there was nothing irregular with the way the TRO and the Decision were issued. The Division granted the TRO, finding merit in the application thereof and upon filing of the required bond, while all the responsive pleadings had been filed, i.e., the Comment and Reply upon which the ponente based her decision.
As correctly pointed out by Justice Bernabe, if complainants feel that they have been aggrieved by the Decision, they are not precluded from filing the necessary appeal in the proper forum. Judges will not be held administratively liable for mere errors of judgment in their rulings or decisions, absent a showing of malice or gross ignorance on their part; and bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party.[10]
This Court has always pronounced that although it wall never tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary, neither will it hesitate to shield those under its employ from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[11]
WHEREFORE, the complaint against Justices Monina Arevalo-Ze�arosa and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe is DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Entitled "The Intestate Estate of the Late Florencio Reyes Sr. represented by the Administratrix Teresa Reyes-Ignacio v. Ramon Reyes, et al."
[2] Dated June 8,2004.
[3] RTC Pasig Br. 151, dated January 17,2002.
[4] Section 1, Rule VI of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended provides:
Sec. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and Report.-- Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if lie is transferred to another Division in the same Station (Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA[aj).
[5] Cruz v. Ali�o-Hormachuelos, A.M. No. CV04-38, March 31, 2004,426 SCRA 573.
[6] Id
[7] Id.
[8] Litonjua v. Court of Appeals, A.M. No. CAJ-04-41, September 22,2004,438 SCRA 591.
[9] Litonjua v. Court of Appeals, id
[10] Cruz v. Ali�o-Honnachuelos, supra note5.
[11] Cruz v. Ali�o-Hormachuelos, supra note 5; Litonjua v. Court of Appeals, supra note 8.
