February 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > February 2008 Resolutions >
[OCA IPI No. 07-116-CA-J : February 12, 2008] RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO OF THE COURT OF APPEALS:
[OCA IPI No. 07-116-CA-J : February 12, 2008]
RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated February 12, 2008
OCA IPI No. 07-116-CA-J (Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso of the Court of Appeals).- This resolves the anonymous Letter-complaint dated 8 September 2007 addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno filed by "Concerned Citizens" against Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso of the Court of Appeals relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 99315 entitled Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Calamba v. Engr. Emelyne P. Cayetano-Abaho, operating under the name and. style Jacob Joseph Builders & Planners, Engrs. Dario C. Abano and Severiano Gerardo, in which he was the ponente.
In the Letter-complaint[1], the anonymous complainants express their surprise at the alleged speed which attended Justice Veloso's rendition of the decision in the aforementioned case at a time that, according to them, when there were more equally important newly filed petitions not acted upon as well as old cases still undecided by him.
The anonymous complainants narrate that the petitioner in the said case filed a petition for review with an application for TRO and writ of preliminary injunction on 18 June 2007. On 25 June 2007, the Court of Appeals required the respondents to comment on the petition and granted petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a TRO conditioned upon the posting of a bond in the amount of P500,000.00 effective for a period of sixty (60) days.[2] On 16 July 2007, respondents complied. On 1 August 2007, petitioner filed its reply to the comment. Thereafter, the anonymous complainant allegedly called the court's Division in the morning of 3 September 2007 and they were informed that the case was still pending. However, upon receiving a copy of the decision, complainants noticed that the promulgation was antedated to 31 August 2007. After due investigation, the complainants add, they learned that it was upon Justice Veloso's instruction that the decision was antedated.
The anonymous complainant attached three other resolutions issued by Justice Veloso in June 2007 which all granted TROs, at the same time bluntly accusing Justice Veloso of receiving money in exchange for the TROs. Without much of an explanation, the complainants allege that Justice Veloso is known in the legal profession to be a "miracle justice" during his tenure as Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission and continues to be so up to the present.
In his Comment,[3] Justice Veloso debunks the charges against him as devoid of factual and legal bases. He remarks that while he was the ponente of the subject decision, Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison acted as concurring justices therein. He stresses that a decision or resolution of the Court of Appeals cannot be issued by one justice alone as it acts in divisions of three or five and cases are won based on their merits as deliberated upon by the participating justices. Said decision was reached in consultation with the members of the division as certified by its chairman, Justice Enriquez, Jr., and signed by the concurring justices. Justice Veloso further states that the promulgation of a decision is the direct responsibility of the division clerk of court and only the chairman of the division can interfere in such promulgation. He denies that the decision was antedated and if it were so, he denied responsibility for it. Fie avers that the case was disposed of with considerable dispatch as all cases should be decided pursuant to the judiciary's goal of having zero backlog. Contrary to the anonymous complainants' assertions, Justice Veloso contended that he had no pending cases for the period between May and September 2007, and that the case in question was already deemed submitted for decision as of 13 August 2007.[4] He is appalled that he is charged with impropriety for rendering a decision within three (3) months from the filing of the petition and before the TRO issued therein expired. He averred that such imputation is malicious and unfair.
Justice Veloso further denies being in the business of issuing TROs. He maintains that in 2007 alone, thirty-two (32) petitions that prayed for the issuance of a TRO were filed and only five (5) TROs were issued by the Court of Appeals through him as ponente. He argues that the Court of Appeals has no control of when such petitions may be filed, not to mention that such orders were necessary so as not to render the decisions in those cases academic. He entreats that the anonymous complaint be dismissed.
The complaint is bereft of merit.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.[5] Here, complainants utterly failed to discharge such burden. Charges based on mere speculations and conjectures cannot be given credence especially so when they are directed against magistrates who are the usual targets of unfounded and malicious harassment suits, as recognized by this Court in A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC entitled "Resolution Prescribing Measures To Protect Members Of The Judiciary From Baseless And Unfounded Administrative Complaints" which took effect on 4 November 2003.[6]
It is well to note that the petitioner in the aforementioned case has filed a petition for review which is still pending with the second division of this Court. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. The instant anonymous complaint seems to have been filed by one affected by the adverse decision whose purpose is simply to influence this Court's deliberations on the merits of the said case. This Court will not stand for it.
It is also imperative to state that the questioned decision and resolutions were not rendered by Justice Veloso alone in his individual capacity, but rather by the Court of Appeals as a collegiate court, whose members reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation pursuant to the Constitution.[7] Thus, the filing of the instant complaint against Justice Veloso alone is inappropriate.[8]
In the recent case of Flaminiano v. Judge Adriano,[9] Judge Adriano was accused of grave abuse of discretion in deciding a case for damages within a short span of 13 days. This Court found otherwise and commended Judge Adriano for his prompt decision in the subject case.[10]
Ordinarily, there should be nothing wrong or illegal in deciding cases promptly and expeditiously so long as a magistrate's acts conform to the law and to propriety.[11] Often have we said, justice delayed is justice denied. Consequently, Justice Veloso should not be reproached for his tangible efforts to make the wheels of justice roll with more celerity than normal at his end.
WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
OCA IPI No. 07-116-CA-J (Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso of the Court of Appeals).- This resolves the anonymous Letter-complaint dated 8 September 2007 addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno filed by "Concerned Citizens" against Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso of the Court of Appeals relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 99315 entitled Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Calamba v. Engr. Emelyne P. Cayetano-Abaho, operating under the name and. style Jacob Joseph Builders & Planners, Engrs. Dario C. Abano and Severiano Gerardo, in which he was the ponente.
In the Letter-complaint[1], the anonymous complainants express their surprise at the alleged speed which attended Justice Veloso's rendition of the decision in the aforementioned case at a time that, according to them, when there were more equally important newly filed petitions not acted upon as well as old cases still undecided by him.
The anonymous complainants narrate that the petitioner in the said case filed a petition for review with an application for TRO and writ of preliminary injunction on 18 June 2007. On 25 June 2007, the Court of Appeals required the respondents to comment on the petition and granted petitioner's prayer for the issuance of a TRO conditioned upon the posting of a bond in the amount of P500,000.00 effective for a period of sixty (60) days.[2] On 16 July 2007, respondents complied. On 1 August 2007, petitioner filed its reply to the comment. Thereafter, the anonymous complainant allegedly called the court's Division in the morning of 3 September 2007 and they were informed that the case was still pending. However, upon receiving a copy of the decision, complainants noticed that the promulgation was antedated to 31 August 2007. After due investigation, the complainants add, they learned that it was upon Justice Veloso's instruction that the decision was antedated.
The anonymous complainant attached three other resolutions issued by Justice Veloso in June 2007 which all granted TROs, at the same time bluntly accusing Justice Veloso of receiving money in exchange for the TROs. Without much of an explanation, the complainants allege that Justice Veloso is known in the legal profession to be a "miracle justice" during his tenure as Commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission and continues to be so up to the present.
In his Comment,[3] Justice Veloso debunks the charges against him as devoid of factual and legal bases. He remarks that while he was the ponente of the subject decision, Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Marlene Gonzales-Sison acted as concurring justices therein. He stresses that a decision or resolution of the Court of Appeals cannot be issued by one justice alone as it acts in divisions of three or five and cases are won based on their merits as deliberated upon by the participating justices. Said decision was reached in consultation with the members of the division as certified by its chairman, Justice Enriquez, Jr., and signed by the concurring justices. Justice Veloso further states that the promulgation of a decision is the direct responsibility of the division clerk of court and only the chairman of the division can interfere in such promulgation. He denies that the decision was antedated and if it were so, he denied responsibility for it. Fie avers that the case was disposed of with considerable dispatch as all cases should be decided pursuant to the judiciary's goal of having zero backlog. Contrary to the anonymous complainants' assertions, Justice Veloso contended that he had no pending cases for the period between May and September 2007, and that the case in question was already deemed submitted for decision as of 13 August 2007.[4] He is appalled that he is charged with impropriety for rendering a decision within three (3) months from the filing of the petition and before the TRO issued therein expired. He averred that such imputation is malicious and unfair.
Justice Veloso further denies being in the business of issuing TROs. He maintains that in 2007 alone, thirty-two (32) petitions that prayed for the issuance of a TRO were filed and only five (5) TROs were issued by the Court of Appeals through him as ponente. He argues that the Court of Appeals has no control of when such petitions may be filed, not to mention that such orders were necessary so as not to render the decisions in those cases academic. He entreats that the anonymous complaint be dismissed.
The complaint is bereft of merit.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.[5] Here, complainants utterly failed to discharge such burden. Charges based on mere speculations and conjectures cannot be given credence especially so when they are directed against magistrates who are the usual targets of unfounded and malicious harassment suits, as recognized by this Court in A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC entitled "Resolution Prescribing Measures To Protect Members Of The Judiciary From Baseless And Unfounded Administrative Complaints" which took effect on 4 November 2003.[6]
It is well to note that the petitioner in the aforementioned case has filed a petition for review which is still pending with the second division of this Court. The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals reversed the findings of the Construction Industry Arbitration Commission. The instant anonymous complaint seems to have been filed by one affected by the adverse decision whose purpose is simply to influence this Court's deliberations on the merits of the said case. This Court will not stand for it.
It is also imperative to state that the questioned decision and resolutions were not rendered by Justice Veloso alone in his individual capacity, but rather by the Court of Appeals as a collegiate court, whose members reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation pursuant to the Constitution.[7] Thus, the filing of the instant complaint against Justice Veloso alone is inappropriate.[8]
In the recent case of Flaminiano v. Judge Adriano,[9] Judge Adriano was accused of grave abuse of discretion in deciding a case for damages within a short span of 13 days. This Court found otherwise and commended Judge Adriano for his prompt decision in the subject case.[10]
Ordinarily, there should be nothing wrong or illegal in deciding cases promptly and expeditiously so long as a magistrate's acts conform to the law and to propriety.[11] Often have we said, justice delayed is justice denied. Consequently, Justice Veloso should not be reproached for his tangible efforts to make the wheels of justice roll with more celerity than normal at his end.
WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-3. 2
[2] Id. at 20-21.
[3] ld. at 29-90 (with annexes).
[4] Id. at 65-83.
[5] Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).
[6] A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC reads in part:
1. If upon an informal preliminary inquiry by the Office of the Court Administrator, an administrative complaint against any Justice of the Court of Appeals or Sandiganbayan or any Judge of the lower courts filed in connection with a.case in court is shown to be clearly unfounded and baseless and intended to harass the respondent, such a finding should be included in the report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. If the recommendation is approved or affirmed by the Court, the complainant may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. If the complainant is a lawyer, he may further be required to show cause why he or she should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar and as .an officer of the court.
[7] ArticIe VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution provides:
The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by ail lower collegiate courts.
[8] Rafael Rondina, et al. v. Associate Justice Eloy R. Bella, Jr., A.M. No. CA-05-43, 8 July 2005.
[9] G.R.No. 165228, 16 January 2008.
[10] Id.
[11] Ignacio v. Valenzuela, G.R. No. 2252, 18 January 1982.
