December 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > December 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 193641 : December 08, 2010] MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S. MADRIGAL V. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. PERRY L. PE AND AURELIO R. MONTINOLA III :
[G.R. No. 193641 : December 08, 2010]
MA. ANA CONSUELO A.S. MADRIGAL V. COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. PERRY L. PE AND AURELIO R. MONTINOLA III
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 December 2010, which reads as follows:
(Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal v. Court of Appeals, Atty. Perry L. Pe and Aurelio R. Montinola III)
What needs to be immediately resolved to avoid delaying the estate proceedings of the late Consuelo "Chito" Madrigal in this Rule 65 Petition is the alleged grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution[1] enjoining the probate judge from continuing to preside over SP Pro Case No. M-6250 before the National Capital Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court, Makati City entitled In the Matter of the Petition for the Allowance of the Will of Consuelo "Chito" P. Madrigal. The presiding judge therein is Judge Oscar B. Pimentel. We will resolve that question as well as the underlying unresolved matter that has been unduly burdening the case. This is the matter of the failure of the judge to categorically resolve the Motion for Leave to Intervene dated May 8, 2008 filed by petitioner herein. This will also resolve the respondents' pending Urgent Motion (to Clarify and Confirm the Status Quo Ante Order) dated October 21, 2010 that is also before us.
The CA Injunction Against The RTC Presiding Judge
We find that the questioned four-page CA Resolution[2] is bereft of factual findings to support the legal conclusion that Judge Oscar Pimentel should inhibit himself from further hearing the estate proceedings.
After the recitation of the respective positions of the parties and the CA'S conclusive sentence that the application for a writ of injunction is impressed with merit, the appellate court proceeded to describe what a temporary restraining order is and what the requisites are for an impartial judge. The CA then ruled that Judge Pimentel should be inhibited from hearing the case without giving any reason why it perceives him as impartial. There does not appear to be any independent assessment that can amount to a factual finding for the CA to conclude that there was bias on the part of the judge.
On the other hand, the Order of Judge Pimentel dated February 19, 2009 denying the private respondents' Motion to Inhibit is well-reasoned. He cites the following reasons why he should not inhibit himself from the case:
The Unresolved Motion for Leave to Intervene of Petitioner
To avoid delaying the estate proceedings any further, Judge Oscar Pimentel is directed to categorically resolve petitioner's Motion for Leave to Intervene dated May 8, 2008 within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution as to leave no room for doubt on his legal conclusion on the standing of petitioner. It would have been evident to the presiding judge that allowing a party to intervene in a proceeding where the law does not give him standing is to invite inconvenience and cost not only to the genuine parties but to the court itself. This issue must be resolved at the outset. It is the non-resolution of this Motion that has allowed private respondents to find cause to complain. Note is made of the fact that Judge Pimentel could have clearly resolved this issue in his Order dated July 2, 2008 wherein he purported to dispose of several motions, including the Motion for Leave to Intervene but he did not do so in a categorical manner.[5] He continued to evade the question of the legal standing of petitioner by giving half-baked answers to the questions of private respondents on the same during the hearing on November 14, 2008, and continued this tentativeness in dealing with other incidents as well. He is prohibited from further avoiding the issue and is hereby required to make an unequivocal ruling thereon.
The judge is reminded that in resolving the Motion for Leave to Intervene, the law provides him enough basis to make a decision thereon without need of invoking equity. He is reminded that Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988 requires all magistrates to observe scrupulously the periods prescribed in Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution, and to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts.
WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals Special Tenth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 111804 dated July 22, 2010 that affirmed its own Resolution dated March 9, 2010 is hereby vacated. Judge Oscar B. Pimentel of Branch 148 of the National Capital Judicial Region, Makati City is hereby directed to resolve in a categorical manner the Motion for Leave to Intervene of Petitioner dated May 8, 2008, as to leave no doubt on his disposition of the question of petitioner's legal standing to participate in the estate proceedings of the late Consuelo "Chito" Madrigal within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The Urgent Motion (to Clarify and Confirm the Status Quo Ante Order) is merely noted, the same having been mooted with this Resolution.
(Ma. Ana Consuelo A.S. Madrigal v. Court of Appeals, Atty. Perry L. Pe and Aurelio R. Montinola III)
What needs to be immediately resolved to avoid delaying the estate proceedings of the late Consuelo "Chito" Madrigal in this Rule 65 Petition is the alleged grave abuse of discretion in the Court of Appeals (CA) Resolution[1] enjoining the probate judge from continuing to preside over SP Pro Case No. M-6250 before the National Capital Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court, Makati City entitled In the Matter of the Petition for the Allowance of the Will of Consuelo "Chito" P. Madrigal. The presiding judge therein is Judge Oscar B. Pimentel. We will resolve that question as well as the underlying unresolved matter that has been unduly burdening the case. This is the matter of the failure of the judge to categorically resolve the Motion for Leave to Intervene dated May 8, 2008 filed by petitioner herein. This will also resolve the respondents' pending Urgent Motion (to Clarify and Confirm the Status Quo Ante Order) dated October 21, 2010 that is also before us.
The CA Injunction Against The RTC Presiding Judge
We find that the questioned four-page CA Resolution[2] is bereft of factual findings to support the legal conclusion that Judge Oscar Pimentel should inhibit himself from further hearing the estate proceedings.
After the recitation of the respective positions of the parties and the CA'S conclusive sentence that the application for a writ of injunction is impressed with merit, the appellate court proceeded to describe what a temporary restraining order is and what the requisites are for an impartial judge. The CA then ruled that Judge Pimentel should be inhibited from hearing the case without giving any reason why it perceives him as impartial. There does not appear to be any independent assessment that can amount to a factual finding for the CA to conclude that there was bias on the part of the judge.
On the other hand, the Order of Judge Pimentel dated February 19, 2009 denying the private respondents' Motion to Inhibit is well-reasoned. He cites the following reasons why he should not inhibit himself from the case:
- He does not fall within the compulsory inhibition rule of Section 1, Rule 137.
- For cases other than in Section 1, Rule 137, inhibition is discretionary on his part.
- The act of receiving pleadings and motions, as well as setting motions for hearing, is merely ministerial.
- The executors themselves, private respondents herein considered petitioner Jamby Madrigal as a party by furnishing her counsel with all of their pleadings except for three.
- Allowing a party to supply a missing page in a pleading is not bias; in fact, he has also given the same privilege to executors in connection with a similar mistake.
- Executors cannot allege bias by the judge simply because petitioner is a Senator; it was Judge Pimentel himself who denied Senator Madrigal's petition to annul the probate of the will of the late Chito Madrigal.
The Unresolved Motion for Leave to Intervene of Petitioner
To avoid delaying the estate proceedings any further, Judge Oscar Pimentel is directed to categorically resolve petitioner's Motion for Leave to Intervene dated May 8, 2008 within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution as to leave no room for doubt on his legal conclusion on the standing of petitioner. It would have been evident to the presiding judge that allowing a party to intervene in a proceeding where the law does not give him standing is to invite inconvenience and cost not only to the genuine parties but to the court itself. This issue must be resolved at the outset. It is the non-resolution of this Motion that has allowed private respondents to find cause to complain. Note is made of the fact that Judge Pimentel could have clearly resolved this issue in his Order dated July 2, 2008 wherein he purported to dispose of several motions, including the Motion for Leave to Intervene but he did not do so in a categorical manner.[5] He continued to evade the question of the legal standing of petitioner by giving half-baked answers to the questions of private respondents on the same during the hearing on November 14, 2008, and continued this tentativeness in dealing with other incidents as well. He is prohibited from further avoiding the issue and is hereby required to make an unequivocal ruling thereon.
The judge is reminded that in resolving the Motion for Leave to Intervene, the law provides him enough basis to make a decision thereon without need of invoking equity. He is reminded that Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988 requires all magistrates to observe scrupulously the periods prescribed in Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution, and to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts.
WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals Special Tenth Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 111804 dated July 22, 2010 that affirmed its own Resolution dated March 9, 2010 is hereby vacated. Judge Oscar B. Pimentel of Branch 148 of the National Capital Judicial Region, Makati City is hereby directed to resolve in a categorical manner the Motion for Leave to Intervene of Petitioner dated May 8, 2008, as to leave no doubt on his disposition of the question of petitioner's legal standing to participate in the estate proceedings of the late Consuelo "Chito" Madrigal within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The Urgent Motion (to Clarify and Confirm the Status Quo Ante Order) is merely noted, the same having been mooted with this Resolution.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Resolution of the Special Tenth Division on the motion for reconsideration dated 24 March 2010 seeking to set aside its earlier Resolution dated 9 March 2010, rollo, p. 108.
[2] Pe, et al. v. Hon. Pimentel, et al., CA-G.R. SP No. 111804, March 9,2010.
[3] G.R. No. 157752, March 16, 2005.
[4] A.M. No. RTJ-07-2075, April 18, 2008.
[5] Private respondents believe that the Order was an outright denial of the Motion for Leave to Intervene but to this Court, its dispositive portion leaves room for ambiguity.
