October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-188-CA-J : October 04, 2011]
VERIFIED COMPLAINT DATED 8 AUGUST 2011 OF JOHNNY PERALTA, WILFREDO POMBO, VICTOR D. SINGSON, JR., CARMENCITO A. CAPUYAN, SANITO C. OSMA AND DOMINGO ESCOBAR, AGAINST HON. RODRIGO F. LIM, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY
"A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-188-CA-J (Verified Complaint dated 8 August 2011 of Johnny Peralta, Wilfredo Pombo, Victor D. Singson, Jr., Carmencito A. Capuyan, Sanito C. Osma and Domingo Escobar, against Hon. Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City). - The instant case is an administrative complaint against Court of Appeals Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., that was filed by complainants Johnny Peralta, Wilfredo Pombo, Victor D. Singson, Jr., Carmencito A. Capuyan, Sanito C. Osma and Domingo Escobar. These six Filipino agricultural workers were allegedly exposed to some pesticide chemical used in banana plantations and joined a class action suit in the United States against Shell Oil Company (Shell Oil) and other multinational corporations for damages. These cases were later on dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens and all the plaintiffs were directed to file actions in their respective home countries.
In accordance with the resolution of the class action suit abroad, four domestic civil cases were filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Davao del Norte against Shell Oil and the other multinational companies. The six Filipino agricultural workers herein were among the plaintiffs in one of the cases, Civil Case No. 94-45. During the pendency of these cases, Shell Oil entered into a global compromise settlement with all of the plaintiffs, including the six complainants. The RTC approved the settlement and a judgment based on the compromise was entered that eventually became final and executory.
Thereafter, the six complainants herein filed a Motion for Execution against Shell Oil on the ground that they had not yet received the payments under the compromise agreement. In reply, Shell Oil explained that the amount under the compromise had already been placed in an escrow account, which was to be administered and distributed by the chosen mediator in accordance with the Compromise Agreement.
The trial court ordered the execution of its earlier judgment against Shell Oil and its unnamed subsidiaries and affiliates for a total amount of US$ 17 Million. The trial court thereafter amended its Order of Execution and issued an Alias Writ of Execution, specifically naming Shell Oil's subsidiaries and affiliates, including Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Pilipinas Shell).
Shell Oil filed a Rule 65 Petition with the Court of Appeals to prohibit the execution of the judgment on the compromise and to declare the civil case executed. It also prayed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction. The CA issued a 60-day TRO and proceeded to conduct a hearing on the propriety of the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction.
In an Urgent Motion for Clarification, complainants asked whether the other multinational corporations could benefit from the TRO granted in favor of Shell Oil. In a Resolution dated 06 October 2009, the CA clarified that it only had jurisdiction over Shell Oil and not over the other companies. Thus, the TRO issued applied only to Shell Oil.
On 16 October 2009, the CA's 23rd Division - composed of Justices Lim (Chairperson), Ruben C. Ayson (ponente) and Leoncia Real-Dimagiba (on leave) - granted the writ of preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the trial court's Alias Writ of Execution against Shell Oil and its subsidiaries and affiliates, including Pilipinas Shell.
On 26 October 2009, Pilipinas Shell filed a separate Rule 65 Petition, also to prohibit the implementation of the execution ordered by the trial court, on the ground that Pilipinas Shell had never been included as a party to the proceedings in the civil cases.
On 17 August 2011, the instant administrative Complaint was filed against Justice Lim alone for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. He was faulted for allegedly allowing the preliminary injunction to cover even the execution on the assets of Pilipinas Shell, when the latter was not yet subject of the CA's jurisdiction at that time.
To be considered to have been grossly ignorant of the law, a judge must have ignored, contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence. (Marcos v. Pinto, A. M. No. RTJ-09-2180, 27 July 2010, 625 SCRA 652) To warrant a finding of gross ignorance of the law, it must be shown that the error is "so gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith." (Joaquin v. Madrid, A. M. No. RTJ-04-1856, 30 September 2004, 439 SCRA 567)
In this instance, there is no prima facie case of gross ignorance of the law on the part of Justice Lim, based merely on the Court of Appeals' Writ of Preliminary Injunction. In the trial court's Amended Order and Alias Writ of Execution, the properties of Pilipinas Shell and other subsidiaries and affiliates of Shell Oil were specifically mentioned and included even though they were never party to the proceedings. Thus, when Justice Lim, who was not even the ponente of the case, voted to grant the writ of preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals simply enjoined the amended order and alias writ of execution in accordance with what was included therein.
Thus, even assuming arguendo that the appellate court had not yet attained jurisdiction over Pilipinas Shell (even if, the latter subsequently filed its own Rule 65 Petition), the preliminary injunction granted by it was directed at the trial court's order, which was within the scope of Shell Oil's request and the appellate court's authority. That the Court of Appeals' injunction benefited Pilipinas Shell and Shell Oil's other subsidiaries was merely incidental. It was not by any means a clear indication of gross ignorance or grave abuse of discretion.
The acts of judges, pertaining to their judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary action, unless these are tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. (Eda�o v. Asdala, A. M. No. RTJ-06-2007, 06 December 2010, 636 SCRA 466) Whether the appellate court committed grave abuse of discretion or serious reversible error in including Pilipinas Shell in the grant of its injunctive relief is a preliminary matter that the parties can raise as an issue on appeal after the Petitions are finally resolved. Absent any extrinsic evidence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the Court presumes that Justice Lim performed his judicial functions in good faith, even if the grant of a preliminary injunction is later on reversed, whether by the appellate court itself or by this Court on appeal.
WHEREFORE, the Verified Complaint against Court of Appeals Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., is hereby DISMISSED. There exists no prima facie case to warrant the conduct of further administrative proceedings against him."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court