April 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. 11-190-CA-J : April 24, 2012]
COMPLAINT OF EMIL MEDENILLA, PEDRO ANONUEVO, JERICHO INOCENTES, CARLITO SALOMON AND ATTY. JESUS F. ACPAL AGAINST JUSTICE SOCORRO B. INTING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
"A.M. No. 11-190-CA-J (Complaint of Emil Medenilla,[*] Pedro Anonuevo, Jericho Inocentes, Carlito Salomon and Atty. Jesus F. Acpal against Justice Socorro B. Inting of the Court of Appeals).
RESOLUTION
Complainant officers and trustees of Katarungan Village Homeowners Association, Inc., (the Association) of Barangay Poblacion, Muntinlupa City, namely, Emil Medenilla (PRO), Pedro Anonuevo (trustee), Jericho Inocentes (trustee), Carlito Salomon (trustee), and Atty. Jesus F. Acpal (village administrator), filed a complaint-affidavit[1] dated September 30, 2011 against Justice Socorro B. Inting of the Court of Appeals (CA) for grave misconduct, grave abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming of a Court of Appeals Justice in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Code of Professional Responsibility.
The complaint-affidavit alleges in substance that two sets of candidates, one from the Pagbabago Party and the other from the Balisado Performance Team, competed in the June 19, 2011 elections of their Association's officers and trustees. The Pagbabago group won the positions of President, Secretary, Treasurer, Auditor, and PRO while the Balisado group won only the seats of the Vice-President and Business Manager.[2] For the Board of Trustees, however, eight from the Balisado group, including Justice Inting, won the majority of the 14 positions of trustees. The Pagbabago group won the remaining six positions.[3]
Complainants further alleged that, soon after the winners took their oath of office, Justice Inting committed the following wrongful acts:
a) During the July 9, 2011 monthly regular meeting of the Association's board of trustees and officers, someone introduced a resolution that authorized its President, Fiscal Leoncio D. Suarez, Jr. and Treasurer, Jose A. Abundo, to transact business with its banks. Justice Inting opposed the passage of the resolution, however, claiming that the newly elected officers and trustees had not as yet properly assumed their offices in view of the required 60-day turn-over transition from the outgoing officers provided in Section 6, Rule 11 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 9904 (R.A. 9904)[4] although these rules did not suppose to take effect yet.[5]
b) Justice Inting joined some members of the association in filing complaints of grave abuse of authority, among others, against its newly elected officers before, the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB)[6] where her impartiality might reasonably be questioned should the case reach the CA where she worked.[7]
c) Justice Inting and other trustees of the Association prodded Evangeline Bersabe, its accountant, to disobey the President's order for her to surrender the association documents and keys in her possession.[8]
d) Justice Inting and others in the Board of Trustees supposedly passed Resolution 2011-21, entitled Strengthening the Internal Control and Disbursement Policies of the Association,[9] when such matter did not appear in the August 27, 20 U special meeting agenda or in its minutes. Nobody proposed such a resolution and the board did not deliberate or vote on it. Since only Justice Inting was the only lawyer in the group, complainants conclude that she prepared that resolution and manipulated her supporters in the board.
e) Justice Inting used her title as justice of the CA to justify the supposed board action.[10] When her group displayed tarpaulins announcing the implementation of the challenged board resolution, the Association's security personnel removed and seized the tarpaulins. Reacting to this, Justice Inting went to the Association's office and, standing on the middle of the street, questioned what the security personnel did. Complainants alleged that she arrogantly said on that occasion that she was a CA Justice, conveying the message that her action was proper and cannot be questioned.[11]
f) Justice Inting and her cohorts usurped the general and management powers of the Association's President to reassign or reshuffle its employees to other positions or to perform other duties and responsibilities.[12]
g) She violated Rule 5.01 (d)[13] and Rule 5.10[14] of Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct when she joined the political party of her group and contributed to its party funds. Complainants point out that the elections for the board of trustees and officers of the Association had become so politicized that she, as a CA Justice, ought not to have taken part in them since they detracted from the dignity of that court.[15]
In her December 2, 2011 comment,[16] Justice Inting assails the complaint as motivated by ill will, malice, and a desire to prevent her from fulfilling her duties as member of the Association's board of trustees.[17] It was unavoidable, she says, that she and the others in the board had to institute their action against complainants even if there was a chance that the matter could go up to the CA where she worked. But, since she was involved in the case in her personal capacity as a trustee of the Association, she simply would have to inhibit herself voluntarily if such matter be assigned to her Division.[18]
Justice Inting claims that the action they filed with the HLURB was not altogether groundless since the HLURB even granted their application for a cease and desist order against complainants' group.[19] She rejects as baseless the charge that the Association's elections partake of political activities. And, although she was active in the affairs of the Association, she excelled in her work as Justice of the CA as borne by its records.[20]
In their reply of January 10, 2010,[21] complainants contend that Justice Inting appeared before the HLURB in her personal capacity since she had not been personally aggrieved by complainants' action nor had they violated her rights.[22] They claim that the HLURB cease and desist order appeared questionable, given a report that it was issued because Justice Inting used her influence as a Justice of the appellate court and because her schoolmates at that agency helped her.[23]
The issue before the Court is whether or not there is sufficient basis to warrant further administrative investigation of the complaint against Justice Inting.
Here, the main thrust of the complaint against Justice Inting is that, as Justice of the CA, she should have desisted from joining the elections for the officers and members of the Board of Trustees of her homeowners association and gotten embroiled in the issues that animated the two groups which shared the powers of the association, thus getting drawn into a bitter litigation.
But joining the judiciary does not mean that a judge should live the life of a hermit. The Code of Judicial Ethics does not bar him from joining associations or institutions that promote the common good. To be sure, no social or moral considerations prevent him from taking active part in organizations that aim to promote the welfare of his family or community, like a homeowners association.
Perchance, serious issues could develop even within socially desirable organizations but it cannot be on account of such a risk that the judge should stay off from all forms of human associations. He does not, by becoming a judge, cease to be a human being cast off from the society of men. Such society is his natural habitat. It is membership in questionable organizations or actively engaging in the operation of business organizations while serving as judge that he is enjoined to avoid.[24]
As a trustee of her village's homeowners association, Justice Inting has the right to stand her ground on any legitimate issue that might arise in the course of the discharge of her duties. She could of course be wrong on those issues but it is not for this that she can be subjected to administrative action. None of those issues are related to her work as Justice of the CA.
Essentially, complainants want the Court to resolve by their present action some of the very issues that they raise against her in the HLURB case. But this is not a function of this administrative case. Only when she purposely uses her position as Justice of the CA to get an advantage over or cause prejudice to others can she be administratively sanctioned. As it happens, there is no clear allegation in the complaint in this case that establishes this. The allegations about her using her judicial rank to her advantage in the HLURB case are admittedly speculative.
The closest to her invoking her judicial rank was when she stood on the middle of the street to confront the village security personnel who removed and seized the posters that the Board of Trustees put up to announce the need for the Association to comply with its resolution enjoining compliance with the internal controls and disbursement policies that it had enacted. It is plain that those security personnel used raw force to silence the voice of the Board of Trustees expressed through those posters. And, assuming that Justice Inting mentioned the fact that she was a Justice of the CA when she confronted the security personnel, she appears to have done so spontaneously to show that she knew what she was talking about or to discourage those security personnel from using physical force against her that they seemed quite capable of.
While it is the Court's duty to investigate every allegation of wrong-doing against judges and other court personnel, it is also its duty to protect them from frivolous charges.[25]cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES the present administrative complaint against Justice Socorro B. Inting of the Court of Appeals for want of substance.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[*] Also referred to as Emilio Medenilla in some parts of the records.[1] Rollo, pp. 1-9.
[2] Id. at 10.
[3] Id. at 10-11.
[4] Known as "The Magna Carta for Homeowners and Homeowners Association."
[5] Rollo, p. 2.
[6] NCR HOA-071411-1525, Savedia, et al. v. Suarez, Jr., et al., id. at 18-36.
[7] Id. at 4.
[8] Id. at 5.
[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 6-7.
[11] Id. at 6.
[12] Id. at 7.
[13] Rule 5.01 - A judge may engage in the following activities provided that they do not interfere with the performance of judicial duties or detract from the dignity of the court.
x x x x
(d) serves as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of a non-profit or non-political, educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization.
[14] Rule 5.10. - A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates, for political office or participate in other partisan political activities.
[15] Id. at 8.
[16] Id. at 152-161.
[17] Id. at 352.
[18] Id. at 154.
[19] Id. at 159.
[20] Id. at 155.
[21] Id. at 164-185.
[22] Id. at 166.
[23] Id. at 181.
[24] Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x x
(h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, or contract or transaction in connection with which here intervenes or takes part in his official capacity or in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest. (Sec. 3[h], R.A. 3019)
[25] Montes v. Mallare, 466 Phil. 939, 948 (2004).
