ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 132451.August 10, 1999]

REP. ENRIQUE T. GARCIA vs. HON. RENATO C. CORONA, et. al.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 10, 1999.

G.R. No. 132451. (Rep. Enrique T. Garcia vs. Hon. Renato C. Corona, et al.)

In the August 9, 1999 issues of the newspapers, The Philippine Star ¹ at page 6.and Today, ² at page 11.there appeared a full-page paid advertisement of an article by petitioner Representative Enrique T. Garcia, purportedly taken from a privilege speech he delivered on August 4, 1999, entitled, "Supreme Court 's Choice: Public Interest vs. Big 3 Oligopoly."

The article conspicuously contains statements which tend to pressure the Court into ruling in favor of the petition, viz:

(a) "x x x. In the unfortunate event that the Supreme Court decides my case in favor of the Big 3 oligopoly, their (Big 3) overpricing could easily exceed P20.0 billion per annum, considering that an average P0.01 per liter translates to P250.0 million per annum." ³ 5th paragraph.

(b) "Notwithstanding my fears and the concerns of others that the Supreme Court might utilize all sorts of technicalities and superficialities in order to decide in favor of the Big 3 oligopoly, I still want to believe and expect that the Supreme Court will shun the pressures of the powerful, reject the importunings of the wealthy, and uphold the public interest.I will want to believe and expect that the Supreme Court will squarely rule on whether or not the lifting of price control by Section 19 of RA 8479 is against the Constitution.xxx. ⁴ 33rd paragraph.

(c) "One day soon, we might wake up from a restless sleepless night, only to be told that the Supreme Court has junked my petition. That would be a day of tragedy and sadness for the people, but surely a day of triumph and joy for the Big 3 and those who have thrown in their lot with "oligopoly." ⁵ penultimate paragraph.

(d) "For many years to come, such decision will be remembered time and again. Well-meaning leaders will ponder over it, legal scholars will study and analyze it, and the people will suffer and groan under it. It will be the victory of oligopoly over the entire country.And for generations to come, almost everybody will be asking - WHY?!" ⁶ last paragraph.

The article, furthermore, makes allusions to queries by some Justices of this Court during the hearing of the petition on July 13, 1999, and petitioner's answers to those queries. Some of the queries were taken out of context while some of the answers were not given during the oral arguments and are, thus, not part of the record. They are phrased with a derisive tone and on the whole convey the idea that some Justices have already prejudged the case on the basis of extra-legal considerations.

The petition is still pending adjudication before this Court.Hence, any comment such as those made in petitioner's published article is sub judice and may constitute indirect contempt as conduct tending, directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice.

ACCORDINGLY, petitioner Representative Enrique T. Garcia is directed to SHOW CAUSE and EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be cited for indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3 (c) and (d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

^* CORRECTION: Added.The Court Resolved to NOTE the (a) change of address, dated 29 July 1999, filed by Quiason Makalintal Barrot Torres and Ibarra, counsel for Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation, informing the Court that it has change its address to 21st Floor, Robinsons Equitable Bank Tower, ADB Avenue cor. Pedro Poveda Road, 1600 Ortigas Center, Pasig City, Metro Manila; (b) Intervenors' memorandum, dated 28 July 1999, filed by counsel for intervenors Total Petroleum Philippines Corporation, et al.; (c) separate memoranda dated: (1) 2 August 1999, filed by counsel for petitioner; (2) 30 July 1999, filed by counsel for respondent Caltex Philippines, Inc.' (3) 30 July 1999, filed by the Office of the Solicitor General for public respondents; (4) 2 August 1999, filed by counsel for respondent Petron Corporation, all filed in compliance with the resolution of 13 July 1999.

The Court also NOTED the (a) errata dated 2 August 1999, filed by counsel for intervenors Total Petroleum Philippines Corporation, et al.; (b) manifestation, dated 3 August 1999 filed by counsel for respondent Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation; and (c) aforesaid memorandum dated 2 August 1999, filed in compliance with the resolution of 13 July 1999.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE