ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 109645. June 30, 1999]

ORTIGAS & CO., LTD., PARTNERSHIP vs. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 30, 1999.

G.R. No. 109645. (Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Judge Tirso Velasco and Dolores Molina.)

G.R. No. 112564 (Dolores V. Molina vs. Hon. Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 105, and the Manila Banking Corporation.)

RE: Administrative Proceedings for Dismissal from the Judiciary of Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco, Branch 105, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.

After careful consideration and analysis of Judge Tirso DC. Velasco's undated "Motion for Reconsideration," filed on September 1, 1997, in relation to the "Opposition" thereto dated December 8, 1997, filed by counsel for Ortigas and Company, Limited Partnership; Judge "Reply (To Ortigas' Opposition to Respondent Judge's Motion for Reconsideration)" dated February 20, 1998; and the "Rejoinder (To Respondent Judge Tirso Velasco's Reply dated 20 February 1998)" dated March 20, 1998, the Court Resolved to DENY said undated "Motion for Reconsideration" WITH FINALITY, there being no argument of substance therein set forth to warrant modification, much less setting aside of the Court's Resolution of August 15, 1997, the points sought to be made in said motion for reconsideration having been adequately dealt with the Opposition dated December 8, 1997 and the Rejoinder dated March 20, 1998, as well as in the Resolution of August 15, 1997 itself.

A few observations as regards Judge Velasco's contention that he was denied due process, would not be inappropriate, by way of closing this Resolution and this proceeding.

The record discloses that as early as August 15, 1994, after rendition of judgment on the merits in the consolidated cases at bar, a plea that Judge Velasco "be purged from the judiciary" was incorporated in a motion filed by Ortigas & Co. Ltd., grounded chiefly on Velasco's "gross bad faith and connivance in the fraudulent reconstitution of the fake titles." The record also reveals that the Manila Banking Corporation joined Ortigas in that plea for Velasco's removal from the judiciary. Indeed, even earlier, on July 12, 1993, said bank had filed an administrative complaint against the Judge for gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the service, patent bias and partially in favor of Dolores Molina, and hostility to those opposing her claims - involving the same orders and rulings which were annulled by this Court's Decision of July 25, 1995 in these consolidated cases. That administrative complaint was however dismissed without prejudice by this Court's First Division on October 18, 1995, principally for being premature.

The Court required Judge Velasco to file comment on said administrative complaints for his removal, but he asked for and was granted leave to suspend the filing thereof until after resolution of Dolores Molina's motion for reconsideration of the Decision of July 25, 1994. After Molina's motion for reconsideration was denied with finality, and after two (2) references by this Court to the administrative complaint for his removal, Judge Velasco submitted his comment thereon on March 17, 1995. He did so after obtaining two additional extensions, citing the need to "consult the voluminous records of the case for purposes of verification," and to "dig up his own filed and personal notes of the proceedings of the case and the evidence presented therein."

Thereafter, to give the parties, particularly respondent Judge, another opportunity to argue their causes, the Court, by Resolution dated May 20, 1996, granted them thirty (30) days from notice within which to file memoranda, if they be so minded. Judge Velasco filed his memorandum on June 26, 1996, with the assistance of counsel. The Manila Bank and Ortigas & Co. filed their memoranda on July 15, 1996 and September 11, 1996, respectively. It bears stressing that, as the per curiam Resolution of August 15, 1997 points out, "No hearing was conducted. The parties did not ask for it. Having raised no issue of fact requiring presentation of proof, they were evidently disposed to submit the case for resolution on the basis of their pleadings and memoranda in relation to the facts on record." And, of course, respondent Judge had still another opportunity to argue his case before the Court through his undated "Motion for Reconsideration" filed on September 1, 1997, with the assistance of new counsel.

In light of these indisputable premises, respondent Velasco's contention of denial of due process cannot but be rejected as utterly without foundation.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED WITH FINALITY.Puno, J., took no part.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE