ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. 99-7-11-SC.February 15, 2000]

RE: PROPOSED APPOINTMENT OF EMILIANO S. LOYOLA, JR.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 15 2000.

A.M. No. 99-7-11-SC(Re: Proposed Appointment of Emiliano S. Loyola, Jr. an LLB. Graduate, as Court Attorney V-CT, in the Office of Justice Demetria, A.M. No. 99-7-11-SC.)

����������� The Court denies the "second motion for reconsideration" dated January 20, 2000 of Justice Demetrio G. Demetria and Mr. Emiliano S. Loyola, Jr., and the letter dated January 28, 2000 to the Chief Justice of Mr. Loyola which actually are "third" motions for reconsideration of the resolution of July 20, 1999 disapproving the proposed appointment of Mr. Loyola, a non lawyer, as Court Attorney V-CT, even on a temporary basis.The Court in its resolution of January 25, 2000, denied with finality their second motion for reconsideration of said resolution and adverted that no further pleadings will be entertained by the Court.When the Court states that no further pleadings will be entertained, it means no further pleadings may be filed and the Court will no longer consider the filing of any more appeals in whatever guise.These are not empty words adopted to adorn a resolution.Parties especially justices and judges of lower courts must follow and abide by the Court's resolutions.

Emiliano S Loyola, Jr. may be a holder of LlB degree, but he is not a member of the bar.Thus, he can not occupy the position of Court Attorney V-CT in the Court of Appeals which requires admission to the bar as a qualification.

Presently, Justice Demetria and Mr. Loyola invoke the Court's resolution of March 25, 1993 exempting the appointments of the confidential and coterminous staff in the offices of the justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan from Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 37, series of 1991, and Memorandum Circular No. 42, series of 1992.

����������� We can not yield to their supplication.The position of Court Attorney V-CT may be coterminous and confidential but we can not do away with a basic qualification standard for the position which is admission to the bar.

����������� It is explicit in the Court's resolution of March 25,1993, that the Court desires to be given the absolute discretion in making appointments to coterminous position but the appointees must meet the qualification standards of the positions involved, though other civil service eligibility requirement may be dispensed with.

In the case of Abila vs CSC, we held that, "the choice of an appointee must be from among those who possess the required qualifications." ¹ Abila vs. CSC 198 SCRA 102, 106 (1991).It is clear therefore that the exercise of the appointing authority of his prerogative is still qualified by the requirement of choosing from among those who possess the required qualifications.

In Cui vs. Cui, ² 120 Phil. 725, at 729 (1964).we held that the title of lawyer or attorney at law (titulo de abogado) means membership in the bar after due admission thereto, even without a degree.

In short, since Mr. Loyola is not a member of the bar, he lacks the qualification requirement for appointment as Court Attorney V-CT.The fact that he has an LlB degree is immaterial.He can not use the title of lawyer ("titulo de abogado") or attorney at law.In Circular No. 7, dated April 27, 1987, the Court provided that "the recommending justice/judge is charged with the primary responsibility of determining that his recommendees have the required qualifications." At any rate, we are inclined to review the resolution of March 25, 1993, considering that the Supreme Court's power of appointment by Constitutional prescription is subject to civil service laws (Article VIII, Section 5(6), 1987 Constitution).

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we DENY the third motions for reconsideration of Justice Demetrio G Demetria and Mr Emiliano S. Loyola Jr. and order the motions expunged from the record. We warn them sternly that further pleadings and letters from them or anyone in their behalf shall constitute contempt of Court and will be dealt with accordingly. Buena, J., is on leave.

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