ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.C. No. 4789. May 25, 2000]
EDGARDO ANGELES vs. ATTY. PRIMO PERCIVAL MARCOS, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 25 2000.
A.C. No. 4789 (Edgardo Angeles vs. Attys. Primo Percival Marcos and Virgil Castro.)
For resolution of the Court are: (1) Atty. Virgil Castro's Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration of the Hold Departure Order, dated April 15, 2000, asking for the lifting of said order issued against him by the Court in its resolution of August 9, 1999 in relation to the above case; and (2) several motions 1 Petition to Oppose Any Referral of This Administrative Case to the IBP, dated April 27, 1998; Motion to Oppose Any Referral to the IBP (II), filed October 5, 1998; Motion for the Creation of a Committee on Formal Offering of Evidences, filed October 5, 1998; Petitions of Exclusion of [Respondents] from Court Proceedings, dated April 30, 1998 and (undated) filed October 5, 1998; Motion to inform the Court of Respondent Marcos' Non-Compliance to Court Resolution Dated February 2, 2000 and Motion for the Supreme Court [to] Move and Act Now to Unmask the Imposter and Pretender Persona Named, Virgil Castro, dated April 17, 2000; Motion for the Supreme Court [to] Render Judgment to Cancel the Philippine Passport of Respondent Virgil Romero Castro, dated April 24, 2000; and Motion for the Supreme Court [to] Move and Act Now to Resolve Complainant's Motions, dated April 25, 2000. filed by complainant asking, for an early resolution of the case and the pending motions he filed, e.g., motion to cancel Atty. Castro's Philippine passport, opposition to any referral of the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
The antecedents are as follows:
On August 26, 1997, a complaint for disbarment, alleging instigation of baseless litigation, falsification of public documents, and gross ignorance of the law, was filed by Edgardo Angeles against respondents, Attorneys Primo Percival Marcos and Virgil Castro. In its resolution of November 10, 1997, the court required respondents to file their comment on said complaint. Respondent Marcos filed his comment on December 12, 1997. On April 6, 1998, respondent Castro filed a Manifestation stating therein that he had not received a copy of the complaint and that he had been in the United States from October 19, 1997 to January 8, 1998.
Respondent Castro's manifestation was noted and his requests to be furnished a copy of the complaint, and for additional time to file his comment thereon were granted. In addition, he and respondent Marcos were required to comment on, among other things, complainant's "petition for exclusion of respondent Virgil Castro from Court proceedings," dated April 30, 1998, and "petition to oppose any referral of the case to the IBP, dated April 27, 1998."
As respondents failed to file their comments, the Court required them to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to comply with the Court's directives. On June 7, 1999, respondent Marcos filed his explanation but the Court, in its resolution of June 23, 1999, found it unsatisfactory. Accordingly, he was fined P1,000.00 which he has now paid.
In the meantime, on August 9, 1999, respondents Castro was found in contempt of Court for failing to file the required pleadings and was ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00 or suffer imprisonment of five (5) days, and submit the pleadings within the same period. A hold departure order was also issued against him upon motion of complainant. On September 21, 1999, he filed his comment which is, in essence, his (1) comment on the complaint; (2) comment on the contempt order and payment of the fine; and (3) motion for reconsideration of the hold departure order. On October 26, 1999, respondent Castro paid the fine of P1,000.00 but failed to submit the comment required in the June 23, 1998 resolution.
On October 7, 1999, complainant filed a motion to cancel the passport of respondent Castro on the ground that according to the records of the Bureau of Immigration, a certain "Virgil Romero Castro" left the Philippines on July 15, 1999; that there is no record of arrival or return to the Philippines of said person; that this proves that the person filing the pleadings in behalf of respondent Castro is either an impostor, or said respondent has been misrepresenting to the Court that he is in the Philippines when in fact he has been out of the country since July 15, 1999. On November 17, 1999, we noted complainant's motion and required him to file his reply to respondent Castro's comment.
In his motion for reconsideration of the hold departure order, respondent Castro claims that his entire family now resides in the Unites States and, thus the order effectively denies him the chance to be with his family. In his supplemental motion now before the Court, he asks for the lifting of said order, stating that he has to go to the U.S. to attend the graduation of his daughter. Attached to his motion is a certification from the school principal to the effect that "Sheila Castro" is schedule to graduate from the Saint Aloysius High School, Jersey City, New Jersey, on June 2, 2000.
The hold departure order was issued against respondent Castro to ensure his compliance with the Court's directives for him to file the pleadings necessary for the resolution of this case. At present, respondent Castro has already filed his comment on the complaint which addresses the main issues raised by complainant. What he has so far failed to file is his comment on complainant's "petition for exclusion of respondent Virgil Castro from court proceedings " and "petition to oppose any referral of the case to the IBP," as required in the Court's resolution of June 23, 1998.
The motion to lift the hold departure order against respondent Castro may be granted since any administrative sanctions which may be imposed upon respondents will not require his presence in the country, but it must be conditioned upon his payment of P1,000.00 for his failure to comply with the order for him to comment on complainant's several motions after the lapse of a reasonable amount of time, without any request for extension of time or explanation therefor. Such behavior manifests a clear disregard of this Court's directives and must be penalized accordingly.
On the other hand, complainant's motion to cancel respondent Castro's passport must be denied for lack of jurisdiction. This must be addressed to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
Nor is there merit in his "motion/opposition to any referral of the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines" and his motion for the creation of a committee on formal offering of evidence". In view of several factual allegations raised in the complaint as well as in the subsequent motions filed by complainant, referral of the case to the IBP for a thorough investigation and the conduct of hearings is required by Rule 139-B, �8. Complainant's "petition to subpoena documentary records," dated May 4, 1998, is also referred to the IBP. Further, complainant's petitions for exclusion of respondents from court proceedings, dated April 27, 1998 and April 30, 1998, are considered supplemental to his complaint.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to: (1) GRANT respondent Virgil Castro's motion for reconsideration, and LIFT the hold departure order included in our resolution of August 9, 1999, upon payment of fine in the amount of P1,000.00 within ten (10) days from notice for failure to comply with the Court's resolution of June 23, 1998; (2) DISPENSE with the filing of respondent Castro'' comments as required in the resolution of June 23, 1998; (3) DENY complainant's motion to cancel respondents Castro's passport for lack of jurisdiction; (4) DENY complainant's "motion/opposition to any referral of the case to the IBP" and "motion for the creation of a committee on the formal offering of evidences" for lack of merit; (5) TREAT complainant's "petition for exclusion of (respondents) from court proceedings" as supplemental complaints; and (6) REFER the matter and all pending incidents to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
