ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. RTJ-02-1672.February 26, 2002]

VISTAN vs. JUDGE ANGELES

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 26 2002.

A.M. No. RTJ-02-1672(Michael T. Vistan, complainant, vs. Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, RTC, Branch 121, Kalookan City.)

In our decision dated January 30, 2002, respondent judge was ordered to explain why she should not be punished for contempt for using language that appears to be intemperate and offensive and degrading to the administration of justice in her letters dated December 12, 2000 and January 8, 2002 addressed to the Court.

In her letter dated December 12, 2000, respondent judge wrote:

"It is relevant to disclose at this point that she perceives said action as part of the vindictive streak of Justice Josue Bellosillo (sic), Chairman of the Second Division, against the undersigned.

Justice Bellosillo has some axes to grind against the undersigned stemming from her earlier complaints against said justice's friends and blood relative.

It is crystal-clear that this case is a mere retaliatory move on the part of Justice Bellosillo at this most opportune time when the undersigned has just been appointed by the Chief Executive as a new Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals."

On January 8, 2002, respondent judge wrote another letter reiterating with more detail the allegations in her first letter, viz.:

"The bitter truth is that such complaint has been a tool of harassment all along. This is very apparent from the dismissal of the complaint by the Court Administrator and subsequently by Associate Justice Buzon of the Court of Appeals.

Sad to state, however, Sr. Associate Justice Bellosillo capitalized upon the same to block the attempts of the undersigned to seek a promotion.He perceived the complaint as a golden opportunity to grind some axes against the undersigned due to her earlier complaints against the said Justice's friends and blood relative Lina Bellosillo Laigo.The case against the latte is now with the Honorable Supreme Court.

Sr. Associate Justice Bellosillo caused the resurrection of the complaint when the undersigned applied for and was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals by then President Joseph Estrada in November, 2000.But as fate would have it, the events of EDSA 2 and the subsequent change of leadership prevented her from assuming a position which was already hers."

In compliance with the order of this Court, respondent judge submitted an explanation on February 4, 2002 wherein she apologized for the use of intemperate and offensive language.She explained that she never intended her letters to assail the integrity of this Court nor affront its dignity.Anent the charges she leveled against Senior Associate Justice Josue Bellosillo, respondent judge stated that:

"If she was very straightforward in stressing certain matters against Sr. Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, it was only because she deemed it relevant to bring such issues to the fore of the controversy against her but her faith in the Honorable Supreme Court's acumen was never tainted even with the slightest shadow of doubt.

The undersigned humbly believes that honesty is still the best policy.Her expression of her genuine sentiments in her two letters was not motivated by ill-will nor by a desire to cast aspersions to the Honorable Supreme Court but only because she has always perceived the Court as a sort of a parens patriae which listens to the woes of its children and addresses their pains with compassion."

We find the explanation of the respondent judge not well taken.Using intemperate language, respondent judge imputed serious charges of vindictiveness and harassment against a member of the High Court.A reading of the letters of respondent judge will show that her charges are speculative.More, it is improper to make these charges in the administrative case against her.Respondent judge justifies the charges as an "expression of her genuine sentiments."Such a posture cannot justify the needless use of words that wound, nay, ventilate grievances grounded on conjectures.The acts of respondent judge bespeak of a careless disregard of the trust and respect that should be accorded the justices of the highest court of the land and inevitably degrades the administration of justice.Respondent is a member of the judiciary and her duty to protect at all times the public respect due the judiciary is more stringent than an ordinary lay person.

In the case of United BF Homeowners vs. Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez [343 SCRA 162 (2000)], this Court held Eduardo Bago guilty of indirect contempt for using intemperate, offensive and libelous language in his letters-complaint.We rejected the justification offered by Bago - that his language simply echoed the pain and hurt he felt when his case before the Court of Appeals moved at a turtle pace - as feeble and unsatisfactory, viz.:

"While the Court recognizes a litigant's right to criticize judges and justices in the performance of their functions, "it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism that it shall be bona fide and shall not spill over the walls of decency and propriety.A wide chasm exists between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse and slander of courts and the judges (or justices) thereof, on the other.Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross violation of the duty of respect to courts.Far from being constructive, Bago's criticisms against Justices Gutierrez and Benipayo are scurrilous attacks on their honor and integrity, as well as that of the members of this Court, thereby undermining the court's capacity to render justice."

WHEREFORE , respondent Judge Adoracion G. Angeles is found guilty of INDIRECT CONTEMPT and is FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos to be paid within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution, with warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely.(JJ. Bellosillo and Santiago, no part.)

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