ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 02-2-12-SC.February 12, 2002]
RE:COMPLAINT OF DR. VIRATA AGAINST JUDGE SUPNET, MTC, BR. 47
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 12 2002.
A.M. No. 02-2-12-SC(Re:Complaint of Dr. Cora J. Virata against Judge Francisco G. Supnet, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47, Pasay City, for "Unethical, Immoral, Illegal Actuations" in Relation to Crim. Cases Nos. 99-3586-88.)
We quote hereunder the Resolution of the Oversight Committee dated 11 February 2002 in OC No. 02-02 -
On 31 January 2002 the Oversight Committee of the Supreme Court received two (2) letters from one Cora J. Virata, a 79-year old doctor, who claims to be complainant in aforementioned criminal cases against a certain Editha S. Bailon, for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), raffled to Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47, Pasay City, presided by respondent Judge Francisco G. Supnet.Dr. Virata claimed that at 11:30 in the morning she received a call from respondent Judge Supnet informing her not to be surprised if her cases before his court would be dismissed on technicality.She alleged that respondent Judge even mentioned the huge amount involved in the cases and the condominium subject of attachment.
According to Dr. Virata her cases could not be dismissed as threatened by respondent Judge because they were very meritorious.She surmised that respondent Judge must have been impelled to personally call her about the impending dismissal of her cases because of a favor he previously asked that she failed to grant.Thus, she sought the help of the Committee.
Apparently to clarify "the favor" that was not granted, Dr. Virata sent another letter on the same day, 31 January 2002 where she related that when her cases were being heard two (2) years ago respondent Judge called her up and asked for P20,000.00 which he said he needed for his children's graduation.She said that she was only able to raise half of the amount, i.e., P10,000.00, which she sent to respondent Judge through her secretary.Subsequently, for Christmases 2000 and 2001 she received telephone calls from respondent Judge asking for P5,000.00 as Christmas gift.She was able to give the P5,000.00 in 2000 but was only able to raise P2,000.00 in 2001.These were confirmed by her secretary, Ms. Rose Sy.
The call from respondent Judge in the morning of 31 January 2002 allegedly asking Dr. Virata to see him before he would promulgate his decision on 13 February 2002 dismissing her cases prompted her to write the Committee.She was afraid he was going to ask money again from her, or she would lose her cases.
On 4 February 2002 Dr. Virata personally appeared before the Committee to discuss her complaint.Thereafter, she executed an affidavit dated 5 February 2002 again detailing her complaint against respondent Judge.Additionally, she stated therein that respondent Judge gave her a call at around 1:30 in the afternoon of 4 February 2002, of which conversation her secretary Rose Sy listened to through the telephone extension line.Dr. Virata claimed that respondent Judge told her that when he reviewed her cases he realized that she could receive as much as P1,000,000.00 in interest if she wins.Accordingly, he asked for P1,000,000.00 from her.And when she replied that she did not have that kind of money and that she was already too old and sickly, respondent Judge in exasperation reduced his demand to P250,000.00 instead, saying, "Take it or leave it!"When she insisted that she did not have the money, he shouted at her and banged the telephone.
On 8 February 2002 the Committee received another letter from Dr. Virata requesting the immediate inhibition of respondent Judge Supnet as she was afraid he might make good his threat to dismiss her cases for her failure to meet his demands.
In view of the seriousness of the charge against respondent Judge Francisco G. Supnet, the Oversight Committee recommends that respondent be DIRECTED to hold in abeyance the reported promulgation of the Decision in Crim. Cases Nos. 99-3586-88 on February 13, 2002, and to suspend further proceedings thereon until further notice; in the meantime, to COMMENT within ten (10) days from notice hereof on the letters-complaint of Dr. Cora J. Virata copies of which the Clerk of Court is directed to furnish respondent Judge together with this Resolution.
WHEREFORE , the Court Resolves to APPROVE and ADOPT the above-quoted Resolution of the Oversight Committee.
In view of the seriousness of the charge against respondent Judge Francisco G. Supnet which undoubtedly calls for immediate action, this Court Resolves to DIRECT respondent Judge to hold in abeyance the reported promulgation of his Decision in Crim. Cases Nos. 99-3586-88 on February 13, 2002, and to suspend further proceedings thereon until further notice.In the meantime, the Court further Resolves to REQUIRE respondent Judge to comment hereon within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
The Clerk of Court is directed to have this Resolution served on respondent Judge immediately together with copies of the letters/affidavits mentioned in the Resolution.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
