ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-53-CA-J.
LITONJUA vs. CA
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-53-CA-J (Antonio K. Litonjua vs. Court of Appeals Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Bernardo Abesamis.)
On P99,000,000 and exemplary damages in the amount
of P5,000,000.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), said decision was
affirmed in toto.This Court, however,
modified the CA's decision reducing the exemplary damages from P5,000,000
to P50,000.Said decision became
final on
On
On
On
On
On August 7, 2001, finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court, the CA dismissed the Petition for Prohibition and dissolved the writ of Preliminary Injunction, holding that the issue of satisfaction of judgment, not having been raised at the RTC level, could not be raised in the Court of Appeals for the first time.This was contained in a Decision penned by respondent Justice Enriquez Jr., and concurred in by Justices Presbitero Velasco and Ruben T. Reyes.
On
a) While it found in its original decision that as a general rule the execution of a final and executory judgment is a matter of right, the same can admit of exceptions citing Bachrach Corp. v. Court of Appeals. [1] cralaw
b) The lower court should have acted with caution when the matter of the compromise agreement was brought up at the time Antonio K. Litonjua and Aurelio K. Litonjua filed their "Entry of Appearance and Motion for Execution of Judgment."
c) The existence of a compromise agreement, which is in effect a consensual agreement perfected upon the meeting of the minds of the parties, becomes binding upon the parties even if not approved by the court, citing therein Mayuga v. Court of Appeals. [2] cralaw
d) There appears to be two groups claiming rightfully representation in the case, the group of Eduardo Litonjua, Jr., and the group of brothers Antonio K. Litonjua and Aurelio K. Litonjua.
e) Therefore, there being two groups claiming the right to represent ARC and considering the existence of a compromise agreement, the trial court should have deferred the execution and determined these two issues to prevent an unjust and inequitable situation where a judgment debtor would be made to pay twice for an obligation which may turn out to have been satisfied.
On
1.Grave Misconduct on the part of Justice Enriquez in demanding money from him in order to facilitate the release of the resolution of the case;
2. Grave Misconduct on the part of Justices Enriquez and Abesamis in knowingly frustrating the execution of the Writ of final Decision despite the Supreme Court's Entry of Judgment, in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction stopping the execution of the judgment in the case before the RTC.
3. Grave Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law due to Justice Enriquez' deliberate refusal to resolve the six pending motions listed in his Affidavit-Complaint for an unreasonable length of time;
4. Justice Abesamis participated by acting as a power broker and influence-peddler, and engaging in the practice of case-fixing.
Complainant Litonjua claims that after the issuance of the TRO
and Preliminary Injunction stopping the implementation of the Writ of Execution
issued by the RTC, he received a call from Justice Enriquez, requesting to see
him at his office at the CA.Complainant Litonjua obliged and met Justice Enriquez at his office, who
apologized to him for the issuance of the TRO and Preliminary Injunction.Justice Enriquez allegedly told him that he
had a commitment with Justice Abesamis, who represented the interests of the
officers of ARC and BA.Furthermore,
Justice Enriquez allegedly told him that the group that Justice Abesamis
represented was very influential and had prepared a big amount of money for mobilization
and judicial expenses.Finally, Justice
Enriquez assured him that since he was the ponente,
the resolution of the case could be facilitated if a mobilization and judicial
fund was available.They then arrived
at a sum of P1.5 million.
Subsequently, the Decision lifting the TRO and Preliminary
Injunction was promulgated on
Complainant also accused Justices Enriquez and Abesamis of
deliberately refusing to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration and the series
of six motions he filed from
When Justice Enriquez submitted his Counter-Affidavit to the Complaint, he stated that the Amended Decision was not his decision alone, but that of the whole Eleventh Division composed of Justice Vidallon-Magtolis and Justice Ruben Reyes.He mentioned that Justice Reyes made some corrections on his draft and even suggested that it be called Amended Decision.
On the basis of these statements, complainant Litonjua herein filed a Supplemental complaint against Justice Reyes for incompetence, gross negligence, grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.
From the foregoing, it appears that complainant's sole basis for the complaint against Justice Reyes was the mention made by Justice Enriquez that Justice Reyes participated in the making of the Decision.From this, complainant concluded that there was a conspiracy to prevent the execution of the judgment of the Supreme Court, and Justice Reyes was part of this conspiracy.
Complainant does not allege any other overt act on the part of Justice Reyes that would constitute the acts complained of.The sole fact that Justice Reyes participated in the deliberation of the case cannot constitute an act that could be interpreted as a misconduct.It is his duty to participate in the deliberation of the cases before his division.The statement of Justice Enriquez in his Counter-Affidavit that the promulgation of any resolution and decision in the Eleventh Division is participated in by the other Justices including Justice Reyes does not mean that he was part of any alleged conspiracy.
The tenor of the Counter-Affidavit of Justice Enriquez was not one of implication of participation in the alleged misdeeds.He was merely making a statement of fact that indeed resolutions and decisions in a collegial body are arrived at with the participation of its members.
The Court Resolved to REFER the Complaint in this case to Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Carolina C. Gri�o-Aquino for evaluation and/or investigation, report and recommendation.The Court further resolved to DISMISS the Supplemental Complaint.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw 296 SCRA 487 (1998).
[2] cralaw 154 SCRA 309 (1987).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
