ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2405-RTJ. July 26, 2006]

RICKY A. SONEJA, et al. v. JUDGE PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE, RTC, BRANCH 58, ANGELES CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 26, 2006

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2405-RTJ (Ricky A. Soneja, et al. v. Judge Philbert I. Iturralde, RTC, Branch 58, Angeles City)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

Received by this Office is the verified complaint-affidavit dated June 7, 2005 of Ricky A. Soneja and Marilou Soneja Tendenilla charging respondent Judge Philbert I. Iturralde, RTC, Branch 58, Angeles City with Violation of R.A. Nos. 3019 and 6713 relative to Criminal Case No. 04-051 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Philmark Iturralde."

In August 2003, herein complainant Ricky Soneja filed with the Provincial Prosecution Office of Rizal a criminal complaint for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property against Philmark Iturralde, the son of respondent judge.

Complainant Ricky alleges that while he was still confined at the Philippine General Hospital in Manila, complainant Marilou Soneja Tendenilla met respondent judge inside the office of Congressman Willy Alvarado in Batasan Hills, Quezon City. Respondent judge allegedly told her:

"Puede[ng] kong paabutin ng 10 taon ang kaso[ng] ito at iyong hinihingi ninyong P500,000.00 para sa kabayaran ng lahat ng damages sa kaso ay wala ng halaga."

Complainants further raised the issue on the delay in the filing of the Information with the court as well as the delay in the resolution of the (reopened) investigation by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. Ricky alleges that his criminal complaint was assigned to a prosecutor for investigation in August 2003. The prosecutor prepared its resolution on September 30, 2003 but the same was approved by the 1^st Assistant Provincial Prosecutor only on January 23, 2004. Although the information was subsequently filed in court, the court, in its Order of March 10, 2004, suspended the proceedings of the case pending the resolution of the accused's "Motion to Reopen Investigation," which was filed with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. The reinvestigation pushed through and the investigating prosecutor issued a resolution on August 6, 2004. The said resolution was, however, approved by the Provincial Prosecutor only on March 11,2005.

EVALUATION: The complaint should be dismissed.

Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

"SECTION 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. xxx" (emphasis supplied)

In the instant case, complainants filed a Joint Affidavit stating that while complainant Ricky was confined at the Philippine General Hospital, Manila, respondent Judge Philbert Iturralde met complainant Marilou at the office of Congressman Willy Alvarado in Batasan, Quezon City and told her "Puede[ng] kong paabutin ng 10 taon ang kaso[ng] ito at iyong hinihingi ninyong P500,000.00 para sa kabayaran ng lahat ng damages sa kaso ay wala ng halaga." However, there was no affidavit executed by a third person to support the allegation of the complainants. This, alone, is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the complaint.

This notwithstanding, and in order to see if there is a need to look further into the allegations, the Office of the Court Administrator opted to secure the comment of Judge Iturralde. Without dwelling on his discussion as regards the issue on whether or not the constitutional rights of his son had been violated and all other matters which are judicial in nature, worthy of consideration is his argument, which reads in part:

"On the issues stated in the Complaint-Affidavit, the undersigned vehemently denies such malicious acts imputed against his person and likewise any insinuations of alleged Grave Misconduct. Apparently the herein complainants appears to be frustrated on the legal processes of their complaints which I have no control of (being still in the preliminary investigation stage with the Department of Justice) but which to their xxx minds should be blamed on me apparently because of my being a Judge, the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and not to mention being the father [of] Philmark, the driver involved in the accident. Surprisingly and in fairness to the Public Prosecutors who handled the case, said complainants even included them (Hon. Provincial Prosecutors of Pasig) in this xxx complaint, who have even resolved the case in their favor by filing a RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE CASE against my son Philmark (sic). "

"I[t] must be emphasized that at the very inception of the case[,] my son is being ably represented by the Sagayo, Tacardon and Yulo Law Office as can be seen on the pleadings filed. By reason of the above, it is therefore said law office that has taken full control on the defense of the case and not the undersigned. xxx"

Moreover, the seeming delay in the filing of the information against the son of respondent judge as well as the delay in the termination of the (reopened) investigation conducted by the Provincial Prosecutor Office of Rizal should not be blamed on the respondent judge. Records do not show that respondent judge has influence, political or otherwise, over the prosecutors of Rizal. Corrolarily, the imposition of sanctions, if so warranted, on the delay incurred in: (a) the filing of the information; and (b) the conduct of the (reopened) investigation by the concerned prosecutors, who are officers of the Department of Justice (DOJ), is within the realm of the DOJ.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the complaint against Judge Philbert I. Iturralde, RTC, Branch 58, Angeles City be DISMISSED.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

It is an established rule in administrative cases that complainant bears the onus of establishing or proving the averments in his complaint by substantial evidence. ^[1] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Philbert I. Iturralde is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Cordero v. Enriquez, A.M. No. CA-04-36, February 18, 2004, 423 SCRA 181, 187.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011