ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1925 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-989-RTJ].
GRACE F. MUNSAYAC C. DE VILLA, et al. vs. JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
En Banc
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1925 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-989-RTJ] (Grace F. Munsayac C. de Villa, et al. vs. Judge Antonio C. Reyes);
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1926 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 01-1248-RTJ] (Ramon K. Ilusorio vs. Judge Antonio C. Reyes, RTC, Branch 61, Baguio City);
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1927 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1435-RTJ] (Judge Ruben Ayson vs. RTC Judge of Baguio City);
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1928 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1485-RTJ] (Judge Clarence Villanueva vs. Judge Ruben C. Ayson );
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1929 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1552-RTJ] (Judge Ruben Ayson vs. Judge Abraham Borreta );
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1930 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1559-RTJ] (Atty. Cristeta R. Caluzo-Flores vs. Judge Amado S. Caguioa ); and
A.M. No. P-05-2020 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1358-P] (Hon. Amado S. Caguioa vs. Atty. Cristeta R. Caluzo-Florez .)
This resolves the (1) Manifestation
and Motion dated
In his aforesaid Manifestation
and Motion, Atty. Agcaoili asks that the Court amends its en banc Decision of
Atty. Agcaoili maintains in gist, that:
1.� He was not a party to A.M. No. RTJ-05-1926 and as such, was not given the opportunity to refute referential allusions made therein by, or allegations of, complainant and the latter's witness; and
2.� As a consequence, he had been deprived of procedural and substantive due process.
Annexed to the Manifestation and Motion is the Resolution dated March 20, 2006 of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), dismissing, for lack of clear, convincing and satisfactory proof, the disbarment complaint (Administrative Case No. 6000) filed against Atty. Agcaoili by Mrs. Erlinda K. Ilusorio on the very same issue raised in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1926.
Atty. Agcaoili's apprehension about our en banc Decision affecting him in some way despite his
non-participation in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1926, while understandable, is really
without basis. Deleting each and every
portion of the Decision of
To be sure, the mention of Atty. Agcaoili's name in the consolidated en banc Decision was as necessary as it was unavoidable. It was not meant to cast aspersion on his character, let alone impute an illegal act on him. It was needed to complete the recital of facts and render the conclusions arrived at understandable and logical. To repeat, the en banc Decision is not reflective of the character of Atty. Agcaoili and the same should not be taken against him in any proceeding.
With regard to the Motion for Reconsideration of Judge Clarence Villanueva in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1927, the Court finds no substantial matter raised therein that would warrant a second look much less a reversal of the Court's en banc Decision finding him guilty of immorality and imposing upon him the penalty of dismissal from service.
WHEREFORE, the Manifestation and Motion dated
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw En banc Decision, p. 13.
[2] cralaw Id at 14.
[3] cralaw Id at 15-16.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
