ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 152072. September 26, 2006]

ROMEO G. ROXAS, et al. vs. ANTONIO DE ZUZUARREGUI, JR., et al.

Sirs/Mesdames:

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

G.R. No. 152072 (Romeo G. Roxas, et al. vs. Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr., et al.) and

G.R. No. 152104 (Antonio de Zuzuarregui, Jr., et al. vs. National Housing Authority, et al.)

The Court En Banc Resolved to ACCEPT these cases which was referred to it by the First Division in the latter's resolution dated September 20, 2006.

In his letter dated 13 September 2006 to Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, petitioner Atty. Romeo G. Roxas dubbed the Supreme Court's decisions in Roxas v. Zuzuarregui (G.R. No. 152072) and Zuzuarregi v. National Housing Authority (G.R. No. 152104) as "terrible," "wrongful" and "unjust" and where he took to task the Supreme Court itself calling it a "dispenser of injustice."

In particular, he cast grave and serious aspersions on the person of Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario questioning her integrity, to wit: "[w]e will never understand what forces and influences caused her to reason out her decision in such an unfair and unjust manner as to compromise the reputation, integrity and dignity itself of the Supreme Court, as a venerable institution of justice" and that "[w]e cannot fathom how such a decision could have been arrived at except through considerations other than the pure merits of the case."

We quote from his letter:

As an officer of the court, I am shocked beyond my senses to realize that such a wrongful and unjust decision has been rendered with you no less as the ponente. This terrible decision will go down in the annals of jurisprudence as an egregious example of how the Supreme Court, supposedly the last vanguard and bulwark of justice is itself made, wittingly or unwittingly, as a party to the wrongdoing by giving official and judicial sanction and conformity to the unjust claim of the Zuzuarreguis. We cannot fathom how such a decision could have been arrived at except through consideration other than the pure merits of the case. x x x

We cry out in disbelief that such an impossible decision could spring forth from the Supreme Court, the ultimate administrator and last bulwark of justice. As it stand, instead of being administrator of justice, the Supreme Court is ironically a dispenser of injustice. x x x

As for your Honor, sleep well if you can still can. x x x

In this light, within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution, petitioner is hereby ordered to explain in writing why he should not be held in contempt of court and subjected to disciplinary action.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE