FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453. December 14, 2001]
FR. MICHAEL SINNOTT, ERLINDA PEDRANO PINGKIAN, ROSITA
PEDRANO-LOPEZ, ALFREDO PEDRANO, ANTONIO PEDRANO, CARINO PEDRANO, CORAZON
MENDOZA, VIRGINIA BALING-PESTAÑAS, complainants, vs. JUDGE RECAREDO P.
BARTE, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Zamboanga del Sur, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PARDO, J.:
The case under consideration is an
administrative complaint against Judge Recaredo P. Barte, Regional Trial Court,
Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 29 for bias and partiality for the acquittal of
Nenito Gadonan, accused in a double murder case in the sala of
respondent judge.
In the early morning of February
25, 1992, Demetria Pedrano, a lay leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Barrio
Laperian, Zamboanga del Sur left her house in Laperian to pay her land taxes in
Poblacion, San Miguel. When she
returned to her house that afternoon, she was shot in the mouth by one of three
men waiting for her at her residence.
The other inhabitant in the house, Basilia Pedrano, mother of Demetria,
was hacked to death. Lolita Pedrano
Pingkian, seven-year-old niece of Demetria, living in the same house for a few
days, survived by running away when the killings began.[1]
Subsequently, state prosecutors
filed with the Regional Trial Court, Zamboanga del Sur, two murder charges
against Nenito Gadonan for the killing of Demetria Pedrano and her mother,
Basilia Pedrano. The criminal cases
were raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, presided over by Judge
Recaredo P. Barte.[2]
On January 20, 1995, the trial
court promulgated a joint decision of the criminal cases acquitting accused
Nenito Gadonan of two counts of murder on reasonable doubt.[3]
On March 29, 1995, the sisters and
brothers of Demetria Pedrano, namely: Erlinda Pedrano Pingkian, Rosita Pedrano
Lopez, Alfredo Pedrano, Gaspar Pedrano, Antonio Pedrano and Carino
Pedrano, together with
Fr. Michael Sinnot, SSC, Parish Priest of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish,
San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, Corazon Mendoza, a parish worker, and Virginia
Baling Pestañas, TFDP-Pagadian Unit Worker, Diocesan Pastoral Center,
Balangasan, Pagadian City, filed with the Office of the Court Administrator,
Supreme Court, a letter-complaint on the conduct of the trial of Criminal Case
Nos. 0474 and 0475. In their letter-complaint, they voiced their concern over
the apparent bias and partiality of Judge Barte for accused Nenito Gadonan. The
complainants claimed that there was overwhelming evidence that accused Gadonan
killed Basilia Pedrano and Demetria Pedrano, but the respondent judge
deliberately ignored or did not to give weight to such evidence. The complainants attributed Judge Barte’s
bias and partiality to his rumored special personal relationship with a
daughter of accused Nenito Gadonan and the fact that Gadonan’s other daughter
was Judge Barte’s house helper. Thus,
Judge Barte should have inhibited himself from trying the cases, knowing his
personal relationship with the accused’s family. Complainants prayed that a mistrial be declared and that a
retrial of the criminal cases be conducted.[4]
On June 21, 1995, the Supreme
Court required respondent judge to file his comment on the administrative
complaint against him.[5]
On September 1, 1995, respondent
judge filed his comment.[6] He alleged that he would
have willingly inhibited himself from hearing the case had there been a motion
filed by complainants for him to inhibit himself from the case. Yet, from arraignment to promulgation, no
motion to inhibit was filed. Respondent
denied any bias or partiality in favor of the accused. He admitted that a daughter of accused
Nenito Gadonan was once his househelper; said daughter had left his household
before the criminal cases were raffled to him.
Respondent denied the complainants’ claim that he had a special
relationship with another daughter of accused Gadonan, and averred that the
accusations were wild rumors and were unsupported by testimony from any person
as to its veracity. Respondent revealed
that he was suffering from a sexually debilitating disease called the
enlargement of the prostate gland, greatly affecting his ability to attain an
erection or reach orgasm. He alleged
that the filing of an administrative case was not the proper remedy of
complainants to seek a retrial of the case, and complainants or the prosecution
neglected to take action when the cases were still pending or when the period
for filing a motion for reconsideration was still available. He commented that the state prosecutors, as
admitted by complainants, failed to present vital witnesses or rebuttal
evidence and omitted to propound clarificatory questions that would have proven
the guilt of the accused. He did not give credence to the prosecution’s
eyewitness, Lolita Pedrano Pingkian, because of major inconsistencies in her
testimony.
On September 11, 1995, the Court
received a letter from Fr. Sinnott who alleged threats to his life and attached
an affidavit of Vicente Gerebise.[7] In the affidavit dated
August 9, 1995, Vicente A. Gerebise, Process Server of the Regional Trial
Court, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 29, alleged that sometime in the final week of
July 1995, Judge Recaredo P. Barte called him up from Manila,[8] and in the course of their
telephone conversation, requested him to look for hired killers to assassinate
a foreign priest and other human rights activists who filed an administrative
case against him. On August 9, 1995, at
6:00 in the morning, Judge Barte called him up again from Manila and inquired
from him whether he found the hired killers he requested. He replied that he had not. Process server Gerebise admitted in his
affidavit that he did not refuse Judge Barte’s request because the respondent
was his former boss at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29; however, he did not
comply with such request. He was
familiar with the voice of respondent.[9] In his letter to the
Supreme Court, Fr. Sinnott also attached a photocopy of letters written to
respondent Judge Barte allegedly from Michelle “Ging-Ging” Gadunan, rumored
lover of respondent.
On November 13, 1995, the Court
received a reply from Fr. Sinnott on the comment filed by respondent judge.[10] Fr. Sinnott stated that
there were many people willing to testify to respondent’s special relationship
with the daughter of Nenito Gadonan, but these people came forward after the
trial of the criminal cases. They were
just waiting for someone to take their testimony. They were also requesting for
an investigator to go to Pagadian City to take evidence because the witnesses
were not willing to submit written evidence to the Supreme Court because they
believed this was available to Judge Barte, who still had the power to block
appointments in Branch 29. One of the
witnesses has died, Rosita Lopez, the sister of Demetria Pedrano.
Due to the seriousness of the
charges, the Supreme Court requested the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct an
investigation. In a Disposition Report
of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), dated March 24, 1997,[11] it revealed that in July
1994, respondent judge, while executive judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Zamboanga del Sur, was introduced to one Richel Gadunan. Richel Gadunan
submitted a sworn statement to the NBI alleging that respondent, with the use
of power, money and trickery, succeeded in making sexual advances on her and an
illicit relationship ensued. On May 16, 1996, she gave birth to a child at the
Pasay City General Hospital. The birth certificate of the child indicated that
respondent judge was the father, and that he married Richel Gadunan in
Pagadian City on
June 13, 1994. The NBI was able
to procure a certified true copy of the birth certificate of Mary Ruth Gadunan
Barte, daughter of Richel Gadunan and respondent Judge Barte.[12] Upon further investigation,
the NBI reported that no marriage certificate of respondent judge and of Richel
Gadunan was filed with the civil registry of Pagadian City. In conclusion, the disposition report of the
NBI recommended that an administrative case for immorality and grave
misconduct, as well as a petition for disbarment, be filed against respondent
judge. The NBI, however, found no proof that respondent judge attempted to hire
killers to assassinate Fr. Sinnott and other human rights activists responsible
for the filing of the administrative case against him.
On July 1, 1998, the Court
referred the case to Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon of the Court of Appeals
for investigation, report and recommendation.[13]
On October 12, 1998, the Court
denied Associate Justice Buzon’s motion to inhibit herself from investigating
the case and denied the motion of respondent Judge praying for the
disqualification of Associate Justice Buzon, for copies of complainants’
evidence and for the resetting of the hearing of the case. The Court also authorized investigating
Associate Justice Buzon to designate the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Pagadian City to receive the evidence for complainants.[14]
On July 19, 1999, the Court denied
the motion of respondent to resume the investigation of the case in the Court
of Appeals, Manila. The Court resolved
to continue the reception of evidence for the complainant at Pagadian City, and
to direct the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Pagadian City to finish
the investigation with utmost dispatch in order to prevent undue expense by
both parties to the case.[15]
On April 10, 2000, the
investigating justice informed the Court that on March 10, 2000, she received
the record of the case, with transcripts of stenographic notes and documentary
evidence of complainants forwarded by the executive judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Pagadian City.[16]
The testimonies of the following
witnesses were taken in Pagadian City: Ricardo Pajardo, Virginia Pestañas,
Vicente Gerebise, Fr. Michael Sinnott, and Larry Dominguez.
Ricardo Pajardo, sheriff, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, stated that Mrs. Barte,
wife of respondent, occasionally went to the office of respondent judge. On February 9, 1995, Mrs. Barte entered the
office of respondent judge and demanded confirmation of the news that her
husband was having an affair with another woman. Mrs. Barte scolded one
of the members of the staff,
calling him “bugaw” and berating him for not telling her about the activities
of her husband.[17]
Virginia Pestañas, human rights
worker, was given a letter dated February 13, 1995 allegedly of Richel Gadunan
for respondent judge, asking respondent to meet her at Socran Hotel. Later, Pestañas received a photocopy of
another letter of Richel Gadunan dated February 1, 1995 to respondent judge,
asking the latter to buy the medicine she needed. After the trial of the criminal cases, Pestañas informed Fr.
Michael Sinnott of the relationship between respondent judge and a daughter of
Nenito Gadonan, as revealed to her by one of the staff members in respondent
judge’s office.
Vicente Gerebise, former process
server, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, stated
that Richel Gadunan was his neighbor.[18] He remembered giving a
letter to respondent judge from Richel, though he did not read the contents of
the letter. He denied knowing the exact
status of the relationship of respondent judge and Richel, but admitted that
the two parties exchanged letters twice a week and that he acted as letter
carrier to both of them.[19]
Fr. Michael Sinnott testified that
on two occasions, respondent judge and his wife approached him to convince him
to withdraw the administrative
complaint. Mrs. Barte told him that
Richel had other boyfriends and was two-timing respondent judge.[20] Respondent judge asked Fr.
Sinnott to desist from pursuing the case and offered to help Fr. Sinnott charge
Nenito Gadonan with illegal possession of firearms. Fr. Sinnott obtained a picture from the NBI showing Richel
Gadunan giving her sworn statement at the NBI office in Pagadian City. He also
submitted a photocopy of the birth certificate of Mary Ruth Gadunan Barte,
obtained from the NBI.[21]
Larry Dominguez, NBI special
agent, interviewed Richel Gadunan regarding her relationship with respondent.[22] Richel admitted having a
sexual relationship with respondent, and even stated that they were married
with a child. Richel gave letters
written to her by respondent judge, writing under the pseudonym Nards Jiz.[23] Richel stated that she received
financial support from respondent for their child, but not on a regular
basis. Dominguez went to the Civil
Registrar of Pasay City, the city where Richel said she gave birth to
respondent’s child. Dominguez was able
to procure a certified true copy of a birth certificate of Mary Ruth Gadunan
Barte.[24] He proceeded to confirm the
allegation of a marriage between respondent judge and Richel. He found no record of marriage registered in
the Civil Registry of Pagadian City.
Richel Gadunan was subpoenaed to
testify during the hearings, but she failed to appear in court.[25]
On May 9, 2000, the investigating
justice scheduled hearings for the reception of evidence of the respondent.[26]
Respondent judge gave his
testimony in the Court of Appeals, Manila.
He stated that on November 9, 1993, he was appointed judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur.[27] Thereafter, he was assigned
on detail with the Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation Office of
the Supreme Court in Manila. In 1997,
he was transferred to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Iloilo City. He returned to San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur
and held office in Pagadian City as trial court judge. He retired from judicial
service on September 3, 1998, upon reaching the age of 70 years.[28]
Respondent testified that in
Criminal Case Nos. 0474 and 0475, the trial of the cases lasted three hearing
dates: November 29, 1994; December 12, 1994; December 14, 1994, morning and
afternoon. Then the case was deemed
submitted for decision after the defense finished presenting evidence and
rested its case.[29] He submitted a certified
true copy of his decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 0474 and 0475, to show that it
was based on the evidence presented during the trial. He also submitted a certification
from Atty. Ma. Teresa P. Lingating,
Clerk of Court
VI, Office of
the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Miguel,
Zamboanga del Sur that no motion for his inhibition, motion to present rebuttal
evidence, motion for reconsideration, appeal or petition for certiorari was
filed in the criminal cases by the prosecution or complaining witnesses. Up to the time he promulgated the decision
on January 20, 1995, he received no motion from the prosecution to present
additional evidence or any motion for the inhibition of the presiding judge.[30] He stated that he would
have inhibited himself if there had been a motion filed for his inhibition in
order to avoid suspicion that he had something to do with the case.[31]
On July 27, 2000, the day after
respondent completed presentation of his evidence, the investigating justice
issued an order giving the parties thirty days from July 26, 2000, within which
to submit their respective memoranda.[32]
Incidentally, on August 7, 2000,
the Supreme Court issued a resolution denying the request of Judge Barte for
the release of 50% of his compulsory retirement benefits in view of the
pendency of this administrative case.[33] The Court directed the
Chief, Finance Division, Office of the Court Administrator, to release in favor
of Judge Barte the money value of his accumulated leave credits, if any,
subject to the availability of funds.
Meanwhile, on October 9, 2000, the
investigating justice submitted to the Court her report, recommending the
dismissal of the administrative charges against respondent for insufficiency of
evidence.[34]
After an examination of the
evidence on record in this administrative case, we conclude that respondent
judge is guilty of immoral conduct.
In administrative proceedings, the
complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations
in the complaint.[35] Substantial evidence has
been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.[36] In this case, substantial evidence
supported the allegation that respondent judge
had sexual relations with a woman other than his wife.
It was undisputed that respondent
was a married man and was a member of the judiciary. The NBI was able to
procure a certified true copy
of the birth certificate of the
offspring of respondent judge and Richel Gadunan, a woman not his wife. The birth certificate showed that the child,
Mary Ruth Gadunan Barte, was born on May 16, 1996 at the Pasay City General
Hospital.
Upon learning about the results of
the NBI report, respondent did not deny the allegations regarding his illicit
relationship. He merely attacked the
moral integrity of the NBI investigator who conducted the investigation, citing
newspaper reports.[37]
Various letters were obtained from
Richel, which she identified to be in respondent judge’s handwriting. A former
employee of respondent judge likewise identified the writing of respondent and
confirmed that there were letters delivered by him between the respondent and
Richel.
True, the woman alleged to be
respondent’s lover did not testify regarding such illicit relations. She merely gave a sworn statement to the
NBI. Generally, the submission of mere affidavit is self-serving and must be followed
by testimonial evidence where the affiant can be subjected to
cross-examination. However, it would be unrealistic to ask that she testify
against her lover, knowing that at present, she still depended on him for
financial support for her child.
Respondent’s intimate relationship
with a woman other than his wife shows his moral indifference to the opinion of
the good and respectable members of the community.[38] A judge, in order to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,
must behave with propriety at all times, in the performance of his judicial
duties and in his everyday life. No position exacts a greater demand on moral
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary.[39] Canon 3 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics solemnly mandates that the judge's official conduct should be
free from the appearance of impropriety and his personal behavior, not only
upon the bench and the performance of judicial duties but also in his everyday
life, should be beyond reproach.[40] Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities. Thus, respondent judge failed to
live up to the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. “For the
judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a
number of restrictions thereon, which he has to observe faithfully as the price
he has to pay for accepting and occupying an exalted position in the
administration of justice.” [41]
We are aware, though, that the
main purpose of this administrative complaint is the retrial of accused Nenito
Gadonan for double murder. Complainants
contended that Criminal Case Nos. 0474 and 0475 in the Regional Trial Court,
Zamboanga del Sur should be tried again because the presiding judge, herein
respondent, was biased towards the accused. Complainants alleged that
respondent judge’s personal relationship with the daughter of accused Nenito
Gadonan clouded respondent’s judgment and, because of his bias and partiality
towards accused, rendered a judgment of acquittal.
Noticeably, complainants did not
take any action to inhibit respondent from the case at the time of the trial.
The question of a judge's inhibition on the basis of bias and partiality should
be timely raised in the first instance, for a litigant cannot be permitted to
speculate upon the action of the court and raise an objection on this ground
after a decision unfavorable to him has been rendered.[42] Since the guarantee of an
impartial judge involves procedural due process, any defect therein may be
waived and is subject to the curative effect of filing a motion for
reconsideration or other applicable judicial remedy.[43] In this case, no motion to
inhibit judge was filed before the trial court during the proceedings in the
case. Complainants waited until after
the decision has been promulgated before taking action. This is evidence that they found nothing in
respondent’s conduct of the trial to arouse any suspicion that he was biased
towards accused.
It was only when complainants
learned about the special personal relationship of respondent judge and a
daughter of the accused Nenito Gadonan after the trial of the criminal cases
that they speculated on the partiality of respondent judge.
Mere suspicion that a judge is
partial is not enough.[44] There should be clear and
convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.[45] Extrinsic evidence is
required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition
to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself.[46] “Although the decision may
seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent
extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish
a case against the
judge. The only exception to the
rule is when the error is so gross and patent as to produce an ineluctable
inference of bad faith or malice.”[47]
In this case, it does not appear
that respondent judge, in his decision to acquit the accused, showed
partiality. The mere fact that he acquitted accused did not signify he was
biased towards the accused, in the absence of any proof of bad faith, malice or
corrupt purpose. In fact, as found by the investigating justice, “complainants
appear to have faulted the trial prosecutor
for not presenting
rebuttal evidence despite their having informed the latter of
the availability of witnesses for that purpose, as well as for his failure to
clarify evidence and adequately conduct cross-examination, and that
complainants regretted not having engaged the services of a private
prosecutor.”[48]
It must be emphasized that in an
administrative case, the Court can only pass upon the administrative liability
of the respondent. The case cannot be used as a remedy to challenge the
assailed decision rendered by respondent.
An administrative complaint cannot be a substitute for other judicial
remedies available to the complainants,[49] such as a motion for
reconsideration or a special civil action for certiorari.[50] Using such other remedies, complainants must
establish that the judgment of acquittal resulted from a mistrial; otherwise,
the retrial of the criminal cases would place the accused in double jeopardy.[51] The rule on double jeopardy
provides that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is
terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the
consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or
identical offense.[52]
Regrettably, in this
administrative case, we cannot review
or reverse the
decision of respondent judge acquitting accused Nenito Gadonan. It is
beyond the objective of an administrative proceeding to do so.
However, we find substantial
evidence showing respondent judge’s reproachable conduct for consorting with a
woman not his wife. Respondent had reached the compulsory age of retirement
during the pendency of the case. Nevertheless, respondent may still be meted
out the appropriate penalty for his misconduct.[53]
Thus, for conduct unbecoming of a
magistrate, we impose upon respondent a fine of ten thousand (P10,000.00)
pesos.[54]
WHEREFORE, the Court imposes on respondent Judge Recaredo P.
Barte a fine of ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos, deductible from his retirement
benefits withheld by the Court.
The charges of bias and partiality
are hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Puno, Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 2.
[2] Docketed as Criminal
Cases Nos. 0474 and 0475.
[3] Rollo, pp.
8-33.
[4] Rollo, pp.
1-7.
[5] Rollo, p. 34.
[6] Rollo, pp.
35-46.
[7] Rollo, pp.
97-98.
[8] Respondent was then
detailed in Manila at the Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation
Office, Supreme Court.
[9] Affidavit, Rollo,
p. 99.
[10] Rollo, pp.
104-105.
[11] Exh. “H” and “H-1”, Folder
of Exhibits.
[12] Exh. “E”, Folder of
Exhibits.
[13] Rollo, p.
131.
[14] Rollo, pp.
143-144.
[15] Rollo, pp.
219-221.
[16] Rollo, p.
245.
[17] TSN, January 21,
1999, pp. 14-20.
[18] TSN, October 19,
1999, p. 8.
[19] TSN, October 19,
1999, pp. 10-11.
[20] TSN, October 20, 1999,
p. 16.
[21] TSN, October 20,
1999, p. 14.
[22] TSN, November 23,
1999, pp. 15-16.
[23] TSN, November 23,
1999, pp. 23-24.
[24] TSN, November 23,
1999, p. 20.
[25] TSN, November 23,
1999, p. 3.
[26] Rollo, pp.
273-274.
[27] TSN, July 26, 2000,
p. 15.
[28] TSN, July 26, 2000,
p. 8.
[29] TSN, July 26, 2000,
pp. 35-37.
[30] TSN, July 26, 2000,
pp. 40-41.
[31] TSN, July 26, 2000,
p. 29.
[32] Rollo, p.
348.
[33] In A. M. No. 10221-RET, entitled
“Re: Application for
Compulsory Retirement of Hon.
Recaredo P. Barte, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga
del Sur, effective 02 September 1998. This case was later consolidated with the present
administrative case (A. M. No. RTJ-99-1453).
[34] Report, p. 21.
[35] Montes v.
Bugtas, A. M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 27, 2001; Lorena v. Encomienda, 362 Phil. 248, 257 [1999].
[36] Caña v.
Gerbuson, 329 SCRA 132, 145 [2000]; Office of the Court Administrator v.
Sumilang, 338 Phil. 28, 38 [1997].
[37] TSN, July 26, 2000,
pp. 54-60.
[38] Arciga v.
Maniwang, 193 Phil. 730, 735 [1981].
[39] Securom v.
Cantero, 335 Phil. 511 [1997].
[40] Huggland v.
Lantin, 326 SCRA 620, 639 [2000].
[41] Alfonso v.
Juanson, 228 SCRA 239, 254-255 [1993].
[42] Lao v. Court
of Appeals, 338 Phil. 191, 202 [1997].
[43] People v.
Galas, 330 Phil. 948, 974 [1996].
[44] People v. Court
of Appeals, 369 Phil. 150, 157 [1999];
Flores v. Court of Appeals, 328 Phil. 992, 1021 [1996]; Lu v.
Siapno, 335 SCRA 181, 188 [2000].
[45] Gohu v. Gohu,
G. R. No. 128230, October 13, 2000; Te v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No.
126746, November 29, 2000.
[46] Webb v.
People of the Philippines, 342 Phil. 206, 216 [1997].
[47] Ibid., pp.
216-217.
[48] Report, p. 20.
[49] Lumibao v.
Panal, 319 SCRA 149, 166 [1999].
[50] In a certiorari
action, petitioners may allege that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or excess of jurisdiction.
[51]
Soriano v. Angeles, 339 SCRA 366, 374 [2000].
[52] Manantan v. Court of
Appeals, G. R. No. 107125, January 29, 2001.
[53] Huggland v.
Lantin, supra, Note 39, at p. 640; Castillo v. Calanog, Jr., 199
SCRA 75, 83 [1991].
[54] Rule 140, Sections
10 and 11, Revised Rules of Court, as amended by A. M. No. 01-8-10-SC.