EN BANC
[A.M. No. CAJ-04-41.
ANTONIO K. LITONJUA, complainant, vs. COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICES JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR. and BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA, J.:
To be resolved in this administrative proceeding is the complaint-affidavit[1] filed by Antonio K. Litonjua against two Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices.
CA Justice Juan Q. Enriquez stands charged with (1) serious
misconduct for alleged extortion of about P1.5 million pesos from the
complainant; and (2) gross ignorance of the law, for proceedings in connection
with CA-G.R. SP No. 64419[2]
and CA-G.R. SP No. 64449,[3]
pending before the division to which Justice Enriquez belonged.
CA Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis is also charged with serious
misconduct, for allegedly exerting undue influence over Justice Enriquez, for
the latter to issue a TRO and injunction in the aforementioned Court of Appeals
cases.
THE ANTECEDENTS
The facts are:
American Realty Corporation (ARC) is a family corporation of the Litonjuas.[4]
On P99,000,000
and exemplary damages in the amount of P5,000,000.
On appeal to the CA, the RTC decision was affirmed in toto.
A petition for review with this Court[5]
resulted in a modification of the judgment, reducing the award of exemplary
damages from P5,000,000 to P50,000. The decision became final on
On
On
At this point, it can be gleaned that the Litonjua’s had split into two factions vying for control of ARC’s businesses and property. These two factions are led by Antonio and Aurelio, Jr. on one hand, and their older brother Eduardo, Sr. and nephew Eduardo, Jr., on the other. To avoid confusion in identifying these factions, both of whom claim to be the lawful representatives of the corporation, they shall hereafter be identified as “ARC (Aurelio)”[9] and “ARC (Eduardo).”[10]
On
Thus, two petitions for prohibition were pending before the CA,
namely (1.) American Realty Corporation[11]
versus Honorable Rodolfo Bonifacio and Antonio K. Litonjua and Aurelio K.
Litonjua, Jr. (
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.[14] This was contained in a Decision penned by respondent Justice Enriquez, Jr., and concurred in by Justices Presbitero J. Velasco and Ruben T. Reyes.
On
THE PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPLAINT
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. Acting as a power broker and influence-peddler, and engaging in the practice of case-fixing, on the part of Justice Abesamis.
When Justice Enriquez submitted his Counter-Affidavit, he stated, among other things, that the Amended Decision was not his decision alone, but that of the whole Special Eleventh Division composed of Justice Vidallon-Magtolis, Justice Ruben T. Reyes and himself. He mentioned that Justice Reyes made some corrections on his draft and the latter even suggested that it be called Amended Decision.
On the basis of these statements, complainant Litonjua filed a
Supplemental Complaint against Justice Reyes for incompetence, gross
negligence, grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. The supplemental
complaint against Justice Reyes was dismissed by this Court for lack of merit,
in an en banc resolution dated
In the same en banc resolution, this Court directed Retired Supreme Court Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino to investigate the complaint filed by petitioner Antonio K. Litonjua against Justices Enriquez and Abesamis.
The formal investigation commenced on
In her report, the Investigating Justice summed up the parties’ evidence, as follows:
THE COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
ANTONIO K. LITONJUA testified that he came to know Justice Juan Q.
Enriquez, Jr. in 1984 when the latter was an RTC judge in
When he approached Justice Enriquez regarding the case, the latter
allegedly demanded P500,000.00 which Litonjua allegedly paid “to
expedite a decision” (54 tsn, June 12, 2003) which came out soon after in favor
of Freuhauf Electronics (24 tsn, May 28, 2003). He did not mind having to pay
half a million pesos for the decision because he owns 16 corporations (43 tsn, P500,000.00
was affordable.” “At that point in time I did not even complain against justice
Enriquez x x x because it could be a need for his family or his personal use”
(58 tsn, P500,000.00 to me is nothing, it is nothing and I was telling
you my capacity whether you will believe me (or not) on my capacity, on my
financial capacity, that is why I am saying P500,000.00 is nothing” (60
tsn,
After that transaction, Antonio Litonjua and Justice Enriquez
allegedly became close and used to have lunch together near the Quezon City
Hall (26 tsn, May 28, 2003). Every December, at Christmas time, he would give
the judge a cash gift of P20,000 to P25,000 because he believed
that judges were underpaid; besides, he considered Justice Enriquez as his
friend. Since everybody was calling Justice Enriquez by his nickname “Che”,
Litonjua took to calling him “Che” also (30-33 tsn,
In late April 2001, Litonjua received a TRO, issued by Justice
Enriquez on April 24, 2001, and followed by a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on
June 25, 2001 in CA-G.R. SP No. 64419, “American Realty Corporation (Eduardo)
versus Honorable Rodolfo Bonifacio, Antonio K. Litonjua and Aurelio K.
Litonjua” (41-42 tsn, May 28, 2003). The TRO and Injunction effectively stopped
the full implementation of the writ of execution and sale of BA’s properties which
ARC (Aurelio) had already ceased (15 tsn,
According to Litonjua, “sometime in the late part of July 2001,
Justice Enriquez telephoned him to come to his office in the Court of Appeals.
The TRO and Preliminary Injunction had already been issued in SP No. 64419,
when he received the call. Accompanied by his younger brother Aurelio, the
president of ARC, Antonio and Aurelio visited Justice Enriquez’s CA office the
next day (49-54 tsn,
He allegedly remarked to Justice Enriquez that “this is a bit
unfair because x x x there was already a x x x final decision from the Supreme
Court disposing this case and there was already an entry of judgment and all
the records were returned back to the Regional Trial Court x x x when we
received this TRO x x x we were executing and possessing all the properties of
Bank of America in Makati x x x.” (68-69 tsn,
Justice Enriquez allegedly remembered that: “Mayroon na pala itong
x x x final judgment, may entry of judgment na. Ang pinag-uusapan na lang dito,
if I remember right, is grave abuse. The lower court issued a writ with grave
abuse of authority; that is what we were discussing. And he (Justice Enriquez)
is convinced that there was no grave abuse because it is ministerial for the
However, Justice Enriquez allegedly confided to Antonio: “Alam mo
mahirap itong kasong ito. x x x Alam mo
mahirap ito dahil sa ang kalaban ninyo eh very influential x x x dahil banko
ito.” Justice Enriquez allegedly also said: “Alam mo ito malaki ang war chest x
x x for judicial expenses. x x x So, malaki ang judicial expenses nito pero
kung mayroon judicial expenses ito puede natin maiano and decision nito. Ako
naman ang ponente dito” (78-81 tsn,
Litonjua understood “that we must come up also with an equivalent
or at least even higher war chest or what not for judicial expenses” (82 tsn,
But what he allegedly told Justice Enriquez was: “Well, I leave it
to you how we can really get the decision, there is merit in the case how we
can work it out” (83 tsn,
Justice Enriquez allegedly replied that: “It would be slightly more
(or) higher than (what) was ‘previously in Quezon City’” referring to the
Freuhauf case where, as then RTC Judge, he allegedly asked for and was paid P500,000,
and he rendered a decision annulling the lease in question for lack of a public
bidding. Antonio assumed that as Justice Enriquez has risen in the judicial
hierarchy, the “cost” of a favor from him must be higher too. So, when Litonjua
asked him “how much?” he allegedly answered: “Kailangan natin dito maybe x x x
mga 1.5 million” (83-88 tsn,
“Ang reaction ko,” according to Antonio, was – “that is a big fund for this case, but then, considering a protracted litigation as what he was saying magtatagal ito, the amount of award of 99 million at 1%, that is 12 million, we are losing one (1) million a month, so puede na siguro ito” ( 88-89 tsn, May 28, 2003).
Justice Enriquez allegedly told Litonjua that if the amount was
okay with him, he (Justice Enriquez) would work on the decision. He advised
Antonio to send a down payment (90 tsn,
On P500,000
in cash inside a brown envelope which Justice Enriquez placed inside a drawer
of his desk. The Justice’s son, Ivan, was there at the time. He pointed to a person inside the
investigation room who was supposed to be Ivan, but he turned out to be someone
named Francisco Gerardo Llamas. Antonio admitted that the person was not Ivan
(97-108 tsn,
The balance of P1 million was allegedly delivered by Antonio
to Justice Enriquez as follows: “After the decision was issued on x x x the 7th,
so, I received the call on August 8 and, x x x I think it was the following
day, August 9, that I went there and I gave him One Million x x x in bills, x x
x in a brown envelope.” Justice Enriquez allegedly placed the money inside a
drawer in his desk. Aurelio Litonjua was allegedly present (109-113 tsn,
However, acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by BA, the
CA promulgated an Amended Decision on
On
On
On his charge that Justice Enriquez acted with “indecent haste” in
issuing a TRO in Case No. 64419, (“ARC/Eduardo vs. Judge Bonifacio, Antonio K.
Litonjua and Aurelio Litonjua”), Antonio testified that he checked the records
of the case and he found out that the Petition for Prohibition and the “Urgent
Ex-Parte Motion for Special Raffle” (Exh. F) prepared by the counsel of the
petitioner ARC/Eduardo, were filed at the same time; that the special raffle
was approved by Acting Presiding Justice Cancio Garcia, not by Presiding
Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez; that the records further show that the
petition was filed at 1:11 P.M. on April 24, 2001 and the TRO was issued at
4:30 P.M. on the same day, or only 3 hours and 21 minutes after the petition
was filed. Antonio wondered “how there could be a raffle, approval, and all the
recording, from one building to the other, and at the same time give Justice
Enriquez the time to digest the petition x x x.” So, he surmised that Justice
Enriquez issued the TRO without even reading the petition and that it was
Justice Abesamis “who might have maneuvered” the issuance of the TRO (143, 145,
167, 140-143 tsn,
On the charge of “indecent delay” by Justice Enriquez in disposing of various motions that ARC (Aurelio) filed subsequent to the promulgation of the Amended Decision on October 2, 2001, Litonjua testified that their Motion for Reconsideration of the Amended Decision was unacted upon for 264 days; their Motion to Resolve, for 216 days; their second Urgent Motion to Resolve, for 141 days; their third Motion to Expunge the Joint Opposition, for 181 days; and their Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Entry of Judgment, for 94 days (158 tsn, May 28, 2003).
On the third charge against Justice Enriquez that he was grossly
ignorant of the law, Litonjua testified that by promulgating an Amended
Decision, instead of merely issuing a resolution on BA’s motion for
reconsideration of the original decision, inasmuch as the petitioner ARC
(Eduardo) in Case No. 64419 failed to file a motion for reconsideration,
Justice Enriquez unfairly allowed the latter to benefit from the Amended
Decision even if the original decision of August 7, 2001 had already become
final with respect to it. That was why he accused Justice Enriquez and Jusctice
Ruben Reyes of gross ignorance of the law (169-172 tsn,
ATTY. VICENTE CHUIDIAN, cousin and general counsel for Antonio
Litonjua, testified that he has known Justice Enriquez from way back when they
were high school classmates at the Ateneo (41, 42, 47 tsn, June 19, 2003). He
recalled that Antonio was “very angry” when Justice Enriquez reversed the
decision he had written in the prohibition cases in the CA. He (Atty. Chuidian)
tried to dissuade Antonio from filing administrative charges against Justice
Enriquez. He told Antonio: “Padre, huwag mo nang gawin iyan dahil mabait na tao
iyan, classmate ko iyan, disenteng tao iyan, hamo na lang kausapin ko, maybe I
can get the two of you together” (51 tsn,
ATTY. ANTONIO BAUTISTA:
Q Did you exert effort to that end?
A Yes, sir.
Q What were these efforts?
A I just went to visit Justice Enriquez and I said I didn’t know much about the case; I knew in general what it was all about and I said that Tony is my cousin and Eddie is my cousin so I didn’t want to be caught in the middle and he was my friend and I just wanted to avoid any untoward event. I said that if there is some way that you and Tony can understand each other better then perhaps that ought to happen so as to avoid what might be a scandal.
Q And what was the response or reaction of Justice Enriquez to that statement of yours?
A Well, he said he ruled in accordance with his conscience and that he had done nothing wrong and that as far as he was concerned he could withstand any scrutiny and I mentioned to him some certain things that Mr. Litonjua told me and he denied them.
Q What things did you mention to him?
A Well, Mr. Litonjua told me that he
had paid money to Justice Enriquez and Justice Enriquez denied this. Mr.
Litonjua told me that he was in a syndicate with Justice Abesamis and Justice
Enriquez said there is no syndicate. “Talagang kinausap niya ako diyan” he
said, but he x x x was not in any way influenced. (51-55 tsn,
His own unhappy experience with Justice Abesamis was in connection
with a case of his (Uni-Capital vs. Consing) where he filed a motion to recuse
Justice Abesamis allegedly because Justice Abesamis had approached the former
designated ponente, Justice Reynato Dacudao, on behalf of Uni Capital.
Justice Abesamis denied that allegation and presented a certification from the
Raffle Committee that Justice Dacudao was never involved in CA GR CV No. 66944
where the decision, panned by Justice Candido Rivera, went against Atty.
Chuidian’s client (56-66, 84-85 tsn
AURELIO LITONJUA, JR., president of ARC, corroborated Antonio’s
testimony regarding Justice Enriquez’s apology for the issuance of the TRO and
Preliminary Injunction against them in CA GR SP Nos. 64419 and 64449, which he
had allegedly promised to Justice Abesamis. Aurelio was allegedly present when
the conversation took place because he accompanied his brother Antonio to the
office of Justice Enriquez in the Court of Appeals sometime in the later part
of June 2001 (11, 14 tsn, July 22, 2003). In the course of the conversation,
Justice Enriquez allegedly “demanded the amount of P1.5 million in order
that the decision will be resolved soonest” (20 tsn,
They went back to the office of Justice Enriquez on P500,000.00 to justice Enriquez (23, 27 tsn,
Aurelio also went along when Antonio delivered the balance of P1
million in cash to Justice Enriquez on August 11 or 12, 2001 (Exh. 18; 48 tsn,
July 22, 2003).
As before, that money came from Antonio, because ARC did not have
sufficient funds to cover the judicial expenses of P1.5 million.
Besides, if that amount were to come out of ARC funds, they would have had to
ask for the approval of the other officers and directors, namely, their
brother-in-law, Simeon Palanca, and their brother Reynaldo K. Litonjua, both of
whom were in the
He admitted that neither in the financial statements of the
corporation, nor in its books, does the P1.5 million allegedly paid to
Justice Enriquez appear as expenses nor as a loan obligation of ARC to Antonio
(68-69 tsn, July 22, 2003).
SALVADOR REYES, a practicing lawyer, testified that he came to know
Justice Enriquez through a Korean client, a friend of Justice Enriquez, who
sought the latter’s help in connection with an immigration problem he was
encountering at the Bureau of Immigration. Justice Enriquez was approachable.
He referred the Korean client to an immigration agent whom he knew. Actually, the
problem was resolved without the intervention of the agent whom they could not
contact and who did not seem to be willing to help (162-171 tsn,
RESPONDENT JUSTICE ENRIQUEZ’S EVIDENCE
JUSTICE JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., 61 years old, graduated with a
bachelor’s degree in Business Administration from the University of the East,
major in accounting, and passed the CPA examination in 1964. While working as a
cashier at the Senate Electoral Tribunal, he studied law at the Far Eastern
University, graduated in 1968 and passed the bar examination the same year. In
1970 he was hired by Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion as an accountant in the
Accounting Department of the Supreme Court. In 1971, he was promoted to the
position of Chief Accountant of the Supreme Court (11-13 tsn,
In 1975, Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro appointed him Property
Officer for the entire Judiciary. His function was to purchase supplies and
equipment for the whole judiciary, from the Supreme Court down to the municipal
courts, worth P8-P10 million annually. He served in that capacity
up to 1977 with nary a charge for wrongdoing in connection with his work (14-15
tsn,
In 1977, he was promoted by Chief Justice Ruiz Castro to the position of Budget Officer of the Judiciary, which he occupied up to 1980 when Chief justice Enrique M. Fernando appointed him Deputy Clerk of Court and Administrative Officer of the Supreme Court which he discharged up to 1985 (17 tsn, August 11, 2003).
That same year (1985), he began his judicial service as Metropolitan trial Court Judge of Manila, Branch 80, appointed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos (18 tsn, August 11, 2003).
In 1987, President Corazon C. Aquino appointed him Regional Trial
Court (RTC) Judge of Cabanatuan City (18 tsn,
In 1989, he was transferred to the RTC at Binangonan, Rizal where
he could be nearer his family which was living in
In 1993, he became RTC Judge of
In August 2000, he was promoted as an Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals (21 tsn,
Never before, in his almost forty (40) years of government service,
particularly in the judiciary, has he been charged with corruption in public office
(21 tsn,
The bastion of Justice Enriquez’s defense to Antonio’s charges against him was a consistent denial of every derogatory allegation leveled against him by his accuser.
He denied Antonio’s allegation that when he was an RTC Judge in
In 1997 he formally met Antonio at the Club Filipino during a
convention of the Philippine Judges Association, through Judge Mariano Umali,
the president of the association, who introduced Antonio to him. Antonio
thanked him for the decision he rendered in the Freuhauf Electronic case (30-32
tsn,
He denied as “not true” Antonio’s allegation that they became
friends after the Freuhauf case; that they used to have lunch together two or
three times a year; and that during Christmas Antonio would give him a cash
gift of P20,000-25,000.00. He averred that he did not receive any cash
gifts from Antonio (33-34 tsn,
He denied that his nickname was “Che”. It is “CHI”, which is short
for “Juanichi”, the nickname his mother gave him for he was born during the
Japanese occupation and was named after his father, Juan Sr. The suffix “Ichi”,
which means number one in Japanese, was added to his name by his mother to form
his nickname – “Juanichi”, or “Chi” for short, not “Che” (34-35 tsn, August 11,
2003). Only his friends, meaning persons he would invite to his birthday party,
office party, family party or some such gatherings, call him “Chi”. Antonio
Litonjua is not his friend. He has not invited him to his parties, nor has
Litonjua invited him to his (35-36 tsn,
With regard to the petition for prohibition of “ARC vs. Judge
Bonifacio, Antonio Litonjua and Aurelio Litonjua” (CA GR SP No. 64419), Justice
Enriquez testified that the special raffle of that case was approved by Acting
PJ Cancio Garcia on
Since a special raffle “requires urgency”, he immediately read the
petition and examined the annexes to determine whether the Court should issue a
TRO as prayed for by the petitioner. He determined that a TRO should issue, so
he immediately prepared the resolution and had it typed. Then he signed it and
instructed his staff to forward it to the senior member of the 11th
Division (Justice Presbiterio Velasco), and the chairman (Justice Ruben Reyes)
for their concurrence and signatures (40-42 tsn,
Justice Enriquez denied the allegation that after he had issued the
TRO, he called up Antonio and asked him to come to his office. “I did not call
him to go to my office” (52 tsn, august 11, 2003). “They (Antonio and Aurelio)
came to my office after the issuance of the TRO but before the issuance of the
preliminary injunction” (
He allegedly told them that he could not discuss the case with them as it would be unfair to their opponents. “I told them not to worry, the Court will resolve the preliminary injunction fairly and if they want to know the status of their cases they should talk to the Division Clerk of Court, and I cannot entertain them personally because it is unfair to their opponents” (58 tsn, August 11, 2003). They understood, they thanked him, and they left.
After the parties had submitted their comments and reply, the 11th
Division decided to issue a preliminary injunction on
Justice Enriquez disavowed Antonio’s account of his and Aurelio’s
supposed visit to his office after the issuance of the preliminary injunction
and of his alleged apology to them because he did not know that ARC belongs to
them and that he had promised the TRO and injunction to Justice Abesamis.
(“Pasensiya kana Tony dahil hindi ko alam na itong companyang ito, American
Realty, ay sa inyong magkapatid ni Jun. Na i-issuan ko ito nang TRO at saka ng
injunction for the reason that naipangako ko ito sa co-Justice ko, kay Justice
Abesamis” (60 tsn, August 11, 2003). He said: “That is not true x x x they did
not come to my office after the issuance of the preliminary injunction. x x x
Justice Abesamis did not approach me or talk to me about the case” (61 tsn,
He also denied that he issued the TRO without first reading the
petition. “That is not true as I have said, I studied that petition and I was
the one who drafter the resolution” (65 tsn,
He denied having mentioned BA’s “war chest for judicial expenses”
and that he suggested that Antonio match it in the amount of 1.5 million pesos
which Antonio agreed to deliver. “That conversation did not take place. In my
judicial career I never asked nor received any money from litigants” he said.
(65-66 tsn,
He denied that on
He also vehemently denied as “not true” the alleged delivery to him
by Antonio on P500,000.00 as the supposed downpayment on the
price of 1.5 million pesos supposedly demanded by him. “That did not happen”
according to Justice Enriquez (69 tsn,
Neither did Antonio and Aurelio give him a second envelope
containing One Million Pesos in bills on
Acting on the motion for reconsideration filed by BA, which was opposed by ARC (Aurelio), the CA set aside the original decision and promulgated an Amended Decision on October 2, 2001 staying the execution until the RTC should have determined who between the two contending sets of stockholders own ARC (72-75 tsn, August 11, 2003).
Justice Enriquez denied Antonio’s allegation that he called up
Antonio once more to come and see him in the CA, after ARC (Aurelio) had filed
a motion for reconsideration of the Amended Decision. He allegedly explained to
Antonio that he was under immense pressure to issue the TRO because his wife,
Olga Enriquez, was slated for promotion to the Sandiganbayan. Justice Enriquez
maintained that “that is not true”; because his “wife has been recommended by
the JBC twice for appointment as a Justice but the president did not appoint
(her).” “I did not call him or ask him to go to my office.” (76-77, 123 tsn,
He admitted that his former high school classmate, Atty. Chuidian
came to his office requesting him for a possible meeting with Antonio Litonjua
in connection with the case, “but I declined his invitation. I told him that I
already made up my mind and I will not change it whatever happens” (123 tsn,
With regard to Atty. Chuidian’s statement that Justice Enriquez
admitted that he was approached by Justice Abesamis about the case, but that he
“was not influenced”, Justice Enriquez remarked: “I think they are suspecting
that Justice Abesamis talked to me about the case x x x because Atty. Chuidian
asked me if Justice Abesamis approached me. I told him he did not and if ever
he did I will not give his wishes, I will not give what he wants.” He and
Justice Abesamis “we were not close. The only time we were together [was] when
I was appointed as RTC Judge in
He saw Antonio again at the 2001 judges’ convention at the Sheraton Hotel. Litonjua greeted him, but they did not converse because Litonjua was seated at another table with Judge Pine, the president of the PJA (12-17 tsn, August 266, 2003).
After this administrative case had been file by Litonjua against
him, Justice Enriquez learned from his son, Ivan, that the latter met Antonio
and Aurelio when they came to his office in the Court of Appeals; that they had
conversed while waiting for him, and that Ivan and a group of four or five
classmates had gone to Litonjua’s office to do research for their school
project on corporations with which Litonjua had offered to help them. According
to Justice Enriquez, if his son had asked for his permission before going to
Litonjua’s office, he would not have given his permission (45-46 tsn,
ATTORNEY MARCIAL M. MAGSINO, a practicing lawyer since 1977, and a
member of the law firm of Montesa, Castro and Manikan, testified that the
center of his law practice is in Metro Manila but he has also appeared in many
other courts around the country such as in Laoag, Ilocos Norte, in Nueva Ecija,
Zambales, Cebu, Quezon, Mindoro, and
He did not hear much about Justice Enriquez when the latter became
an RTC Judge in Cabanatuan because he had few cases in Nueva Ecija – two in
Cabanatuan and five (5) in Gapan – and, although it was a common practice of
lawyers from Manila to ask about the “standing” of a judge coming from Manila,
he had “not heard of any thing adverse to the reputation” of Justice Enriquez
(17 tsn, September 11, 2003). He had appeared before Justice Enriquez in the
RTC in
He came to testify for Justice Enriquez because a friend of his
informed him that Justice Enriquez has this administrative case against him.
Atty. Magsino told his friend “to convey to Justice Enriquez that if I could be
of help to him, then do not hesitate to get in touch with me or contact me. And
the other day I received a call from his office asking me whether I could
testify in his favor. And so I acceded.” x x x “My reason is to tell everybody
what I know about him, about his honesty, his probity, his reputation as a good
judge” (19-20 tsn,
ATTORNEY BENJAMIN BERNARDINO, another law practitioner and former
president of the Rizal Chapter of the IBP, had expressed his willingness to
give evidence on the reputation of Justice Enriquez, but he failed to appear at
the investigation due to a prior trial engagement. However, both parties stipulated
that Attorney Bernardino’s testimony would have the same tenor as Attorney
Magsino’s, both on direct and on cross examination (45 tsn,
COMPLAINANT’S REBUTTAL EVIDENCE
RETIRED CA JUSTICE MARIANO UMALI, by way of rebuttal, testified
that Justice Enriquez is his friend and that he calls him “Che”. Justice Umali
already knew Antonio Litonjua when he (Justice Umali) was still an RTC Judge in
OTHER EVIDENCE presented
were records of the National Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Manila, and bank accounts of Antonio Litonjua and of Justice
Enriquez, including those of his wife and children, which the Investigator
requested them to produce. The investigator was interested to ascertain the
source of the P1.5 million in cash that was allegedly paid by Antonio to
Justice Enriquez, and how that money was disposed of by the latter. Antonio
Litonjua promised to produce at the next hearing his personal income tax return
for 2001 as well as those of his 16 corporations, the lease contract for the
Mandaluyong Coliseum cockpit, the journal entries in the books of ARC, the
profit and loss statement and balance sheets for June to August 2001 of the ALS
Management Corporation, Freuhauf Electronics and Paradise Park – corporations
which he owns 100%. Justice Enriquez promised to bring his bank passbooks and
those of his wife and children.
However, at the next hearing on P250,000.00
on P1,471,000.00 plus P29,000.00
from petty cash) that he allegedly delivered to Justice Enriquez (Exh. 63) is
reproduced below:
x x x
No income tax returns, either in his name or in the name of his corporations, were produced. No records, inventories, financial statements, balance sheets, profit and loss statements, cash books, checkbooks, his own or of his corporations, were brought to the hearing. Instead, he presented a certified entry in the police blotter of the Mandaluyong Police Station purporting to show that his office (address not mentioned ) was robbed on April 13, 2003 and that “undetermined amount of imported spare parts of motorcycle and car and firearms was found missing inside the private office of the complainant” (Exh. 64). According to Litonjua, however, books and records of his various corporations that he had promised to produce at the hearing, were lost in the robbery (Exh. 64, pp. 3-17 tsn, January 23, 2004).
Justice Enriquez brought the passbooks of the bank accounts of himself (Annexes 1, 1-A to 1-F of Compliance), his wife Judge Olga Enriquez (annexes 2 and 2-A), their children Juan Jose Enriquez III (Annex 3), Marie Nicole Enriquez (Annexes 4, 4-A to 4-C), and Marie Tanya E. Llamas (Annexes 5, 5-A to 5-B-2) and grandchildren Angela Isabel Llamas (Annex 5-C), Sophia Margarita Llamas (Annex 5-D), and Alessandra Beatrice Llamas (Annex 5-E), pp. 902-1014 Vol. III, Records).
RESPONDENT JUSTICE ABESAMIS’ EVIDENCE
Justice Bernardo Abesamis did not present testimonial evidence. He relied on the testimony of Justice Enriquez and the latter’s and his own counter-affidavits denying/belying Antonio’s allegation that, on behalf of the petitioner ARC (Eduardo), he influenced Justice Enriquez to issue a TRO and Preliminary Injunction stopping the RTC of Pasig from executing the already-satisfied judgment of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 133876 in favor of ARC. His documentary evidence (Exh. 1-Abesamis up to Exh. 15-Abesamis, with sub-markings) consisted of parts of the records of CA-G.R. SP No. 64019 and CA-G.R. SP No. 64451, cases handled by Atty. Vicente Chuidian in the Court of Appeals, which were offered only to impeach the credibility of the latter as a witness against him.
After carefully evaluating the evidence on record, and the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Justice, this Court now resolves the issue of whether respondent CA Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Bernardo P. Abesamis are guilty of the serious charges leveled against them by complainant Antonio K. Litonjua.
To start with, the rule, even in administrative cases, is that to be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against respondents should be competent and be derived from direct knowledge. Respondents are entitled to be judged only after due investigation and after presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charges are highly penal in character.[15]
The evidence presented in this case is mainly testimonial, so the resolution of the issue boils down to the credibility of the testimonies of both parties. The complainant has the burden of proof and such proof must at the least be clear, solid and convincing to compel the exercise of disciplinary power over the persons indicted.[16]
The Investigating Justice found several inconsistencies that gravely affected complainant Antonio Litonjua’s credibility. Her findings are reproduced below:
After a careful examination of the voluminous evidence presented by
both sides, we find the evidence of the complainant on the alleged extortions
committed by Justice Juan Enriquez, Jr., as an RTC Judge in
Antonio Litonjua’s allegation that in 1984, RTC Judge Juan Enriquez
extorted P500,000.00 from him to facilitate the release of a decision in
favor of his corporation, Freuhauf Electronics, was disputed by Justice
Enriquez, because firstly, he did not know Litonjua then. In the second place,
the alleged extortion could not have transpired in 1984, because Justice
Enriquez was not an RTC judge of P.5 million for a judgment that actually did not award anything to his
corporation. As pointed out in respondent Enriquez’s Memorandum, Freuhauf
Electronics did not gain anything from Judge Enriquez’s decision which merely
annulled the lease to De los
Finally, it is unbelievable that Litonjua, who is a crusader
against abusive, unfit and corrupt judges, and who avowedly “consistently
advocated the principles of fairness and integrity in our judiciary” (42 tsn,
June 5, 2003), after being the supposed victim of a half-a-million-peso scam by
Justice Enriquez, would thereafter cozy up to his victimizer, allegedly become
his friend, treat him to lunches, and give him P20,000 to P25,000
cash gifts at Christmastime. We agree with Justice Enriquez’s assertion that
all of that – the bribe, the gifts, the lunches, the friendship, the
familiarity – never happened.
More likely, the tale was contrived by Antonio as a sort of
“preface” to his present complaint (filed six [6] years later), accusing
Justice Enriquez of again allegedly extorting from him a bribe of P1.5
million in August 2001, as the price of a decision dismissing the petitions for
prohibition in CA-G.R. SP No. 64419 and CA-G.R. SP No. 64449. Anyone who would
believe that the first transaction did happen, would certainly have no
difficulty believing that the second did too.
However, as we had pointed out earlier, the only evidence on the
alleged P1.5 million extortion is Antonio’s bare allegation to that
effect. Such evidence, in the face of respondent’s staunch denial, comes far
short of the reglementary requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt (Rule
115, Sec. 1 par. a). The following circumstances destroy the credibility of the
accusation against Justice Enriquez:
(a) Antonio and Aurelio contradicted each other as to the date of their visit to the office of Justice Enriquez in the Court of Appeals, and the dates of payment of the bribe money.
(b) According to Antonio, their first visit to
the office of Justice Enriquez, was in response to a phone call from Justice
Enriquez in “the late part of July, 2001”.
But according to Aurelio, it was in “the
later part of June 2001”. It was during that visit that the alleged
agreement to pay the sum of P1.5 million to Justice Enriquez was
perfected.
(c) According to Antonio, their second visit to
deliver the partial payment of P500,000 to Justice Enriquez, occurred
between 9 and
(d) The balance of P1 million in cash was
paid on August 9, 2001 according to
Antonio because he received the call on August 8, advising him that the
decision was “issued” on August 7, so he and Aurelio went the next day, August 9,
2001 to give the money to Justice Enriquez. On the other hand, Aurelio
testified that he and Antonio delivered the balance of P1 million in
cash to Justice Enriquez on August 11 or
12, 2001.
Since Antonio and Aurelio could not agree as to when they gave the
installments of the P1.5 million to Justice Enriquez, our conclusion is
that the alleged bribery or extortion did not take place at all. In the case of Castanos vs. Escano, Jr., 251
SCRA 174, 187, this Honorable Court held that “inconsistency between the
allegation and proof as to the date and situs of the alleged bribery,
goes into the credibility of the accusation and the merits of the case.” It
dismissed the charge of bribery against the respondent Judge “for lack of
substantial proof.”
Moreover, despite his boast that he could raise P500,000,
even P1 million cash, “in any day” (39 tsn, December 10, 2003), and
that, to him, “P500,000 is nothing”, Antonio failed to convincingly show
that he had half a million pesos on hand on August 1, 2001 and P1
million on the spot on August 9, 2001 – the dates he supposedly made the
pay-offs to Justice Enriquez.
In the first place, he admitted that he had no record of the P1.5
million “mobilization and judicial expense” in his book, journal, diary or the
books of any of his 12 to 16 corporations. At the hearing on P250,000 on
July 24, 2001.
Instead of the books and records of his corporations, he presented
a certified entry in the police blotter of the Mandaluyong Police purporting to
show that those papers and records were stolen by robbers from his office on P1.5 million bribe to Justice Enriquez.
Antonio testified that he raised the bribe money “partly from a
memorial park which is ALS management, I got it partly from Fruehauf, partly
from my personal account and also from my operations in my coliseum where there
is always a cash flow. So it is a co-mingled account.” (26 tsn,
An examination of Exhibit 16, reveals that the total sum of P934,000
was raised by Antonio on P250,000 which he
withdrew from his savings account and the proceeds of three (3) checks issued
by Benedict from his IE Bank account. Since the initial payment of P500,000
to Justice Enriquez would not be due until his draft of the decision was
finished, and it was allegedly finished on P934, 000 as early as July 24 to
Justice Enriquez presented the passbooks of the bank accounts of himself,
his wife, Judge Olga Enriquez, his three children, Juan Jose Enriquez III,
Marie Nicole, and Marie Tanya, and the latter’s three children, Angela Isabel,
Sophia Margarita, and Alessandra Beatrice, all surnamed Llamas. Their balances,
if any, for August, 2001 and thereabout, do not come to anywhere near P1.5
million, even if they were to be added up together.
There may be other ways and places for hiding ill-gotten wealth, but, inasmuch as we are satisfied that the alleged extortion or bribery was not committed, there is no further need to search for its fruits.
As this Honorable Court remarked in Castaños vs. Escano, Jr., (251 SCRA 174, 191 [1995]) in dismissing the charge of extortion against the respondent judge:
“In order that the allegation of a charge of this nature (extortion) may not be considered a fairy tale, evidence other than the doubtful and questionable verbal testimony of a lone witness should be adduced. Entrapment should have been pursued. Evidence of a seasonable report to police authorities should have been presented. Record of where the bribe money came from, its specific denominations and the manner respondent accepted and disposed of it should have been clearly shown.”
Antonio’s silence and inaction for a year after the alleged extortion
was committed, weakens the credibility of his complaint against Justice
Enriquez. His laches in denouncing and reporting it to the authorities makes
suspect his motive in filing it. Greed, as pointed out by BA’s lawyer, Atty.
Lavadia, is the compelling force behind his viciousness toward Justice Enriquez
who penned the original, as well as the amended decision that foiled Antonio’s
bid to grab a share of the P99 million judgment won by ARC (Eduardo)
from BA, which he covets.
The records show that Litonjua is no stranger to trouble. He has
accused and been accused of various crimes ranging from grave threats, oral
defamation, slander, serious illegal detention, maltreatment, slight physical
injuries, coercion, malicious mischief and violations of the SSS law, the
Building Code, and some city ordinances (Annexes 16, 16-A, 16-A-1, 16-D, 16-D-1
to 16-D-30 of Enriquez’s Comment). He has filed petitions for disbarment of
lawyers, including ARC’s counsel, Atty. William Veto, and especially the
lawyers of the adverse party in his lawsuits, e.g., Attys. Antonio V. Agcaoili
and John T. Lavadia, counsel for BA in the prohibition cases, Atty. Francis
Joseph Ampil, collaborating counsel for BA, and Atty. Melanio Elvis Balayan,
who replaced Atty. William Veto as counsel for ARC (Eduardo). (Annexes 14,
14-A, 14-B, 114-C, Enriquez Comment). He has attempted to bully judges, namely,
RTC Judge Renato A. Fuentes of Davao City and RTC Judge Alex Quiros of Pasig
City, by harassing them with charges of bias, grave abuse of discretion, gross
ignorance of the law, and conduct unbecoming which were later dismissed for
lack of merit (Annexes15, 15-A, 15-B and 15-C of Enriquez Comment). While this
case against Justices Enriquez and Abesamis may not have been filed to bully or
intimidate them, it is clearly intended to harass them and destroy their
reputations to avenge his disappointment and frustration in being stopped from
laying hands on the P99 million judgment for damages in favor of ARC
(Eduardo) which, by his computation, would by now have grown to more than P200
million, inclusive of interests.
However, the good character of Justice Enriquez and his unblemished record of service in the judiciary as cashier and budget officer of the Supreme Court, and later, as a judge rising from the ranks until he reached the appellate court, with no taint of corruption or misconduct until now, are an ample rebuttal to Antonio’s charges against him. We should listen to the tributes, awards, resolutions and certificates of recognition and appreciation that Justice Enriquez has received from various civic and professional organizations over the years (Annexes 13-A to 13-S of J. Enriquez Comment) rather than to Antonio’s unsubstantiated and ill-motivated charges.
Litonjua’s own witness, Atty. Vicente Chuidian, a former classmate
of Justice Enriquez, testified that he tried to dissuade Litonjua from filing
this administrative case against Justice Enriquez – the first ever in his 37
years of service in the judiciary – “dahil mabait na tao iyan, classmate ko
iyan, disenteng tao iyan x x x.” (He is a good man, he was my classmate, he is
a decent person.) (51 tsn,
Inasmuch as the only evidence on the charge of extortion against Justice Enriquez were the inconsistent and contradictory testimonies of Antonio and Aurelio, the charge should be dismissed for failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt. “Rules even in an administrative case, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.” (Daracan vs. Natividad 341 SCRA 161 [2000]).
Justice Enriquez may not be held administratively answerable for the erroneous original decision in the prohibition cases which the Special 11th Division, through Justice Enriquez also, rectified in its Amended Decision. A judge is not precluded from reexamining an order or decision that he has written. It is his prerogative, and duty, to correct errors which he may discover, either motu proprio, or upon a timely motion for reconsideration by the aggrieved party. While it may be embarrassing for a judge to make a mistake; it would be far worse – it would be an unforgivable act of injustice – if he knowingly perpetuates the error by not correcting it seasonably. But, as was held by [the Supreme] Court in State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 251 SCRA 111, “a judge cannot be subjected to liability – civil, criminal or administrative – for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, so long as he acts in good faith.” He who alleges bad faith, fraud, malice has the burden of proving it. That burden was not discharged by the complainant in this case.
Even less viable is the charge of Antonio Litonjua against Justice Bernardo Abesamis, denouncing him as a “power broker, a case fixer, and influence peddler.” Antonio’s allegation that Justice Abesamis “might have maneuvered” the issuance of the TRO because it was allegedly issued “with indecent haste”, is pure speculation and conjecture. “The Supreme Court cannot give credence to charges against a judge based on mere suspicion or speculation.” Daracan v. Natividad, 341 SCRA 161 (2000). Justice Abesamis did not have to dignify the hearsay and ambiguous testimony of Atty. Vicente Chuidian (which was timely stricken off) that “Justice Abesamis has a bad reputation among my lawyers”, for this Honorable Court has ruled that hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no probative value (People v. Valero, 112 SCRA 661 [1982]; People v. Nebreja, 203 SCRA 45 [1991]; People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 [1992]; Baguio v. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 336 [1993]; People v. Cabintoy, 247 SCRA 442 [1995]; People v. Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, Nov. 28, 1996).
Antonio’s allegation that Justice Enriquez told him that he had promised the TRO to Justice Abesamis who was allegedly brokering for a well-known bank –- BA – which has a huge “war chest” for judicial expenses, was categorically denied by both Justice Enriquez in his Comment and Counter-Affidavit, and by Justice Abesamis in his Comment.
Who should we believe? Not Litonjua for he overlooked a crucial
detail: --- that the TRO was issued on the same day that the petition for
prohibition of ARC (Eduardo) in CA-G.R. SP No. 64419 was filed ---
In violation of Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court which provides that “proceedings against Judges shall be private and confidential,” soon after Litonjua filed his complaint against Justice Enriquez and Abesamis, it was given wide publicity in various newspapers with national circulation in the country, such as “The Philippine Daily Inquirer,” “Today”, and “Metro Today” (Annexes 12-A to 12-F, Comment of Justice Enriquez, pp. 194-201, Records). To cap his demolition job on the two justices of the Court of Appeals, Antonio even appeared in the television talk show of Ces Drilon who interviewed him about his complaint.
Due to the seriousness of the accusations against the respondent Justices, this Court has undertaken a thorough review of the entire record and carefully perused the transcript of stenographic notes. However, this Court has found nothing that would support any finding contrary to those of the Investigating Justice.
The ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the charges on which the removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption or incompetence. The general rules with regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal trials apply.[17]
When weighed against such standards, complainant’s evidence falls short. Despite the serious nature of the accusations and the attendant publicity, he failed to convince that credence should be given to his complaint.
This Court is in full accord with the findings and evaluation of the Investigating Justice. As in the case of factual findings of the trial court, this Court accords great weight and respect to the evaluation of Justice Griño-Aquino, a well-respected retired member of this Court, and her assessment and appreciation of the evidence are quite competent and convincing.[18]
It is good to reiterate that while this Court will never tolerate or condone any act, conduct or omission that would violate the norms of public accountability or diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary, neither will it hesitate to reject unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[19]
WHEREFORE, for failure of complainant to substantiate the same, the administrative complaint for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law against Court of Appeals Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, and the administrative complaint for gross misconduct against Court of Appeals Associate Justice Bernardo Abesamis, are hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Panganiban, J., no part. Former
partner in law firm representing one of the partners.
Chico-Nazario, J., on leave.
[1] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 1-7.
[2] Entitled
“American Realty Corporation v. Honorable Rodolfo Bonifacio, Antonio K.
Litonjua and Aurelio K. Litonjua, Jr.”
[3] Entitled
“Bank of
[4] With four brothers and a brother-in-law as original stockholders.
[5] Docketed as G.R. No. 133876.
[6] Who signed the agreement as ARC’s president.
[7] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 136-139.
[8] Rollo, Vol. I, pp. 140-143.
[9] Aurelio, Jr. now sits as the president of ARC.
[10] Investigator’s Report, p. 1.
[11] ARC (Eduardo).
[12] ARC (Aurelio, Jr.)
[13] Investigator’s Report, p. 2.
[14] 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.
[15] Office of the Court Administrator v. Pascual, 259 SCRA 604, 612-613 (1996); citing Raquiza v. Castañeda, Jr., 81 SCRA 235, 244 (1978).
[16] Concerned Citizens of Laoag City v. Bienvenido Arzaga, et al., 267 SCRA 176, 182 (1997).
[17] Office of the Court Administrator v. Pascual, see fn. 15, at 617.
[18] In Re: Derogatory News Items Charging CA Associate Justice Demetrio Demetria with Interference on Behalf of a Suspected Drug Queen, 372 SCRA 628, 632-633 (2001).
[19] Ang v. Asis, 373 SCRA 91, 99 (2002).