EN BANC
|
INTERNATIONAL MILITIA OF PEOPLE
AGAINST CORRUPTION AND TERRORISM, represented by ATTY. ELLY VELEZ PAMATONG,
Petitioner, - versus - CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
(Ret.)
Respondent. |
A.C. No. 7197 Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. Promulgated: January 23, 2007 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
GARCIA, J.:
In the petition of
Upon
receipt of the petition, docketed at the IBP as CBD Case No. 06-1646, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD), through Director
Rogelio A. Vinluan, issued on
On
Records
show that respondent Davide came to know of the existence of the petition to disbar only after
being served a copy of the Court’s Resolution dated July 18, 2006, noting (a)
the May 29, 2006 1st
Indorsement of then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban referring to the Court
a copy of the Order of February 2, 2006,
supra, of the IBP Director on Bar Discipline, and b)
the said Order.
Shortly
after obtaining a copy of the petition in question, respondent filed on
A
perusal of the petition readily shows that the causes of action enumerated therein,
namely:
1.
Overthrow of a duly elected president;
2.
Abandonment of impeachment proceedings against
President Estrada;
3.
Usurpation of the revenue-raising power of Congress;
4.
Failure to cooperate in giving due course to
impeachment proceedings against him;
5.
Negligence in handling the election-related case of the
petitioner; and
6.
Persecution of the petitioner,
are not grounds for disbarment. They
are, as the respondent correctly observed, all related to incidents or
proceedings while he was Chief Justice and are related to or connected with the
exercise of his authority or the performance of his official duties. It cannot
be over-emphasized that the bona fides
of such discharge of duty and authority are presumed.
Not
lost to the Court is the fact that the petition is summary in form and consists,
for the most part, of self-serving and gratuitous conclusions and offensive
innuendoes, when the Rules of Court requires that a complaint for disbarment
shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be
supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts
therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate such facts.[1] The
Court also notes that the petitioner filed this case out of ignorance of the
authority of the Court and how it operates, as typified by his condemnation of the
respondent and a group of justices for imposing
what he perceives to be exorbitant filing fees when, according to him, the
revenue raising power of the government is exclusively vested upon the
legislative branch.
In
both form and substance, the instant petition deserves to be dismissed outright.
On
the matter of citing CBD Director Rogelio A. Vinluan for contempt, we note that
the petition, as pointed out by the respondent, was filed with the Court,
albeit through the IBP. In effect, the petition was directly invoking the
primary jurisdiction of the Court. Accordingly, the CBD should have immediately
referred the petition to the Court for such action it may deem appropriate to
take, instead of assuming initial jurisdiction thereon by ordering the
respondent to submit an answer.
The
foregoing notwithstanding, the Court loathes to initiate contempt proceedings
against Director Vinluan on account alone of his having issued the Order of February 2,
2006. As it were, there is no indication that he harbored ill-will toward the respondent or was
moved by a malicious desire to undermine the authority and jurisdiction of the
Court. Far from it.
For Director Vinluan, doubtless after
realizing his mistake or being apprised of extant rules relating to disbarment
proceedings, issued, on June 6, 2006, an Order recalling his earlier Order of February 2,
2006 and required Atty. Pamatong to file his petition to disbar directly with
the Court pursuant to its existing rules and guidelines relating to retired justices
and judges. Indeed, as an immediate off-shoot of the matter at hand, the Court,
by Resolution dated September 5, 2006, approved in principle the amendment of
SC Circular No. 3-89 such that the IBP is henceforth required to forward to the
Court for appropriate disposition all complaints for disbarment and discipline
filed with the IBP against all justices and judges, sitting or retired, for
acts and/or omissions committed during their tenure in the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves as
follows:
1.
The
instant petition for disbarment against retired Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr. is hereby DISMISSED for
utter lack of merit; and
2.
The motion to cite IBP Commission on Bar
Discipline Director Rogelio A. Vinluan for contempt is DENIED. He or his successor, as the case may be, is admonished, however,
to be more circumspect in disposing of similar petition or complaint to disbar
in the future.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C.
GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice
|
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate Justice
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate Justice
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice
|
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |