EN
BANC
|
IN RE:
UNDATED LETTER OF MR. LOUIS C. BIRAOGO, PETITIONER IN BIRAOGO V. NOGRALES AND LIMKAICHONG, G.R. No. 179120. |
A.M.
No. 09-2-19-SC Present: Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,* Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Tinga,* Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February 24, 2009 |
x- - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -x
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before
this Court is the Report of the Investigating Committee created under the
Resolution dated December 10, 2008, to investigate the unauthorized release of the unpromulgated ponencia
of Justice Ruben T. Reyes in the consolidated cases of Limkaichong v. COMELEC, Villando v. COMELEC,
Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, and Paras v. Nograles, docketed as G.R. Nos. 178831-32, 179240-41, 179120 and 179132-33,
respectively, to determine who are responsible for the leakage of a confidential
internal document of the En Banc.
The investigating committee, composed of Mr. Justice Leonardo A.
Quisumbing as Chairperson and Mme. Justice Conchita Carpio Morales and Mr.
Justice Renato C. Corona as Members, submitted the following report:
INVESTIGATING
COMMITTEE CREATED UNDER THE
EN
BANC RESOLUTION DATED
MEMORANDUM
FOR:
HON. REYNATO S. PUNO, Chief Justice
HON. CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, Associate Justice
HON. ANTONIO T. CARPIO, Associate Justice
HON. MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, Associate Justice
HON. DANTE O. TINGA, Associate Justice
HON. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO, Associate Justice
HON. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR., Associate Justice
HON. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA, Associate Justice
HON. TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, Associate Justice
HON. ARTURO D. BRION, Associate Justice
HON. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA, Associate Justice
RE: Report on the Investigation
of the Unauthorized Release of the Unpromulgated Ponencia of Justice Ruben T.
Reyes in the Consolidated Cases of Limkaichong v. COMELEC, Villando v. COMELEC,
Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, and Paras v. Nograles,
Docketed as G.R.
Nos. 178831-32, 179240-41, 179120 and 179132-33, Respectively, to Determine Who
are Responsible for the Leakage of a Confidential Internal Document of the En
Banc
Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the
Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court the
following report on the results of the investigation of the committee created
under the En Banc Resolution dated
ANTECEDENT
FACTS
During its session on July 15, 2008, the
Court En Banc continued its deliberations on the draft of Justice Ruben
T. Reyes in the consolidated cases of Limkaichong v. Comelec, Villando v.
Comelec, Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, and Paras v. Nograles, docketed as G.R. Nos.
178831-32, 179240-41, 179120 and 179132-33, respectively, (Limkaichong case)
which was used by this Court as a working basis for its deliberations. Since no one raised any further objections to
the draft, the En Banc approved it. It
having been already printed on Gilbert paper, albeit a number of Justices
manifested that they were concurring “in the result,” Justice Reyes immediately
circulated the ponencia during the
same session.
After the session and during lunch, Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno noted that seven of the 13 Justices (excluding Justice
Reyes) concurred “in the result” with the ponencia
of Justice Reyes (hereafter Gilbert copy or Justice Reyes’s ponencia
or ponencia or unpromulgated ponencia). Justices Minita Chico-Nazario and Teresita
Leonardo-De Castro then informed the Chief Justice that they too wanted to
concur only “in the result.” Since nine Justices, not counting the Chief
Justice, would concur only “in the result,” the Justices unanimously decided to
withhold the promulgation of the Gilbert copy.
It was noted that if a majority concurred only “in the result,” the ponencia would have no doctrinal value.
More importantly, any decision ousting a sitting member of the House of
Representatives should spell out clearly the legal basis relied upon by the
majority for such extreme measure.
Justice Antonio T. Carpio then volunteered to write his Reflections on
Justice Reyes’s ponencia for
discussion in the following week’s En Banc session.
During its session on
On the request of Justice Reyes, however, the Limkaichong
case was included in the agenda of
On December 9, 2008, Louis C. Biraogo, petitioner in Biraogo
v. Nograles and Limkaichong, G.R. No. 179120, held a press conference at
the Barrio Fiesta Restaurant in Maria Orosa Street, Ermita, Manila, and
circulated to the media an undated letter signed by him, together with what
appeared to be a xerox copy of the unpromulgated ponencia. In his letter,
Biraogo insinuated that the Court, at the instance of the Chief Justice and
with the implied consent of the other Justices, unlawfully and with improper
motives withheld the promulgation of the ponencia.
Noting that the unauthorized release of a copy of the
unpromulgated ponencia infringed
on the confidential internal deliberations of the Court and constituted
contempt of court, the Court, in a Resolution dated
1. The creation of an Investigating Committee,
chaired by Senior Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, with Associate
Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Third Division and Associate
Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, First Division, as Members to
investigate the unauthorized release of the unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Reyes to determine who are responsible for this
leakage of a confidential internal document of the En Banc, and to recommend to
the En Banc the appropriate actions thereon;
2.
Mr. Louis C. Biraogo to SHOW
CAUSE, within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution, why he should
not be punished for contempt for writing the undated letter and circulating the
same together with the unpromulgated ponencia
of Justice Reyes.
As directed, the committee, composed of the aforementioned
three senior Justices, conducted initial hearings on December 15 and 16,
2008.
In the meantime, in compliance
with the Court’s above-quoted Resolution dated December 10, 2008, Biraogo
submitted to the Court his Compliance dated December 22, 2008 to which he
attached the following annexes: (1) an undated photocopy of a 3-page printed
letter addressed to “Dear Mr. Biraogo” which purportedly was sent by a
“Concerned Employee” as Annex “A”; (2) a
Re:
G.R. Nos. 178831-32, etc. [the comma and “etc.” are
handwritten]
Dear
Colleagues,
I am circulating a revised draft of the ponencia.
(Sgd.)
RUBEN T. REYES,
together
with a copy of Justice Reyes’s Revised
Draft ponencia for the June 17, 2008 agenda
as Annex “B”; (3) a photocopy of the unpromulgated ponencia bearing
the signatures of 14 Justices as Annex “C”; and (4) a photocopy of
Justice Carpio’s Reflections as Annex “D”.
Justice Ynares-Santiago later inhibited herself upon motion
of Justice Ruben T. Reyes while Justice Carpio voluntarily inhibited
himself. They were respectively replaced
by Justice Renato C. Corona and Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, by authority
of the Chief Justice based on seniority.
Additional hearings were then held by the reconstituted committee on
January 14, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22, 2009.
The following witnesses/resource persons were heard:
1. Armando A. Del Rosario, Court Stenographer III, Office of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes
2. Rodrigo E. Manabat, Jr., PET Judicial Staff Officer II, Office of Associate Justice Ruben T.
Reyes
3. Atty. Rosendo B. Evangelista, Judicial Staff Head, Office of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes
4. Associate Justice
Minita V. Chico-Nazario
5. Associate Justice
Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
6. Associate Justice
Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
7. ACA Jose Midas P.
Marquez, Chief,
Public Information Office
8. Ramon B. Gatdula, Executive Assistant II, Office of the Chief
Justice
9. Atty. Ma. Luisa D.
Villarama, Clerk of
Court En Banc
10. Major Eduardo V.
Escala, Chief
Judicial Staff Officer, Security Division, Office of Administrative Services
11. Atty. Felipa B.
Anama, Assistant
Clerk of Court
12. Willie Desamero, Records Officer III, Office of the Clerk of
Court
13. Glorivy Nysa
Tolentino, Executive
Assistant I, Office of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
14. Onofre C. Cuento, Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court
15.
16. Conrado B. Bayanin,
Jr., Messenger,
Office of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes
17. Fermin L. Segotier, Judicial Staff Assistant II, Office of
Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
18. Retired Justice Ruben T. Reyes
SUMMARIES
OF TESTIMONIES
Below
are the summaries of their testimonies:
1. ARMANDO
He was in charge of circulating ponencias for the signatures of the Justices and of forwarding
signed (by all the Associate Justices who are not on leave) ponencias to the Office of the Chief
Justice (OCJ).
On
The following day, on
The Gilbert copy was in his sole custody from
The Limkaichong case was called again on
On being recalled on
On
He was not the one who brought the ponencia to the Office of Justice Nachura because he gave the task
to Manabat to whom he relayed the instruction.[13] There were already signatures on page 36 of
the ponencia when he gave it to
Manabat and only the signature of Justice Nachura was missing.[14] He pointed this to Manabat saying, “ito na lang ang walang pirma, dalhin mo
doon.” Manabat obliged him.[15]
After a few minutes, Manabat returned to their office
bearing the Gilbert copy. He went to
Atty. Evangelista, showing him that the ponencia
had already been signed by Justice Nachura.
Atty. Evangelista then instructed him to have the ponencia promulgated by delivering the
same to the OCJ. He (Del Rosario)
complied, personally handing the Gilbert copy with the rollo, records and diskettes to Ramon Gatdula of the OCJ at
He was not told that the
promulgation of the ponencia was on
hold until the afternoon of
He merely showed the ponencia
to Justice Reyes who ordered him to keep it (“tabi mo muna yan”).[21] He then placed a note “Hold, reset July 29”
in his logbook after being informed by Atty. Evangelista of such date of
resetting.[22] He reiterated that he placed the Gilbert copy
in a brown envelope, sealed it with the officially issued blue and white seal
provided by the Printing Office, and placed the envelope inside his unlocked
drawer. The envelope was still sealed
when he checked it on
When asked if he could produce the envelope into which he
placed the Gilbert copy, he replied that Justice Reyes had taken it.[27] He also informed that what was placed on the
face of the brown envelope was a computer print-out containing the title of the
case, the names of the ponente and
the other Justices, and the manner they voted.[28]
When he was asked by Justice Carpio Morales whether it was
possible for him to recognize any tampering if, for instance, the envelope and
the seal were replaced with a similar envelope and blue and white seal with a
similar print-out information on the face of the envelope, he answered in the
negative.[29] (At that point, Justice Carpio Morales
remarked that Del Rosario, therefore, could not have been certain when he said
that the envelope remained sealed from
Nobody else knew where he put the Gilbert copy—in the same
place as the other drafts. It was possible for someone to take the Gilbert copy
from his drawer and photocopy it on a weekend or after office hours.[31] Nobody told him to guard the Gilbert copy.[32]
Everybody in the office knew how to operate the xerox
machine.[33] He drew a sketch of the layout of the desks
inside the office of Justice Reyes, illustrating that his location was two
desks away from the table of April Candelaria, a secretary in the office, and
that the xerox machine was situated at the back of the long table of the
receiving clerks.[34]
He stayed in the office as long as Justice Reyes was still
there but he could not say for sure that nobody photocopied the Gilbert copy
after office hours as he also went out of the office to smoke in the nearby
garden area or repair to the toilet.[35]
He never reported to office on Saturdays and there was one
time Justice Reyes went to office on a Saturday as he was also asked to report
but he refused.[36] Justice Reyes sometimes dropped by the office
on Sundays after attending services at the
He also circulated copies of the Revised Draft of the
decision to the other Justices but he never received a copy of Justice Carpio’s
Reflections.[38] He did not offer an explanation why the
Gilbert copy, which was in his possession, and the Revised Draft, were leaked.[39] No information was supplied by his
officemates, friends or relatives to help explain the leakage.[40] Among his relatives working in the Court are
his mother-in-law, Jasmin P. Mateo of the OCJ, sister of former Court
Administrator Ernani Pano, and Mrs. Mateo’s sibling, who works at the Hall of
Justice Committee.[41]
He and the driver of Justice
Reyes were given keys to the main door of the Office of Justice Reyes but he could not say that
only the two of them held keys to the main door.[42] April Candelaria and Atty. Ferdinand Juan
asked for and got duplicates of the key, but could not remember exactly when.
Atty. Juan got a duplicate of the key because the lawyers sometimes went out
for dinner and needed to go back to the office to retrieve their personal belongings.[43]
April Candelaria’s secretarial functions included recording
of the social activities of Justice Reyes and delivering door-to-door papers to
his chambers.[44] Candelaria and the driver were in the staff of
Justice Reyes since the latter’s stint at the Court of Appeals, while Atty.
Juan was employed ahead of him.[45]
Everybody in the office knew how to operate the xerox
machine because all of them photocopied personal documents and were too ashamed
to ask other officemates to do it for them.[46]
When news of the leakage came out, Justice Reyes called all
his legal staff and him to a meeting. In
a tone that was both angry and sad, Justice Reyes asked them if they knew
anything about the leakage.[47] A meeting among Justice Reyes, Atty.
Evangelista, Manabat and him took place on
During the initial hearing in
2. RODRIGO E.
MANABAT, JR.,
PET Judicial Staff Employee II, Office of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes,
testified as follows:
He was the personal aide of Justice Reyes. On
3. ATTY. ROSENDO B. EVANGELISTA, Judicial Staff Head, Office of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes,
testified that as follows:
Around 1:00 p.m. on July 15,
2008, Justice Reyes instructed him to have signature page 36 of the ponencia reprinted and circulated for
signing allegedly because Justice Minita Chico-Nazario wanted to change her
qualified concurrence thereon—“in the result”—to an unqualified concurrence. He thus instructed Jean Yabut, the
stenographer in charge of finalizing drafts, to reprint page 36 of the Gilbert
copy.
Then he ordered the reprinted page circulated for signatures
together with the other pages of the ponencia. He assumed that the original
page 36 was discarded as it was no longer in their files. He likewise assumed that the
signatures were completed on the reprinted page 36 as the Gilbert copy was
forwarded around
When,
on
He occupied the last cubicle in the lawyers’ room and the
xerox machine was located outside the lawyers’ room.[64] It was upon the instruction of Justice
Reyes that their office reprint page 36 of the Gilbert copy and circulate it
for signature. The instruction to
circulate the reprinted page, which was circulated together with the other
pages of the Gilbert copy, was given
by him to either Manabat or Del Rosario.[65] He saw the original page 36 where Justice
Chico-Nazario (supposedly) wrote the phrase “in the result” on top of her
signature.[66] Aside from him, Court Attorney VI Czar
Calabazaron, who principally researched on the case, also saw the qualification
in Justice Chico-Nazario’s signature while the Gilbert copy lay on top of
Justice Reyes’s coffee table inside his chambers. He recalled that at about
He attended the oral arguments on a case scheduled at
When asked as to the whereabouts of the original signature
page 36, he surmised that it must have been shredded since it was not made part
of the official documents submitted to the OCJ.[76] While he searched for it in his cubicle, it
could no longer be located.[77] He did not inquire from Justice Reyes or from
Del Rosario who also had access to that page, because he assumed that it
could not be located since what was submitted to the OCJ was the one where
Justice Chico-Nazario’s concurrence was no longer qualified by the phrase “in
the result.”[78] As he was attending the oral arguments, he
had no opportunity to see the reprinted signature page 36 with the affixed
signatures prior to the transmittal to the OCJ.[79]
He came to know that the Gilbert copy was retrieved on
He assumed that Del Rosario,
being the custodian, kept the Gilbert copy in their office.[85] Their office reprinted the second signature
page 36 of the Gilbert copy.[86] When shown page 36 of the Gilbert copy by the
committee, he assumed that it was the reprinted page since Justice
Chico-Nazario’s signature no longer contained any qualification.[87] He stated that it was the practice of their
office to photocopy drafts signed by Justice Reyes and to furnish the other
Justices with advance copies for their review before the session. Only such
drafts were photocopied. Ponencias, which had already been signed
by the other Justices and printed on
Gilbert paper, were never photocopied.
Del Rosario only logged them in his logbook and prepared soft copies for
submission to the Division Chair or the Chief Justice.[88] He assured the committee that this practice
was 100% complied with despite the fact that he was not one of those assigned
to photocopy, but later yielded to given situations by Justice Carpio Morales.[89]
When directed to compare the front page of the photocopy
Biraogo submitted as Annex “C” to his Compliance to the Show Cause Order with
the original Gilbert copy submitted to the committee by Justice Reyes, Atty.
Evangelista noticed the difference in the dates of the agenda. He noted that Biraogo’s copy, which was
the copy allegedly leaked to him, bore the agenda date “July 15, 2008,” while
the Gilbert copy submitted by Justice Reyes to the committee bore the agenda
date “July 29, 2008.” He also noted
that the item numbers were also different because the Limkaichong case was listed as Item No. 52 in the photocopy
submitted by Biraogo, whereas in the Gilbert copy, the case was listed as Item
No. 66.[90] To him, it was probable that Biraogo got his
copy from another source but it was not probable that Biraogo photocopied a
copy in the office.
Only a few persons were authorized to operate the xerox
machine in their office, namely, Conrado Bayanin, Jr., Armando Del Rosario,
Chester Del Castillo, a certain Leonard and a certain Ramon.[91] He could not recall who among the five had
been directed to photocopy the
Finally, he manifested that from the time the Gilbert copy
was signed by 14 Justices until
He winded up his testimony by manifesting that the
investigation was an experience that he hoped would not happen again and that
he would not have to undergo again.[102]
4. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
testified as follows:
She signed the Gilbert copy only once, in the En
Banc conference room before going to the En Banc dining hall.[103] Justice Reyes was beside her, looking on,
when she affixed her signature.
Immediately after signing, she returned the Gilbert copy to Justice
Reyes who circulated it for the signatures of the other Justices. She remembered that Justice Reyes was
holding the document even when the Justices were already at the dining hall. She did not photocopy the ponencia nor was there any opportunity
for her to do so as there was only one Gilbert copy and the only time she held
it was when she affixed her signature.
She added that her concurrence to the ponencia was without qualification but when it was noted during
lunch that most of the Justices had simply concurred “in the result,” she and
Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro signified their intention to qualify their
concurrence and concur likewise only “in the result.”[104] However, she was no longer able to indicate
the change on the document as she and the other Justices had decided to put on
hold the promulgation of the decision until after holding oral arguments on the
Limkaichong case. No reprinted signature
page was ever sent to her office for her signature and she did not affix her
signature on any other copy of the ponencia. She was not the last to sign the ponencia.[105]
5. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
testified as follows:
She signed the Gilbert copy right
after the En Banc session and Justice Reyes was right beside her when she
signed the ponencia.[106] No reprinted signature page 36 was ever sent
to her office for signature and she did not affix her signature on any other
copy of the ponencia. She did not photocopy the ponencia and there could have been no
opportunity to do so right after she signed it.[107]
6. ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA testified as follows:
He believed that he signed the ponencia in the En Banc conference room
just before he went to the En Banc dining hall for lunch. He believed he was never sent a reprinted
signature page. He either returned the ponencia to Justice Reyes right after
signing it or passed it on to the other Justices for them to sign. He could not recall if he was the last to
sign the ponencia. Asked whether he leaked the decision, Justice
Nachura replied that he did not. Nor did he order any of his staff to photocopy
it. In fact, there was no opportunity to
photocopy the ponencia as he was not
in custody thereof.[108] Although he knew the husband of one of the
petitioners, Olivia Paras, neither she nor her husband ever asked for a copy of
the ponencia.[109]
7. ASSISTANT COURT ADMINISTRATOR JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ,
Chief, Public Information Office (PIO), testified as follows:
The copy of Biraogo’s undated
letter with the attached copy of the unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Reyes, which he furnished the En Banc, came
from a member of the media. Around
Sometime
in October 2008, months before Biraogo held the press conference, Jarius
Bondoc had published a blind item column on the Limkaichong case. On
The leak could not have come from
the PIO as they were never given a copy of the unpromulgated ponencia bearing the signatures of 14
Justices. He also did not bring drafts
from the OCJ to the PIO. It is only
after a case has been promulgated that the Clerk of Court gives the PIO copies.
But in this case, the Clerk of Court did not even have a copy as the decision
had not been signed by the Chief Justice.[112]
8. RAMON B. GATDULA, Executive Assistant III, Office
of the Chief Justice, testified as follows:
On
9. ATTY. MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA, the
En Banc Clerk of Court, testified on the procedure for promulgation of ponencias.
After the Chief Justice affixes his signature on a decision,
the decision is brought together with the rollo
to the En Banc Clerk of Court to be logged, recorded and checked. If the
necessary requirements for promulgation are present, she signs the decision. It is at this time that the decision is
considered as promulgated. The Office of
the Clerk of Court distributes copies to the parties to the case. The date of promulgation is then encoded in
the case monitoring system and a copy of the decision is given to the PIO.[114] Decisions reaching their office usually come
with the rollos except where a
particular decision is considered rush.[115]
She denied having seen the unpromulgated ponencia of Justice Reyes and stated that the same never reached
their office during the period from
10. MAJOR EDUARDO V. ESCALA,
Chief Judicial Staff Officer of the Security Division, Office of Administrative
Services, testified as follows:
Security personnel inspect all
offices everyday at
11. ATTY. FELIPA B. ANAMA, Assistant Clerk of Court,
testified as follows:
She acts as Clerk of Court in the absence
of Atty. Villarama.[128] Their office never releases unpromulgated ponencias[129] and
they ascertain that every decision or resolution to be promulgated is complete.[130] She remembered that their office released the
Show Cause Resolution dated
She indicated that it was very difficult to serve something
at Biraogo’s residence for by the account of Desamero, he was stopped at the
guard house and was made to wait in the clubhouse until Biraogo was notified of
his presence; and that it took Desamero two hours to serve the
She has been with the Supreme Court for 29 years and she
never encountered a leak nor did she ever issue a resolution or decision
without the signature of the Chief Justice.[134]
12. WILLIE DESAMERO,
Records Officer III, Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc, testified as follows:
He served the
An officemate of his had also been to Biraogo’s house to
serve some Resolutions.[142] While it was not his usual duty to serve
court processes, Atty. Anama and Atty. Villarama requested him to serve the
resolution on Biraogo since the regular process servers in their office were
not then available and he is the only one in their office who resides in
Laguna.[143] In his years of service with the Court, he
knew of no case which involved leakage of court documents.[144]
13. GLORIVY NYSA TOLENTINO, Executive Assistant I, Office of Associate Justice Antonio
Eduardo B. Nachura, testified as follows:
She is responsible for communications, drafts and
door-to-door papers that come in at the Office of Justice Nachura.[145] She presented page 267 of her logbook, to
which Justice Reyes had earlier invited the committee’s attention. According to the logbook entry, the Gilbert
copy was brought to their office on
14. ONOFRE C. CUENTO, Process Server, Office of the
Clerk of Court En Banc, testified
as follows:
He personally served two resolutions on Biraogo at his
residence last August 6, 2008, together with driver Mateo Bihag.[150] On the day he served the resolutions, they
were stopped at the guardhouse and were escorted by a barong-clad security
officer to Biraogo’s house.[151] They had a hard time getting to the residence
of Biraogo whom he does not personally know.[152] Biraogo did not mention or send his regards
to any member of the Court.[153]
15. CHESTER GEORGE P. DEL CASTILLO,
Utility Worker, Office of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes, testified as
follows:
He joined the staff of Justice
Reyes in September
2007 upon the recommendation of Court of Appeals Justice Mariano Del Castillo
and Retired Justice Cancio Garcia.[154]
He was the most proficient in the use of the photocopiers in
the office of Justice Reyes so it was to him that the task of photocopying
documents was usually given by Del Rosario and the lawyers.[155] He, however, never photocopied any paper
bearing the signatures of the Justices.[156] He did not handle ponencias in Gilbert paper nor ever photocopy any ponencia in Gilbert paper.[157]
He usually left the office at
He had never been to Barangay
Malamig although he had been to Biñan, Laguna.[160] He does not know Biraogo or his wife.[161]
Neither does he know Paras.[162]
He did not know where Gilbert copies were kept.[163]
When he was asked who would leave the office first, Justice Reyes or Del
Rosario, he said he did not know. Del
Rosario was tasked to lock the main door of the office.[164]
The office staff knew of the leaked decision on the Limkaichong case, but the staff remained
apathetic and did not talk about it.[165] The apathy was probably because the staff
thought that the matter had already been settled since Del Rosario and Atty.
Evangelista had already been interviewed.[166] He was not sure if anyone from their office
was involved in the leakage.[167]
He was not part of the meeting
called by Justice Reyes before the start of the investigation.[168]
Only Atty. Evangelista, Del Rosario, and Manabat were called to the meeting.[169]
He surmised that the meeting was
about the leakage.[170]
16. CONRADO B. BAYANIN, JR.,
Messenger, Office of Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes, who was called by the
committee upon Justice Reyes’s suggestion, testified as follows:
Part of his duties in the Office of Justice Reyes was to
receive and release papers and rollos
as he was seated near the door.[171] It was not his duty to handle or receive ponencias in Gilbert form.[172]
He could not remember if he had ever
received any paper in connection with the Limkaichong
case.[173] While he knew how to operate the xerox
machine, just like all the other utility workers in the office,[174]
he had never photocopied anything signed by the Justices, especially those on
Gilbert paper.[175]
When asked who handled photocopies ordered by Justice Reyes,
he replied that he did not know.[176] He did not know and had no opinion on how the
ponencia was leaked.[177] He only knew that his officemates talked about
the leak,[178] but
he did not know specifically what his officemates talked about.[179]
Before Justice Reyes’s retirement ceremony, Justice Reyes called him to his
chambers and very calmly asked him if he knew if anybody had photocopied the
unpromulgated ponencia.[180]
17. FERMIN L. SEGOTIER, Judicial Staff Assistant II and
receptionist at the Office of Associate Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura,
testified as follows:
His duty is to receive communications, but only Glorivy Nysa
Tolentino keeps a logbook for the door-to-door papers that come to their
office.[181] He does not remember any details pertaining
to the
18. RETIRED JUSTICE RUBEN T. REYES, for
his part, submitted during the hearing on
Biraogo did not point to him as
the source of the leak of the unpromulgated
ponencia;[187] in
Biraogo’s December 22, 2008 Compliance with the Court’s Show Cause Order,
Biraogo stated that his informant was allegedly a “SC concerned employee” who
left a brown envelope with a letter and some documents in his Biñan, Laguna
home; it could be seen from the attachments to Biraogo’s Compliance that it was
not only the unpromulgated ponencia or
Gilbert copy that was leaked but also two other confidential documents: his
Revised Draft ponencia for the
June 17, 2008 agenda (attached as Annex “B” to the Compliance) and
Justice Carpio’s Reflections (attached as Annex “D”); and since these
other documents were circulated to all Justices, the investigation should not
only focus on the leak of the unpromulgated
ponencia but also on the leak of the two other confidential and internal
documents of the Court.[188]
Justice Reyes also pointed out in
his Notes as follows: the committee should not only look into his office but
also the offices of Justice Carpio and the other Justices. He, however, reiterated that he had said in
his media interviews that he believed that none of the Justices themselves,
much less the Chief Justice, leaked the ponencia
or authorized its leakage.
Justice Reyes pointed out that
Biraogo’s informant mentioned a certain Atty. Rosel, who was allegedly a close
friend and former partner of Justice Carpio. Justice Reyes said that Atty. Rosel allegedly
asked a favor from Justice Carpio before the latter wrote his Reflections.[189] Thus, he said, the committee should also
question Atty. Rosel and even Justice Carpio himself.
On why he did not lift a finger
when Biraogo got hold of the decision, despite reports regarding the leak,
Justice Reyes stated that he was on a sabbatical leave with the Mandatory
Continuing Legal Education research in four States in the
He had nothing to do with the leak
and he even prepared a second draft decision (deviating from his prior
disposition) after oral arguments were held on the case.
Thus, in his Notes, he posed: “If
he leaked it, why would he prepare a second different decision?” He willingly obliged to the holding of oral
arguments. He had no commitment to
anybody and had no reason to leak the unpromulgated ponencia.[190] He added, “[I]f he had a hand in the leak,
why would it include Justice Carpio’s Reflections
which was contrary to the unpromulgated decision?”
Justice Reyes, still in his Notes,
stated that no Justice in his right mind would leak the unpromulgated ponencia or other confidential
documents, such as the Revised Draft and Justice Carpio’s Reflections.
He went on to refer to Biraogo’s
Compliance that the informant was purportedly “an old hand in the Supreme Court
who was accustomed to the practices of the Justices” and had a “circle” or
group in the Supreme Court. Since all
his office staff, except two stenographers, one utility worker and one
messenger, were all new in the Court, then the “old hand” referred to could not
have come from his office. But if it
could be proven by evidence that one of his staff was the source of the leak, Justice
Reyes argued that only that staff should be made liable, for he had publicly
declared that he did not and would never allow nor tolerate such leakage.[191]
More on Justice Reyes’s Notes: He
suggested that Newsbreak writers Marites Vitug and Aries Rufo be cited
for contempt of court, for obtaining, without lawful authority, confidential
information and documents from the Court, officials or employees, and for
writing false, malicious articles which tended to influence the investigation
of the committee and to degrade, impede and obstruct the administration of
justice. [192]
Aside from submitting his Notes,
Justice Reyes also testified as follows:
While he was first heard on
Justice Reyes identified the Gilbert copy, which he
submitted earlier to the committee for safekeeping, and his Notes.”[193] He clarified that the Compliance he was
referring to in his Notes was Biraogo’s
His desire to include Justice Carpio in the investigation,
per number 4 of his Notes, came about because it appeared from Biraogo’s
Compliance and from the alleged informant’s letter that it was not only the
unpromulgated ponencia signed by 14
Justices that was leaked but also the Revised Draft ponencia and Justice Carpio’s Reflections.[195] He suggested that what should be investigated
was the source of the three documents.[196] Justice Quisumbing replied that the matter
seemed settled because Justice Reyes also mentioned in Paragraph No. 6 of his
Notes that he believed that none of the Justices, much less the Chief Justice,
caused or authorized the leak.[197] Justice Reyes stressed that he thought it was
only fair that the Committee also call Justice Carpio to shed light on the
matter in the same way that he was asked to shed light thereon.[198]
Justice Carpio Morales pointed out that Justice Reyes’s ponencia as signed by 14 Justices did
not come into the possession of the other Justices but only of Justice Reyes.[199] She added that if logic were followed, then
all of the Justices should be investigated because copies of Justice Carpio’s Reflections were circulated to all. She declared that she was willing to be
investigated and that she was volunteering to be investigated.[200] However, she pointed out that the logic of
Justice Reyes was misplaced, considering that the documents attached to
Biraogo’s Compliance were allegedly received at the same time. If Biraogo received the documents at the same
time and one Justice never took hold of the ponencia
as signed, said Justice could not have made the leak to Biraogo.[201]
Justice Reyes went on to testify as follows: The Gilbert
copy which he submitted to the committee was given to him by Del Rosario.[202] He did not photocopy the Gilbert copy nor
provide Biraogo a copy thereof or instruct any of his staff to photocopy the
same.[203]
The xerox copy of the Gilbert copy attached to the
Compliance of Biraogo appeared to be the same as the committee’s copy because
he (Justice Reyes) looked at the initials on each page and found them to be
similar.[204] Justice Quisumbing thereupon invited Justice
Reyes’s attention to the cover page of the Gilbert copy which had been
submitted to and in custody of the committee (committee’s copy).[205] Upon perusal thereof, Justice Reyes stated that the cover page of the committee’s copy did
not appear to be the same as the cover page of Biraogo’s copy. He observed that the cover page of the
committee’s copy showed the agenda date “July 29, 2008,” and that the
Limkaichong case was listed as Item No. 66, whereas the cover page of Biraogo’s copy showed the agenda date “July
15, 2008,” and that the same case was listed as Item No. 52.[206] Justice Reyes then qualified his earlier
statement and said that he was only referring to those pages of the decision
itself which bore his initials, when he spoke of similarity, and said that the
cover page did not bear his initials.[207]
Justice Corona
pointed out, and Justice Reyes confirmed, that page 1 of the committee’s
copy also differed from page 1 of Biraogo’s copy.
Justice Corona pointed that in
the committee’s copy, there were asterisks after the names of Justice Azcuna
and Justice Tinga and footnotes that the two were on official leave, whereas no such asterisks and
footnotes appeared on page 1 of Biraogo’s copy.[208]
Justice Corona also pointed out and Justice Reyes once again confirmed that
there was a slight variance between the initials on page 34 of the committee’s
copy and the initials on page 34 of Biraogo’s copy.[209]
Justice Quisumbing then posed the question whether Justice
Reyes would admit that there were at least two sources.[210] At this juncture, Justice Reyes brought out another photocopy
(new copy or Justice Reyes’s new copy) of the Gilbert copy to which new copy
the left top corner of the top cover was stapled a 1”x1” piece of thick paper
bearing the initials “RTR” and on the right top corner of the same cover
appeared a handwritten notation reading “Gilbert copy.” Justice
Reyes repeatedly stated that his new copy was a facsimile of the committee’s
copy. He pointed out that
the initials on page 34 of the new copy and that of the committee’s copy
matched. He concluded, however, that
page 34 of Biraogo’s copy was not a faithful reproduction of the committee’s
copy.[211] Justice Reyes avoided the question of
whether he or his staff kept more than one xerox copy of the Gilbert copy
that had been signed by majority or 14 members of the Court, saying that he
could not say so because he did not personally attend to photocopying of
decisions.[212] He stressed that his initials on page 34 of
the new copy differed from the initials appearing on page 34 of Biraogo’s copy.[213]
He also pointed out that in Biraogo’s copy, particularly on page 3, there was a
handwritten correction superimposed over the misspelled name of Jerome Paras
while no such handwritten correction appeared on page 3 of both the committee’s
copy and the new copy.[214]
He added that he did not know who made the handwritten correction in Biraogo’s
copy and that the new copy he was presenting to the committee was furnished to him by the committee. Said copy was allegedly the xerox copy of the
Gilbert copy.[215]
Justice Reyes professed that he had nothing to do with the
leak as he would not leak, authorize, allow, or tolerate any leak of his
decision or revised draft. He dispelled any pecuniary profit from such leakage,
especially since he was about to retire when the leak happened. He could not,
however, say the same of his office staff since he did not want to speculate,
so he was giving the committee the broadest latitude in calling any of his
staff.[216]
Upon Justice Carpio Morales’s interrogation, Justice Reyes
stated that he found the new copy in his files just the week before the
Justice Reyes stated that there should only be one copy of
the Gilbert copy,[220]
but it appeared that he supplied the committee with two apparently different
copies (the Gilbert copy and the new copy).[221] Justice Reyes noted that the new copy and Biraogo’s
copy did not match exactly as regards pages 3 and 34. He stressed that there appeared on page 3 of
Biraogo’s copy a handwritten correction over the misspelled name of Jerome
Paras while no such correction was made on the new copy. Additionally, on page 34 of Biraogo’s copy,
his initial appeared to have a smudge while on page 34 of the new copy, there
was no smudge.[222]
When asked to
explain why the new copy, which he claimed to have been photocopied from the
committee’s copy, did not match the committee’s copy on page 1 but matched page
1 of Biraogo’s copy, Justice Reyes offered no explanation.[223] Justice Reyes also refused to submit the new copy to the committee (“Why should
I?”) and questioned the committee’s request that he initial the controversial
pages of the new copy.[224] Thus, the committee members decided to affix
their signatures on the first five pages of the new copy and then drew a
rectangle around their signatures and the date—
Justice Reyes at that point then stated that he had not
withdrawn his standing motion for inhibition against Justice Carpio Morales, to
which Justice Carpio Morales replied
that she would remain impartial. Justice
Carpio Morales likewise stressed that the committee would decide according to
the evidence.[228]
Upon being asked by the committee, Justice Reyes said that
he could not recall if he was holding the Gilbert copy after the En Banc
session and while having lunch.[229] He stated that per standard arrangement, his
staff would usually get his folders and bring them to his office.[230] As far as he could recall, before the Court
adjourned, the members already knew that many concurred only in the result.[231] He could not recall, however, if the Chief
Justice learned about it only at the dining room.[232]
Justice Reyes denied having given Atty. Evangelista the
instruction to reprint signature page 36 of the Gilbert copy and stated
that it must have been Atty. Evangelista’s sole decision. What Justice Reyes remembered telling
Atty. Evangelista after the En Banc session was that many concurred only “in
the result” and that Justice Chico-Nazario wanted to change her concurrence.[233] Justice Carpio Morales confronted him with
certain portions of the
With regard to the “re-signing” by Justice Nachura,[236]
Justice Reyes declared that it was difficult to speculate and rely on
inaccurate recollection, especially since several months had passed. Justice Corona replied that the testimonies
could not be inaccurate since there were entries in the logbook, showing that
Justice Nachura indeed signed in his chambers.[237] Justice Reyes stated that the changing of the
original signature page 36 was not carried out[238]
and that Atty. Evangelista’s recollection of the event was inaccurate. Justice
Reyes also stated he could not recall calling Justice Chico-Nazario on the
phone after the En Banc session on
Justice Reyes stated that Del
Rosario was assigned to keep and take care of the circulated drafts and ponencias printed on Gilbert paper, and
from time to time Atty. Evangelista would have access to them since the latter
was the judicial staff head.[240] Justice Reyes’s staff members in October were
the same until he retired on
Justice Reyes said that he never had any personal
interest in the case and argued that the best proof of this was that he did
not stick to his original decision after the case was heard on oral arguments
on
Justice Reyes could not offer a straight answer to the
question of what his undue interest was in still trying to have the signature
of all the Justices after he had taken his lunch and to forward the Gilbert
copy and the rollo etc. to the OCJ even after the decision to put the
promulgation of the ponencia on hold
was arrived at, at lunchtime of July 15, 2008. He simply dismissed the recollections of his
staff and preferred to believe Del Rosario’s over those of Evangelista’s
or Manabat’s. He insisted that he never
had the chance to talk to Del Rosario or to Atty. Evangelista right after the
En Banc session, and claimed that he
never gave the instruction to bring the Gilbert copy to the Office of Justice Nachura. He likewise insisted that the testimony of
Atty. Evangelista was incorrect and that he would rather believe Del Rosario’s
testimony.[244]
THE
INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS OF FACT
From the testimonies of the witnesses, the committee finds
the following facts established.
On July 15, 2008, even after the Justices had agreed
at lunchtime to withhold the promulgation of the Gilbert copy in the Limkaichong case, Justice Reyes, under
his misimpression that Justice Nazario had “concurred in the result” and
that she would finally remove such qualification, instructed his Judicial
Staff Head, Atty. Evangelista, and Del Rosario to have the signature page 36 (where
the names of Justices Nazario, Nachura and three others appeared) reprinted and
to bring the Gilbert copy to the Office of Justice Nachura for signature as
Justice Nachura, who was not participating in the oral arguments on the case
scheduled at 1:30 that afternoon, might be going out. Jean Yabut was tasked by Atty. Evangelista to
reprint the second signature page (page 36) on Gilbert paper.
The reprinted signature page 36, together with the rest of
the pages of the Gilbert copy, was
then given by Atty. Evangelista to Del Rosario.
Del Rosario, in turn, gave the Gilbert copy, together with the reprinted
signature page 36, to Manabat whom he instructed to go to the Office of Justice
Nachura for him to affix his signature thereon.
Manabat immediately went to the Office of Justice Nachura
and handed the Gilbert copy to Fermin Segotier, the receptionist at Justice
Nachura’s office. As the Gilbert copy
was a door-to-door document, Segotier immediately gave it to Glorivy Nysa
Tolentino who recorded it in her logbook.
She then brought the Gilbert copy to Justice Nachura. When the reprinted page 36 of the Gilbert
copy was brought out from Justice Nachura’s chambers and returned to Tolentino,
she recorded it in her logbook that it was already signed. The whole process took not more than five
minutes. The Gilbert copy was returned to Manabat, who had waited outside the
office of Justice Nachura.
Manabat then repaired to the chambers of Justice Reyes who inquired from him if
Justice Nachura had signed the reprinted page 36 to which he answered in the
affirmative. Manabat thereafter
handed the Gilbert copy to Del Rosario.
When Atty. Evangelista, who was attending the oral arguments
on a case scheduled that afternoon, went down the Office of Justice Reyes at
about 3:30 p.m., he and/or Del Rosario must have eventually noticed that
Justice Nazario did not, after all, qualify her concurrence on the original
signature page 36 of the Gilbert copy with the words “in the result.” Since neither
Atty. Evangelista nor Del
Rosario was advised by Justice Reyes
that the promulgation of the Gilbert copy was on hold, Del Rosario
brought the Gilbert copy, together with the rollo, records and diskettes
to the OCJ to be promulgated and gave it at 3:30 p.m. to Ramon Gatdula of the
OCJ. Gatdula later transmitted the
Gilbert copy to the secretary of the Chief Justice.
The following day,
Thus, Del Rosario went to the OCJ and asked for the return
of the Gilbert copy. As Gatdula had already forwarded the same
to the Chief Justice’s secretary for the Chief Justice’s signature, Gatdula
retrieved it from the secretary. Del Rosario retrieved all that he submitted
the previous day, except the rollo which had, in the meantime, been
borrowed by Justice Carpio.
Del Rosario then brought the Gilbert copy to Justice Reyes
who told him to keep it. Del Rosario
informed Atty. Evangelista the following day,
On
After the Gilbert copy was retrieved from the OCJ on
When news of Biraogo’s conduct of a press conference on
EVALUATION
The committee finds that the photocopying of the Gilbert copy occurred between July 15, 2008, before it was brought to the OCJ or
after it was retrieved on July 16, 2008 from the OCJ, and July
25, 2008, when the Office of Justice Reyes caused the preparation of the
new cover page of the Gilbert copy to reflect that it was agendaed as Item No.
66 in the July 29, 2008 En Banc session, because the cover page of the photocopy in the possession of Biraogo,
as well as the cover page of Justice Reyes’s new copy, still bore the
agenda date “July 15, 2008” and Item No. 52.
The committee likewise finds that the leakage was
intentionally done. It was not the
result of a copy being misplaced and inadvertently picked up by Biraogo or
someone in his behalf. The committee
notes that none of the offices to which the Gilbert copy was brought (OCJ and
the Office of Justice Nachura) and which acquired control over it photocopied ponencias in Gilbert form and released
photocopies thereof to party litigants.
In any event, as earlier reflected,
page 1 of the Gilbert copy that was sent to the OCJ and Justice Nachura’s
Office and page 1 of Biraogo’s photocopy differ.
To reiterate, the Gilbert copy bearing the signatures of 14
Justices was photocopied and that a copy thereof was intentionally leaked
directly or indirectly to Biraogo. As
will be discussed below, the
committee FINDS that the leak came from the Office of Justice Reyes.
It bears reiterating that the leak did not come from the OCJ
even if the Gilbert copy stayed therein from
The leak also could not have come from the offices of the
other associate justices, contrary to Justice Reyes’s insinuation. Justice Reyes insinuated that because all the
Justices were furnished with advance copies of the draft ponencia before the session of
Advance copies of a draft given to the justices as a working
basis for deliberations are not initialed by the justice who prepares it.
And they do not contain the signature of any of the Justices, except the
one who prepared the draft, precisely because the Justices have yet
to go over it and deliberate on it. As
standard procedure, it is only after a draft decision has been adopted by the
Court that it is finalized-printed on Gilbert paper and every page thereof is
authenticated by the ponente, and
circulated for signature by the other Justices.
It need not be underlined that there was no opportunity for
anyone from the offices of the Associate Justices to photocopy the ponencia as none of said offices
acquired possession of the document, except the Office of Justice Reyes and the
Office of Justice Nachura. But based on
testimony, the unpromulgated ponencia stayed
in the Office of Justice Nachura only for less than five minutes, which did not
suffice for it to be signed by
Justice Nachura and to be photocopied. Again, and in any event, page 1 of
the photocopy in Biraogo’s possession does not match the same page of the
Gilbert copy.
Furthermore, except for Justice Reyes,
the Associate Justices took hold of the Gilbert copy only briefly when they
signed it at the En Banc conference room.
At no other time did any of them hold the document long enough to photocopy
it. Pursuant to standard procedure, only
the ponente, Justice Reyes in this case, and his staff, took custody of
the ponencia bearing the signatures
of 14 Justices before it was sent to the OCJ.
But who from the Office of Justice Reyes leaked the unpromulgated
ponencia? While the evidence shows
that the chain of custody could not rule out the possibility that the Gilbert copy was photocopied by Del Rosario who had control and possession of
it, and while there is no direct evidence as to the identity of the perpetrator
of the leakage, the committee FINDS
that based on the circumstantial evidence reflected above, particularly the
evident undue interest of Justice Reyes to circulate a draft ponencia of
the case soonest even before the memoranda of all the parties
fell due, and to withhold the information to Atty. Evangelista and Del
Rosario that the promulgation of the ponencia was put on hold and, instead,
allow the immediate promulgation after lunch despite his admission
that the decision to hold the promulgation was arrived at at lunchtime, it
was Justice Reyes himself who leaked a photocopy thereof.
Recall that the Court gave due course to the petition on
Further, still later or on
Furthermore, even after the Justices had, at
lunchtime of July 15, 2008, unanimously decided that the promulgation of the
Gilbert copy would be put on
hold--and this was, it bears repeating, admitted by Justice Reyes--, Justice
Reyes, after partaking lunch at the dining room and before 1:00 p.m., instead
of advising his Chief of Staff Atty.
Evangelista and Del Rosario that the promulgation was put on hold, still instructed them to reprint the
second signature page (page 36) and to have the reprinted page
immediately brought to the Office of Justice Nachura for signature; and
before Justice Reyes left for the session hall for the oral arguments of that
case scheduled at 1:30 p.m. that day, Justice Reyes still followed up the
case by asking Manabat if Justice Nachura had already signed the Gilbert copy.[245]
When confronted with the
incontrovertible evidence of his undue interest in the case and haste in having
the Gilbert copy promulgated, Justice Reyes was notably evasive. On
Justice Reyes also gave conflicting accounts on when
he gave the Gilbert copy to Del Rosario after the En Banc session of
During the January 22, 2009 hearing, when asked to explain
why the top cover of the new copy which he brought with him and which he
claimed to have been photocopied from the committee’s copy, did not match the
top cover of the committee’s copy (or the original Gilbert copy) but matched
the top cover of Biraogo’s copy, Justice Reyes offered no explanation. Neither did he account for the other
dissimilarities between page 1 of his new copy and the same page 1 of Biraogo
on one hand, and page 1 of the Gilbert
copy , viz: page 1 of the new copy, like page 1 of Biraogo’s
copy, does not have asterisks after the names of Justices Tinga and Azcuna
and the corresponding footnotes, which the Gilbert copy has.
Justice Reyes, despite his professed desire to bring out the
truth, refused to submit his new copy to the committee and
questioned the committee’s request that he place his initials on the questioned
pages of his new copy. Later, while the
committee was discussing other points in his Notes, Justice Reyes tried to hide
his new copy. Justice Corona had to pry it out of Justice Reyes’s files. As Justice Reyes repeatedly said that he was
not submitting his new copy to the committee (“Why should I”), the committee
members were prompted to photocopy his new copy, but only after they affixed
their signatures and date (
To the members of the committee, the foregoing proven facts
and circumstances constitute more than
substantial evidence which reasonably points to Justice Reyes, despite his
protestations of innocence,[249] as THE source of the leak. He must,
therefore, be held liable for GRAVE
MISCONDUCT.
Effect
of Justice Reyes’s Retirement
The subsequent retirement of a judge or any judicial officer
from the service does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability
to which he is answerable.[250]
A case becomes moot and academic only when there is no more
actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in
passing upon the merits of the case. The
instant case is not moot and academic, despite Justice Reyes’s retirement.
Even if the most severe of administrative sanctions may no
longer be imposed, there are other penalties which may be imposed if one is later
found guilty of the administrative offenses charged, including the disqualification
to hold any government office and the forfeiture of benefits.[251]
The Court retains jurisdiction either to
pronounce a respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him/her
guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant
with dreadful and dangerous implications. For, what remedy would the people
have against a civil servant who resorts to wrongful and illegal conduct during
his/her last days in office? What would prevent a corrupt and unscrupulous
government employee from committing abuses and other condemnable acts knowing
fully well that he/she would soon be beyond the pale of the law and immune from
all administrative penalties?
If only for reasons of public policy,
this Court must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over members of the
judiciary and other officials under its supervision and control for acts performed
in office which are inimical to the service and prejudicial to the
interests of litigants and the general public. If innocent, a respondent
official merits vindication of his/her name and integrity as he leaves the
government which he/she served well and faithfully; if guilty, he/she deserves
to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under
the situation.[252]
The Court cannot over-emphasize the importance of the task
of preserving the confidentiality and integrity of court records. A number of rules and internal procedures are
in place to ensure the observance of this task by court personnel.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct[253]
provides that confidential information acquired by justices and judges in their
judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose not
related to their judicial duties.[254] The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel
likewise devotes one whole canon on confidentiality, to wit:
SECTION
1. Court personnel shall not disclose to any unauthorized person any
confidential information acquired by them while employed in the judiciary,
whether such information came from authorized or unauthorized sources.
Confidential information means
information not yet made a matter of public record relating to pending cases,
as well as information not yet made public concerning the work of any
justice or judge relating to pending cases, including notes, drafts,
research papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal
deliberations and similar papers.
The notes, drafts, research papers, internal
discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal deliberations and similar
papers that a justice or judge uses in preparing a decision, resolution or
order shall remain confidential even after the decision, resolution or order
is made public.
SEC. 2.
Confidential information available to specific individuals by reason of
statute, court rule or administrative policy shall be disclosed only by persons
authorized to do so.
SEC. 3. Unless expressly authorized by the designated
authority, court personnel shall not disclose confidential information given by
litigants, witnesses or attorneys to justices, judges or any other person.
SEC. 4.
Former court personnel shall not disclose confidential information
acquired by them during their employment in the Judiciary when disclosed by
current court personnel of the same information would constitute a breach of
confidentiality. Any disclosure in violation of this provisions shall
constitute indirect contempt of court.[255] (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied.)
Ineluctably, any release of a copy to the public, or to the
parties, of an unpromulgated ponencia infringes on the confidential internal
deliberations of the Court. It is
settled that the internal deliberations of the Court are confidential.[256] A frank exchange of exploratory ideas and
assessments, free from the glare of publicity and pressure by interested
parties, is essential to protect the independence of decision-making of those
tasked to exercise judicial power.[257]
In Mirasol v. De La
Torre, Jr.,[258] the Court stated that “[c]ourt
documents are confidential documents. They must not be taken out of the court
without proper authority and without the necessary safeguards to ensure their
confidentiality and integrity.” Thus, the Court found the clerk of court guilty
of gross misconduct. Moreover, the case enunciates that acts of gross
misconduct destroy the good image of the judiciary so the Court cannot
countenance them nor allow the perpetrators to remain in office. This same
pronouncement was reiterated in Betguen v.
Masangcay.[259]
Though both cases involve indiscretions of clerks of court, it is but logical
that a higher standard of care be imposed upon magistrates of the Court.
PAGCOR v. Rilloza,[260]
in fact, commands persons
who routinely handle confidential matters to be confidential employees. They
are thus expected to be more careful than an ordinary employee in their day to
day business. They are reposed such trust and confidence that a breach of their
duty would mean breach of trust. As
applied to the case of Justice Reyes, the breach of duty amounts to breach of
public trust as the committee believes that the leak was motivated by
self-interest.
The fact that Justice Reyes was not formally charged is of
no moment. It is settled that under
the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the Court may impose its authority
upon erring judges whose actuations, on their face, would show gross
incompetence, ignorance of the law or misconduct.[261]
In
People v. Valenzuela,[262] which deals with the
administrative aspect of a case brought on certiorari, the Court dispensed with
the conduct of further hearings under the principle of res ipsa loquitur
and proceeded to consider critical factors in deducing malice and bad
faith on the part of the judge, after it did not accept at face value the judge’s
mere denial. In that case, the judge
ordered the return of the peso equivalent of the foreign currency to the
accused despite its forfeiture as dutiable goods and even after the finding
that the accused had nothing to do with the mailing thereof.
In Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. v. Romillo,
Jr.,[263] where the Court took into
account glaring circumstances in the proceedings of the case in
concluding that the judge acted with bad faith, the judge was similarly found
guilty of grave and serious misconduct when he unjustly declared the defendant
in default and awarded outrageously exorbitant damages. l
Prudential
Bank v. Castro[264] was an administrative case
spawned by a party’s complaint, wherein the Court, in light of the
surrounding circumstances, found that the judge committed serious and grave
misfeasance because the issuance of the orders and ill-conceived summary
judgment showed the judge’s partiality to, or confabulation with the plaintiff
and its lawyers.
In
Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Capistrano,[265] the Court proceeded in
adjudging the attendant circumstances as tainted with bad faith and
questionable integrity to call for the exercise of the Court’s disciplinary
powers over members of the judiciary. In
that case, the Court found the submissions of the judge unacceptable and
clearly inadequate to overcome the cumulative effect of the highly questionable
actuations– taking cognizance of a claim for damages arising from an
attachment, instead of having it litigated in the same action where the writ
was issued – as evincing gross ignorance of the law and active bias or
partiality.
The
Court, in Cruz v. Yaneza,[266]
perceived the judge’s persistent pattern of approving bail bonds
and issuing release orders beyond its territorial jurisdiction as evincing a modus
operandi that flagrantly flaunts fundamental rules.
In
De Los Santos v. Magsino,[267] the Court again applied the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur when a judge irregularly approved a bail
bond and issued a release order of an accused whose case was pending in another
province, in palpable disregard and gross ignorance of the procedural law on
bail.
The
principle was also applied to discipline court personnel and suspend members of
the Bar from the practice of law.
The Court, in Office of the Court Administrator v. Pardo,[268] found the clerk of court guilty of gross
discourtesy in the course of official duties when he failed to accord respect
for the person and rights of a judge as can be gleaned from a mere reading of
his letter to the Executive Judge.
In
Sy v. Moncupa,[269]
the Court found the evidence against the clerk for malversation of
public funds eloquently speaks of her criminal misdeed to justify the
application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The clerk admitted the shortage in the court
funds in her custody and pleaded for time to pay the amount she had failed to
account for.
In maintaining an earlier Resolution,[270] the Court, in In re Wenceslao Laureta,[271] also declared that nothing more was needed to
be said or proven and the necessity to conduct any further evidentiary hearing
was obviated. In that case, the Court
found that the letters and charges leveled against the Justices were, of
themselves and by themselves, malicious and contemptuous, and undermined the
independence of the judiciary.
Meanwhile, in Emiliano Court Townhouses Homeowners
Association v. Dioneda,[272] it was held that it was reasonable to
conclude that under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the respondent
committed an infringement of ethical standards by his act of receiving money as
acceptance fee for legal services in a case and subsequently failing to render
such service. The Court found the
respondent liable for disloyalty to his client and inexcusable negligence in
legal matters entrusted to him.
The
Court, in Dizon, clarified the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
viz:
In these res ipsa loquitur resolutions, there was on
the face of the assailed decisions, an inexplicable grave error bereft of any
redeeming feature, a patent railroading of a case to bring about an unjust
decision, or a manifestly deliberate intent to wreak an injustice against a
hapless party. The facts themselves, previously proven or admitted, were of
such a character as to give rise to a strong inference that evil intent
was present. Such intent, in short, was clearly deducible from what was already
of record. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine does not except or dispense
with the necessity of proving the facts on which the inference of evil intent
is based. It merely expresses the clearly sound and reasonable conclusion that
when such facts are admitted or are already shown by the record, and no
credible explanation that would negative the strong inference of evil intent is
forthcoming, no further hearing to establish them to support a judgment as to
the culpability of a respondent is necessary.[273] (Underscoring and emphasis
supplied.)
The apparent toning down of the application of the res
ipsa loquitur rule was further amplified in at least two cases. In Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Villanueva,[274]
the Court ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to
cases of knowingly rendering a manifestly unjust judgment, and even if the
doctrine is appreciable, complainant still has to present proof of malice or
bad faith.
Then came Fernandez v. Verzola,[275] where it was held that failure to
substantiate a claim of corruption and bribery and mere reliance on conjectures
and suppositions cannot sustain an administrative complaint. In dismissing the complaint, the Court
rejected as untenable the reasoning that the decision itself is evidence
of corruption per doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. It upheld the rule that rendering an
erroneous or baseless judgment, in itself, is not sufficient to justify
the judge’s dismissal from the service.
The
supposed tempering of the principle of res ipsa loquitur in Dizon
only bolstered and solidified the application of the doctrine in cases not only
of gross negligence but of serious misconduct as well, since it speaks of “inference
of evil intent.”
As
explained in Louis Vuitton, the familiar rule in administrative cases is
that the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action, and that he cannot be subjected to civil, criminal or
administrative liability for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous,
as long as he acts in good faith.
The rule adds that the proper remedy is via judicial recourse and not
through an administrative action.
It must be pointed out that Louis Vuitton involves
gross ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. In cases of leakage or breach of
confidentiality, however, the familiar rule obviously does not apply. While the
injured party is the Court itself, there is no judicial remedy available to
undo the disclosure. Moreover, the premature
disclosure does not spring from the four corners of the assailed decision or
resolution nor can it gleaned on the face of the issuance itself. Indeed, one need not dwell on the substance
of the decision since that in itself is inherently insufficient. In unearthing the misdeed, it becomes not
only desirable but also necessary to trace the attendant circumstances,
apparent pattern and critical factors surrounding the entire scenario.
In Macalintal v. Teh,[276] the Court pronounced:
When the inefficiency springs from a
failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or a principle in the
discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of
the position and title he holds or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission
was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority. In both
instances, the judge's dismissal is in order. After all, faith in the
administration of justice exists only if every party-litigant is assured that
occupants of the bench cannot justly be accused of deficiency in their grasp of
legal principles.[277] (Underscoring supplied.)
The
same norm equally applies in the breach of the basic and essential rule of
confidentiality that, as described in one case, “[a]ll conclusions and
judgments of the Court, be they en banc or by Division, are arrived at
only after deliberation [and c]ourt personnel are not in a position to know the
voting in any case because all deliberations are held behind closed doors
without any one of them being present.[278]
As
Dizon declared, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not
dispense with the necessity of proving the facts on which the inference of evil
intent is based. It merely expresses that absent a credible explanation,
it is clearly sound and reasonable to conclude a strong inference of evil
intent on the basis of facts duly admitted or shown by the record. In fine, jurisprudence allows the reception
of circumstantial evidence to prove not only gross negligence but also serious
misconduct.
Justice Reyes is Likewise Liable for Violating his
Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility
For leaking a confidential internal
document of the En Banc, the committee likewise finds Justice Reyes administratively
liable for GROSS MISCONDUCT for
violating his lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility,
for which he may be disbarred or suspended per Section 27,[279]
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Canon 1
of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires a lawyer to uphold the Constitution,
obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. It is likewise provided in Rule 1.01 and 1.02
of the said canon that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral or deceitful conduct and that a lawyer shall not counsel or abet
activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal
system. Here, the act of Justice
Reyes not only violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics, it
also infringed on the internal deliberations of the Court and impeded and
degraded the administration of justice.
The act is rendered all the more pernicious
considering that it was committed by no less than a justice of the Supreme
Court who was supposed to serve as example to the bench and bar.
That Justice Reyes was an
impeachable officer when the investigation started is of no moment. The rule prohibiting the institution of
disbarment proceedings against an impeachable officer who is required by the
Constitution to be a member of the bar as a qualification in office applies
only during his or her tenure and does not create immunity from liability for
possibly criminal acts or for alleged violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct or other supposed violations.[280]
Once the said impeachable officer is no longer in office because of his
removal, resignation, retirement or permanent disability, the Court may proceed
against him or her and impose the corresponding sanctions for misconduct
committed during his tenure, pursuant to the Court’s power of
administrative supervision over members of the bar. Provided
that the requirements of due process are met, the Court may penalize
retired members of the Judiciary for misconduct committed during their
incumbency. Thus, in Cañada v. Suerte,[281]
this Court ordered the disbarment of a retired judge for misconduct committed
during his incumbency as a judge.
However, pernicious as Justice
Reyes’s infractions may have been, the committee finds the imposition of the
supreme penalty of disbarment unwarranted.
In the determination of the imposable disciplinary sanction against an
erring lawyer, the Court takes into account the primary purpose of disciplinary
proceedings, which is to protect the administration of justice by requiring
that those who exercise this important function shall be competent, honorable,
and reliable men in whom courts and clients may repose confidence. While the
assessment of what sanction may be imposed is primarily addressed to the
Court’s sound discretion, the sanction should neither be arbitrary or despotic,
nor motivated by personal animosity or prejudice. Rather, it should ever
be controlled by the imperative need to scrupulously guard the purity and independence
of the bar. Thus, the supreme penalty of disbarment is
meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing
and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the
bar. Under the circumstances of this
case, the committee finds the penalty of indefinite suspension from the
practice of law sufficient and proper.
Liability of Atty.
Rosendo B. Evangelista
The
Committee finds that Atty. Evangelista, Justice Reyes’ Judicial Staff Head, was
remiss in his duties, which includes the supervision of the operations of the
office, particularly with respect to the promulgation of decisions. While it is incumbent upon him to devise ways
and means to secure the integrity of confidential documents, his actuations
reflected above evinced “a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or
indifference.”[282]
Atty.
Evangelista was admittedly unmindful of the responsible safekeeping of draft ponencias in an unlocked drawer of a
member of the staff. He failed to make
sure that the unused portion of confidential documents like the second
signatory page of the ponencia in
Gilbert form had been properly disposed of or shredded. He was not on top of things that concerned
the promulgation of ponencias, for he
failed to ascertain the status and procedural implication of an “on hold” order
after having been apprised thereof by his subordinate, Del Rosario, on
With
these findings, the Court finds him liable for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY.
Liability
of Armando Del Rosario
The committee likewise finds Del Rosario administratively
liable for failing to exercise the required degree of care in the custody of
the Gilbert copy. Del Rosario admittedly kept the Gilbert
copy in an unlocked drawer from
Time and again, the Court has
emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility which court officials and
employees are mandated to carry. They are constantly reminded that any
impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official
functions must be avoided. The Court will never countenance any conduct,
act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of
justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the
people’s faith in the judiciary.
Under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service
Rules and Regulations, (simple) neglect of duty is punishable by suspension of
one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Under Sec. 19, Rule
XIV of the same Rules, the penalty of fine (instead of suspension) may also be
imposed in the alternative.[284] Following the Court's ruling in several
cases involving (simple) neglect of duty,[285] we find the penalty of fine on Atty.
Evangelista and Del Rosario in the amount of P10,000 and P5,000,
respectively, just and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATIONS
IN VIEW OF THE
FOREGOING, the
Investigating Committee respectfully recommends that
(1) Justice Ruben T. Reyes
(Ret.) be found liable for GROSS
MISCONDUCT for violating his oath as a member of the Bar and the Code of
Professional Responsibility and be meted the penalty of INDEFINITE SUSPENSION as a member of the Bar;
(2) Justice Ruben T. Reyes (Ret.) also be found
liable for GRAVE MISCONDUCT for
leaking a confidential internal document of the Court and be FINED in the
amount of P500,000, to be charged against his retirement benefits;
and
(3) Atty. Rosendo B. Evangelista and Armando Del
Rosario be held liable for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and be FINED in
the amount of P10,000 and P5,000, respectively.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
|
(Sgd.) LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING Chairman |
|
|
(Sgd.) RENATO C.
CORONA Member |
(Sgd.) CONCHITA CARPIO
MORALES Member |
The Court finds the above-quoted
report well taken. Pursuant to Section
13, Article VIII of the Constitution, this per curiam decision was reached
after deliberation of the Court En Banc by a unanimous decision of all the
members of the Court except for two (2) Justices who are on official leave.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Court ADOPTS the findings and APPROVES WITH MODIFICATION
the Recommendations of the Investigating Committee as follows:
(1) Justice
Ruben T. Reyes (Ret.) is held liable for GRAVE MISCONDUCT for leaking a
confidential internal document of the Court and he is FINED P500,000.00,
to be charged against his retirement benefits, and disqualified to hold any
office or employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government
including government-owned or controlled corporations; furthermore, Justice
Ruben T. Reyes is directed to SHOW CAUSE
within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this Decision why he should
not be disciplined as a member of the Bar in light of the aforementioned
findings.
(2)
Atty. Rosendo B. Evangelista and Armando Del Rosario are held liable for
SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and are ordered to pay the FINE in the
amount of P10,000.00 and P5,000.00, respectively.
This Decision shall take effect
immediately.
SO
ORDERED.
|
REYNATO S.
PUNO Chief Justice |
|||
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate
Justice |
(On
official leave) CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice |
||
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
||
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate
Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
||
|
(On
official leave) DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
||
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate
Justice |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate
Justice |
ARTURO
D. BRION Associate
Justice |
|
|
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
||
* On official leave.
[1] TSN,
[2] TSN,
[3] TSN,
[4] TSN,
[5] TSN,
[6] TSN,
[7] TSN,
[8] TSN,
[9] TSN,
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] TSN,
[16] TSN,
[17] TSN,
[18] TSN,
[19] TSN,
[20] TSN,
[21] TSN,
[22] TSN,
[23] TSN,
[24] TSN,
[25] TSN,
[26] TSN,
[27] TSN,
[28] TSN,
[29] TSN,
[30] TSN,
[31] TSN,
[32] TSN,
[33] TSN,
[34] TSN,
[35] TSN,
[36] TSN,
[37] TSN,
[38] TSN,
[39] TSN,
[40] TSN,
[41] TSN,
[42] TSN,
[43] TSN,
[44] TSN,
[45] TSN,
[46] TSN,
[47] TSN,
[48] TSN,
[49] TSN,
[50] TSN,
[51] TSN,
[52] TSN,
[53] TSN,
[54] TSN,
[55] TSN,
[56] TSN,
[57] TSN,
[58] TSN,
[59] TSN,
[60] TSN,
[61] TSN,
[62] TSN,
[63] TSN,
[64] TSN,
[65] TSN,
[66] TSN,
[67] TSN,
[68] TSN,
[69] TSN,
[70] TSN,
[71] TSN,
[72] TSN,
[73] TSN,
[74] TSN,
[75] TSN,
[76] TSN,
[77] TSN,
[78] TSN,
[79] TSN,
[80] TSN,
[81] TSN,
[82] TSN,
[83] TSN,
[84] TSN,
[85] TSN,
[86] TSN,
[87] TSN,
[88] TSN,
[89] See
TSN,
[90] TSN,
[91] TSN,
[92] TSN,
[93] TSN,
[94] TSN,
[95] TSN,
[96] TSN,
[97] TSN,
[98] TSN,
[99] TSN,
[100] TSN,
[101] TSN,
[102] TSN,
[103] TSN,
[104] TSN,
[105] TSN,
[106] TSN,
[107] TSN,
[108] TSN,
[109] TSN,
[110] TSN,
[111] TSN,
[112] TSN,
[113] TSN,
[114] TSN,
[115] TSN,
[116] TSN,
[117] TSN,
[118] TSN,
[119] TSN,
[120] TSN,
[121] TSN,
[122] TSN,
[123] TSN,
[124] TSN,
[125] TSN,
[126] TSN,
[127] TSN,
[128] TSN,
[129] TSN,
[130] TSN,
[131] TSN,
[132] TSN,
[133] TSN,
[134] TSN,
[135] TSN,
[136] TSN,
[137] TSN,
[138] TSN,
[139] TSN,
[140] TSN,
[141] TSN,
[142] TSN,
[143] TSN,
[144] TSN,
[145] TSN,
[146] TSN,
[147] TSN,
[148] TSN,
[149] TSN,
[150] TSN,
[151] TSN,
[152] TSN,
[153] TSN,
[154] TSN,
[155] TSN,
[156] TSN,
[157] TSN,
[158] TSN,
[159] TSN,
[160] TSN,
[161] TSN,
[162] TSN,
[163] TSN,
[164] TSN,
[165] TSN,
[166] TSN,
[167] TSN,
[168] TSN,
[169] TSN,
[170] TSN,
[171] TSN,
[172] TSN,
[173] TSN,
[174] TSN,
[175] TSN,
[176] TSN,
[177] TSN,
[178] TSN,
[179] TSN,
[180] TSN,
[181] TSN,
[182] TSN,
[183] TSN,
[184] TSN,
[185] TSN,
[186] TSN,
[187] See
Paragraph 1 (Notes/Observations).
[188] See
Paragraphs 2 and 5 (Notes/Observations).
[189] See
Paragraph 4 (Notes/Observations).
[190] See
Paragraph 7 (Notes/Observations).
[191] See
Paragraphs 3 and 9 (Notes/Observations).
[192] See
Paragraph 11 (Notes/Observations).
[193] TSN,
[194] TSN,
[195] TSN,
[196] TSN,
[197] TSN,
[198] TSN,
[199] TSN,
[200] TSN,
[201] TSN,
[202] TSN,
[203] TSN,
[204] TSN,
[205] TSN,
[206] TSN,
[207] TSN,
[208] TSN,
[209] TSN,
[210] TSN,
[211] TSN,
[212] TSN,
[213] TSN,
[214] TSN,
[215] TSN,
[216] TSN,
[217] TSN,
[218] TSN,
[219] TSN,
[220] TSN,
[221] TSN,
[222] TSN,
[223] TSN,
[224] TSN,
[225] TSN,
[226] TSN,
[227] TSN,
[228] TSN,
[229] TSN,
[230] TSN,
[231] TSN,
[232] TSN,
[233] TSN,
[234] TSN,
[235] TSN,
[236] In
his testimony summarized above, Justice Nachura believed that he signed the
Gilbert copy at the En Banc Conference Room.
[237] TSN,
[238] TSN,
[239] TSN,
[240] TSN,
[241] TSN,
[242] TSN,
[243] TSN,
[244] TSN,
[245] TSN,
[246] TSN,
[247] TSN,
[248] TSN,
[249] TSN,
[250] Re:
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4,
Dolores, Eastern Samar, A.M. No. 06-6-340-RTC, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA
313, 339 citing Concerned Trial Lawyers of Manila v. Veneracion, A.M.
No. RTJ-05-1920,
[251] Pagano v. Nazarro, Jr., G.R. No.
149072, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 622, 628, see the discussion where the
Court debunked the cases relied upon by petitioner to support her defense that
government employees who have been separated can no longer be administratively
charged.
[252] Largo
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 177244, November 20, 2007, 537 SCRA 721, 729
citing Perez v. Abiera, Adm. Case No. 223-J, June 11, 1975, 64 SCRA 302,
307; vide Gallo v.
Judge Cordero, 315 Phil. 210, 220 (1995).
[253] A.M.
No. 03-05-01-SC entitled Adopting the
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (
[254] Supra
note 18 at Canon 4 (Propriety), Sec. 9 as amended by Resolution of
[255] A.M.
No. 03-06-13-SC (
[256] Chavez
v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, G.R. No. 130716,
[257] Chavez
v. Public Estates Authority, G.R. No. 133250,
[258] Adm.
Matter No. P-88-238,
[259] A.C.
No. P-93-822,
[260] G.R.
No. 141141,
[261] De
los
[262] Nos.
L-63950-60,
[263] No.
L-64276,
[264] A.C.
No. 2756,
[265] A.M.
No. R-66-RTJ,
[266] Supra
note 274, at 285.
[267] Supra
note 274, at 521.
[268] A.M.
No. RTJ-08-2109,
[269] A.M. No. P-94-1110,
[270] No.
L-68635,
[271] No.
L-68635, P1,000 within ten days from notice, or suffer
imprisonment for ten days upon failure to pay said fine within the given
period. Atty. Wenceslao Laureta was
found guilty of grave professional misconduct and was suspended from the
practice of law until further orders.
[272] A.C.
No. 5162,
[273] In
Re: Petition for the Dismissal from
Service and/or Disbarment of Judge Baltazar R. Dizon, A.C. No. 3086, May
31, 1989, 173 SCRA 719, 725 which granted the motion for reconsideration of the
Resolution in Padilla v. Dizon, A.C. No. 3086, February 23, 1988, 158
SCRA 127.
[274] A.C.
No. MTJ-92-643,
[275] A.M.
No. CA-04-40,
[276] Supra
note 274, at 623. The Court observed
that the respondent’s gross deviation from the acceptable norm for judges is
clearly manifest, when he actively participated in the certiorari proceedings
in which he was merely a nominal party and when he acted both as a party
litigant and as a judge before his own court.
[277]
[278] In
re: Wenceslao Laureta, supra note
284, at 579.
[279]
Sec.
27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds
therefor. -- A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his
office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other
gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the
oath which he is required to take before the admission to practice, or for a
willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for
corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
authority to do so. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the
purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
malpractice.
[280]
In Re: Raul M. Gonzalez, A.M. No.
88-4-5433,
[281] A.M.
No. RTJ-04-1884,
[282] De Leon-Dela Cruz v. Recacho, A.M. No.
P-06-2122,
[283] Rivera v. Buena, A.M. No. P-07-2394,
[284] Patawaran
v. Nepomuceno, A.M. No. P-02-1655,
[285] Judge
Balanag, Jr. v. Osita, 437 Phil. 452 (2002); Casano v. Magat, 425
Phil. 356 (2002); Tiongco v. Molina, 416 Phil. 676 (2001);
Beso v. Judge Daguman, 380 Phil. 544 (2000).