EN
BANC
|
RAMON
C. GONZALES, Complainant, - versus - COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE AMELITA G.
TOLENTINO, Respondent. |
A.M. No. CA-10-49-J[Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-142-CA-J] Present: PUNO, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD,
VILLARAMA,
JR., PEREZ,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: January 28, 2010 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The facts that spawned the filing of
the present administrative case are as follows:
Ramon C. Gonzales (complainant), then
a member of Alabang Country Club, Incorporated (ACCI) who was vying for a seat
in its Board of Directors (the Board), was charged by the Board with having falsified proxy forms for the 2004
election of Board members. That drew
him to file a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Complainant was later disqualified as
a candidate and ousted as a member of the ACCI.
He thus amended his complaint in the
civil case by impleading the members of the Board at the time material to his
expulsion, the newly elected members, and the members of the Nomination and
Election Committee. And he added, as
cause of action, the nullification of his disqualification and expulsion in the
reliefs prayed for.
Branch 256 of the Muntinlupa RTC decided
the civil case in complainant’s favor, and issued a writ of execution allowing him
to resume his rights as a member of ACCI.
The defendants in the civil case assailed
the trial court’s decision before the Court of Appeals via petition for review
with application for temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of
preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 89358.[1] This
case was consolidated with related cases in which herein complainant was the
respondent.
It is gathered that the appellate
court issued on
When the TRO expired, the Ninth
Division of the Court of Appeals composed of Associate Justices Roberto A.
Barrios, Vicente S.E. Veloso, and Justice Amelita Tolentino as ponente directed the issuance of a Writ
of Preliminary Injunction as in fact one was issued on
Complainant challenged the appellate
court’s issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction via petition for
certiorari filed before this Court on
In the meantime, complainant, through
counsel, filed on
By Resolution of
More than a year later or on
On
I
also understand that cases involving intra-corporate controversy must be
resolved as soon as possible because of [their] nature. The affairs of corporations cannot be
suspended or left undecided longer than is necessary. In my case, I ran x x x for the term June 2004-June 2006 and
a decision was rendered on
As can be seen in the Resolutions issued in the cases, they were also furnished to a certain Atty. Felisberto Verano [Atty. Verano] who is not even a counsel of record in the case nor has he entered formally his appearance. Atty. Verano is the brother of then Congresswoman Lorna Verano-Yap of Parañaque and she was instrumental in having Justice Tolentino appointed to her present post. In fact, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was even addressed to Atty. Verano and not to any of the two (2) counsels of record for the Club. This is highly suspicious and anomalous. x x x
x x x I am bringing this matter to your attention because I have reason to believe that Justice Tolentino is not innocent when she granted the Writ of Injunction and totally failed to act on the petitions. This is a favor to Atty. Verano to whose sister Justice Tolentino owes a debt of gratitude for her position.
In view of the scandal now besetting the Court of Appeals, and recalling the removal of another associate justice last year, the taint of dishonesty and corruption may not be isolated, and in this case, the questionable inclusion of Atty. Verano should be immediately investigated, especially when there exists a link between Justice Tolentino and the Veranos. The inclusion of his name may be there to remind Justice Tolentino about his interest in the case.[5] (underscoring supplied)
In a parallel move, complainant filed
on
This Court referred the
letter-complaint to Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado V. Vasquez for
appropriate action.[7]
By Order of
Respecting
the delay in resolving the Motion for Inhibition, respondent claimed that in view of complainant’s
filing (on September 8, 2005) of the petition for certiorari before this Court,
she deemed it appropriate to defer any action on the motion (which was filed on
September 29, 2005) in deference to the authority of this Court to resolve the
issues raised before it.[10]
In his letter-reply,[11]
complainant stated that Atty. Verano signed no pleading other than the petition
for review in CA-G.R. SP No. 89358.
In sum, the present administrative
case complains against 1) the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, 2) the
delay in the resolution by respondent of the Motion for Inhibition, 3) the
furnishing of copies of Resolutions of the appellate court to Atty. Verano, and
4) the delay in the resolution by respondent of the cases on the merits.
Since the Court has, as reflected above, found in
herein complainant’s petition for certiorari that the issuance by the appellate
court of a writ of preliminary injunction was not attended with grave abuse of
discretion, the Court shall dwell on the other specified complaints against respondent.
The records show that indeed Atty.
Verano signed the Petition for Review in CA-G.R. SP No. 89358 as collaborating
counsel.[12] He was,
therefore, entitled to receive a copy of the appellate court’s resolutions including
that which directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. In any event, the order to issue the writ of
preliminary injunction was the collective act of the members of the Ninth Division
of the Court. Bautista v. Abdulwahid enlightens:[13]
x x x The Court of Appeals is a collegiate court whose members reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation. Thus, we have held that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that a collective decision is “unjust” cannot prosper. Consequently, the filing of charges against a single member of a division of the appellate court is inappropriate.[14]
Respecting the complaint about the
delay in resolving complainant’s Motion for
Inhibition, the Court notes that the motion was filed on
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the
Constitution directs:
All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts. (underscoring supplied)
Respondent’s justification for the
delay in resolving the motion for inhibition ─ in deference to the authority
of this Court to resolve the issues raised in the petition for certiorari
─ does not impress. Section 7 of
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for certiorari shall not interrupt the course of
the principal case unless a
temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued
against the public respondent from further proceeding with the case. This rule must be strictly adhered to by appellate
and lower courts notwithstanding the possibility that the proceedings
undertaken by them tend to or would render nugatory the pending petition before
this Court.[15]
But even gratuitously crediting respondent’s justification for the delay,
since the Court resolved complainant’s petition for certiorari on April 11, 2007,
still, given the nature and history of the cases, respondent unduly delayed the
resolution of a mere motion for inhibition ─ only on October 8, 2008,
after the Court referred the present complaint to the appellate court and
after complainant filed a reiterative motion.
Under Section 9 (1) of Rule 140[16] of
the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less
serious charge. Under Section 11 (B) of
the same rule, the following sanctions may be imposed on judges of regular and
special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan who
commit less serious offenses:
1.
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less
than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2.
A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Under
the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a fine of P15,000
on respondent.
WHEREFORE,
respondent is found GUILTY of undue delay in rendering an order, and is FINED
Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000), with WARNING that
commission of the same or similar infraction shall be faulted strictly.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA,
JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE P. PEREZ Associate Justice |
JOSE C.
MENDOZA
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 15-64.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Bautista
v. Abdulwahid, A.M. OCA I.P.I No. 06-97-CA-J,
[14]
[15] Go
v. Looyuko, G.R. No. 147923, October 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 445, 480-481; vide Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 166859,
[16] On the “Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan.”