Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
|
RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER RELATIVE TO THE
ALLEGED CORRUPTION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY |
A.M. No. 07-6-14-CA Present: CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: January 18, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
By Resolution[1] of
July 10, 2007, the Court En Banc
resolved to require Court of Appeals Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. (Justice
Lim) and Mario V. Lopez (Justice Lopez), and
21st Division Clerk of Court Cherry Hope Valledor-Ignes (Atty. Ignes), who
are all based in Cagayan de
Oro, to COMMENT on the June 10, 2007 anonymous letter addressed to then Chief
Justice Reynato S. Puno requesting him to take action on alleged corruption
taking place at the said Court of Appeals station.
Pertinent portions of the letter are
reproduced below, quoted verbatim:
x x x x
We are respectfully requesting you to take action of the corruption in the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.
The Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City, is highly politicize or shall we say “Politicize Judiciary”. Wherein those with political connections and influence can always get favorable decisions or resolutions and worst, those cases whose merits are not favorable to the people in power would not be decided and left in the dust in one corner of the stockroom.
Let me cite you some examples.
In
one case involving employees in the Province of Zamboanga where it has already
been over two (2) years since the case was submitted for decision but until
this time no decision has come out yet which is contrary to the rules of the
Court of Appeals that required cases to be decided within one (1) year from the
time it has been submitted for decision.
It
has come to our attention that this case involves rank and file regular
employees of the provincial government that were illegally dismissed by
Governor Cerilles. It has already been decided
by the Civil Service Commission (CSC for brevity), En Banc, that their
termination was illegal. As a matter of fact they were dismissed from their
employment because they were identified to be supporters of the previous
governor.
Their
professional lives and the lives and future of their family and children are
now uncertain because even if the CSC has already decided in their favor but the Court of Appeals, through Justice
Rodrigo Lim issued an injunction order that enjoined the implementation of the
CSC decision. BUT for over two (2) years now “INUUPUAN LANG NI JUSTICE LIM ANG
KASO”.
Speculation
arose that in whatever angle he will look at the case it would be difficult to
reverse the decision of the CSC. Information leaked that it was the father of
Gov. Cerilles who talked to Justice Lim and made some arrangements. MAY USAPAN
PALA SILA?
Another
case in point is the case of Mayor Galario, City Mayor of
The
Mayor filed a case to the CA-Cagayan de Oro and sought for the issuance of a
TRO but to his dismay he was denied of the TRO he was seeking.
In
the case of Ombudsman vs. Laja, G.R. No. 169241,
In the case of Mayor Galario, CA-Cagayan de Oro City shows inconsistency. He made a timely appeal and the appeal supposedly prevented his suspension from being executory but the CA-CDO did not hear his case. WHY THEY GAVE A TRO OR INJUNCTION TO THE CASE OF LAJA AND WHY THEY CAN’T GIVE THE SAME TREATMENT IN THE CASE OF MAYOR GALARIO?
The answer is simple, CORRUPTION.
It
is of public knowledge in Cagayan de Oro City that the Court of Appeals through
Justice Lim solicited cash donations
from Gov. Zubirri who is a political enemy of Mayor Galario.
In
all the Christmas Parties (December 2005 and 2006) of the Court of
Appeals-Cagayan de Oro, Governor Zubirri
has been donating not less that P50,000.00 in cash.
How
could Mayor Galario get justice and fair treatment to his case when his arch
enemy is one of the biggest contributor of cash to the CA-Cagayan de Oro
Christmas Parties?
In
the case of Mayor Galarion, the ponente is no other than JUSTIS [sic] LIM.
There are also many cases where the CA-Cagayan de Oro that were treated unfairly. It is always; THE PERSON WHO IS IN POWER AND HAS THE INFLUENCE DUE TO HIS POLITICAL POSITION IS ALWAYS GIVEN THE FAVOR.
PAANO NA LANG KAMI AN ORDINARYONG MAMAMAYAN LAMANG?
Many cases in the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City that were decided base on WHOM YOU KNOW. If you do not know any justice in the CA-CDO then in most instances your case will not be given priority.
There are also cases that the parties already made an amicable settlement but it take years for CA-CDO Justices to grant the settlement and dismissed the case while there are also cases that were decided earlier but not in accordance with the hierarchy or rules on priority of cases.
On[e]
case where there is already an amicable settlement is handled by Justice Lopez. There was already a
joint manifestation of all parties that economic benefits will be released but
up to this time it remains unresolved. There was already an agreement by all
parties but it is hard to understand why it took him so long to resolve it. It
is a very simple issue to be resolved but for a long period of time it still
remains unresolved by Justice Lopez.
We
are also watching this Justice Lopez because he has a reputation to succumb
easily to pressures especially from those who are occupying elective position.
It
is also of common knowledge here among practicing lawyers that if you want to
get a TRO or Injunction we should talk to a certain Atty. Cherry Ignes, Clerk
of Court of the 21st Division. As we found out she talked it out
with the lawyer of the justice who is assigned to the case and request for the
issuance of a TRO or Injunction.
In
the case of FERROCHROME vs. CEPALCO, CEPALCO was issued a TRO with the help of Atty. Ignes. We received information
that one of the lawyers working for CEPALCO is the one who made the follow up
through her. This lawyer is her classmate at law school.
Atty. Ignes, also made ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS in many cases even if these case were appealed to the Supreme Court. Because of her action it caused confusion to the parties of these cases. One of the cases is involving Montessori de Oro School.
These acts of Atty. Ignes degrades the judicial system. She has no place in our judiciary and she ought to be dismissed from the service.
x x x x
We only hope that you will take action on this matter and through your desire of cleansing the judiciary you will have a judiciary that will have the support and confidence of the people. As you have said, “It is only the capital of the judiciary. If you lose this capital, you will lose the ball game.
Please understand that we are not divulging our identities in order not to affect the cases we are handling and unfair reprisal against our clients. Rest assured that from time to time we will inform your Honorable Office on whatever transgression and travesty on the judiciary and the judicial system that will be happening in our place.
More power to you and your family! (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In
her August 31, 2007 Comment,[2]
Atty. Ignes decried her
portrayal in the anonymous letter as “akin to a [T]emporary [R]estraining [O]rder
fixer” in obvious reference to the TRO issued in CA-G.R. SP No. 00880, “Cagayan de Oro Electric Power and Light Co.,
Inc. (CEPALCO) v. Hon. Leonardo Demecillo and Ferrochrome Phils, Inc.”
Atty. Ignes claimed that she was unaware
of CEPALCO’s urgent motion for resolution of its application for a TRO[3] which
was filed on March 3, 2006 as she had designated her assistant, Cecilia
Carbajosa, to man the office while she was away assisting Justice Teresita
Dy-Liacco Flores as Clerk of Court[4] in
the investigation of an administrative case, which entailed a weeklong hearing
from March 6 to 10, 2006 in Davao City;
and that she learned of the TRO only upon her return on March 10, 2006
when it was forwarded to her office for promulgation.
As she vouched for the integrity and
honesty of her assistant, Atty. Ignes maintained that while one of the in-house
counsels for CEPALCO was her classmate in law school, she was never approached
by any of them regarding the case.
Disputing the charge that she had
made entries of judgment in many cases even if they were pending appeal before this
Court, such as the one involving Montessori de Oro School, Atty. Ignes pointed
out that the anonymous writer must have been referring to CA-G.R. CV No. 79772,
“Montessori de Oro, Inc. v. [First] Malayan
Leasing and Finance Corp.,” the only Montessori case which passed through her
division. She explained that she acted on the motion for entry of judgment
filed by First Malayan Leasing’s counsel,[5] and
later issued an entry of judgment,[6] on
the basis of the October 24, 2005 letter[7] of
this Court’s Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Judicial Records Office, Teresita
Dimaisip, certifying that Montessori de Oro’s Motion for Extension of Time to
File Petition for Review on
Certiorari[8]
had been denied by Resolution of July 13, 2005 and that on such date no
petition for review on certiorari had been filed with this Court.
Atty. Ignes surmised that the
anonymous letter may have arisen from a personal vendetta carried out by
disgruntled former court employees who resented her for exposing their misdeeds
in office resulting either in disciplinary action, including dismissal, against
those found guilty.[9]
In his September 7, 2007 Comment,[10]
Justice Lim branded the
allegation that he had been “sitting” on the case adverted to in the letter for
more than two years to be grossly inaccurate and exaggerated, he explaining
that the delay was “only six . . . months and two . . . days.”
This
case (CA-G.R. SP No. 86627, Gov. Aurora E. Cerilles vs. CSC et al.) was deemed
submitted for decision on
x x x x[11] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Claiming that he does not know either
Zamboanga Gov. Aurora Cerilles or her father, Justice Lim retorted that the
allegation that he had made “arrangements” to favor the governor over the rank
and file employees of the Zamboanga provincial government was totally baseless as
he in fact resolved the case in favor of the rank and file employees.
On the allegation that he had refused
to issue a TRO or injunction in a case involving Valencia City (in Bukidnon) Mayor
Galario (Galario) due to his (Justice Lim’s) close ties to Bukidnon Gov.
Zubiri, a purported arch enemy of the mayor, Justice Lim pointed out that he
had, in fact, issued a Resolution[12]
dated October 10, 2006 in CA-G.R. SP No. 01278-MIN, “Jose M Galario, Jr., City Mayor, Valencia City v. The Honorable Office
of the Ombudsman and Ruth P. Piano,” granting
the TRO prayed for by the mayor. He
added that it was a matter of record that Gov. Zubiri was not even a party to that
case, the mayor having been charged and suspended by the Ombudsman upon the
complaint of a certain Ruth Piano; and
that he had no knowledge of any political rivalry between the governor and the
mayor or any interest in Bukidnon politics.
On the allegation that he was
soliciting cash donations for the Court of Appeals at Cagayan de Oro 2005 and
2006 Christmas parties, Justice Lim gave the following explanation:
While
it is admitted that Gov. Zubiri indeed made contributions to the Christmas
Party of the Court of Appeals-Mindanao Station, such was voluntary and
spontaneous on his part, without any solicitation from the Court of Appeals. It is a matter of record that the Court of Appeals-Mindanao
Station celebrates the whole day its anniversary every December 7, and local
government officials, among others, are invited like Gov. Oscar Moreno of the
On the part of Justice Lopez, in his two-page Comment[13]
of August 31, 2007, he manifested that, contrary to the
anonymous writer’s allegations, he had “thoroughly scanned the dockets of all
cases raffled to us and [we] find no amicable settlement submitted for our
resolution or approval.” He emphasized that he has earned a reputation for
fairness and independence in his more than 13-year stint in the judiciary, and that
in his brief stint in Mindanao, he neither fraternized with any politician nor
allowed anyone to influence his judicial acts.
Where one, such as the present anonymous
letter-writer, seeks the imposition of a penalty upon a judicial officer or
magistrate on the ground of corruption,
among others, it behooves him/her to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt, for the general rules with regard to admissibility of evidence in
criminal cases apply.[14]
Respecting
this charge of corruption against
Justice Lopez and Atty. Ignes, the Court finds that the writer failed to
discharge the burden.
ON THE
CHARGES AGAINST
JUSTICE LIM:
The Constitution mandates lower
collegiate courts to decide or resolve cases or matters within 12-months from
date of submission.[15]
Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct reminds judges to
perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
As reflected above, Justice Lim admitted
that the appealed case, CA-G.R. SP No. 86627, involving provincial government
employees found by the CSC to have been illegally dismissed by Gov. Cerilles
(per anonymous writer’s claim, “they were identified supporters of the previous
governor”), was due for resolution on or before December 6, 2006. The Justice explained, however, that on
account of his efforts to resolve 217 other cases “that had long been pending
before the Court of Appeals” in
The Court takes notice that Justice
Lim was appointed to the Court of Appeals on March 15, 2004, or just a little
more than three (3) years before the subject anonymous letter reached the Office
of the Chief Justice.
Jurisprudence has assiduously impressed
upon judges their sworn duty to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, failing
which the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary[16] are
eroded. While the Court gives Justice
Lim the benefit of the doubt respecting his claim that he had to resolve 217
cases many of which were of older vintage, and absent any showing that the
delay was motivated by malice, capriciousness or any ill-motive, he should have accorded the appealed case a
measure of priority, given that it involved the welfare of government employees
who were purportedly dismissed without cause.
Any unwarranted delay - be it a
day, a week or a month - shakes the people’s trust and
confidence in the judiciary.[17] More
so when it is committed by a superior court magistrate who is held to a higher
station. This delay, in all likelihood, precipitated the impression that
Justice Lim was “sitting” on the case pending before him. It is thus not remiss
to remind Justice Lim to exercise greater discretion and vigilance in the disposition
of cases of this or similar nature.
The charge against Justice Lim of
bias against Mayor Galario due to the Justice’s purported ties to the mayor’s
alleged enemy, Gov. Zubiri, is belied by the Justice’s issuing of a TRO in
favor of the mayor, as evidenced by the October 10, 2006 Resolution in CA-G.R.
SP No. 01278-MIN.
On Justice Lim’s admitted accepting of
cash gifts from Governor Zubiri during the Christmas party of the Court of
Appeals at Cagayan de Oro which were raffled to employees, the Court may take
note of the customary practice of the attendance during major “events” or
national holidays, of government officials and their spontaneous donating of
cash to augment the merriment of the occasions.
While the Court may not put Justice Lim to task on this account given
the lack of evidence pointing to any ulterior motive, the Court would be remiss
if it did not caution Justice Lim to be more circumspect or to exercise
prudence in accepting such cash donations in the future, if only to dispel any
perceptions of unwarranted or improper ties to the executive branch.
ON THE OTHER
CHARGES
AGAINST
JUSTICE LOPEZ:
On Justice’s Lopez’s alleged failure
to act on an amicable settlement of a case submitted for his resolution or
approval, since that particular case is not mentioned, Justice Lopez’s
disclaimer can be credited. So does his disclaimer on his perceived
reputation of “succumb(ing) easily to pressures especially from those who
are occupying elective position,”[18] absent
any slightest proof or indication thereof proffered by the anonymous writer.
ON THE CHARGES
AGAINST
ATTY. IGNES:
The documentary evidence proffered by
Atty. Ignes supports her assertion that she was unaware of CEPALCO’s urgent
motion for resolution of its application for a TRO,[19] and
that she learned of the issuance of a TRO only upon her return on March 10,
2006 when it was forwarded to her office for promulgation. That CEPALCO had not
obtained a TRO in its favor prior to
Atty. Ignes’ departure for Davao City where she was from March 6 to 10, 2006 is
bolstered by CEPALCO’s own admission that at the time it filed the said urgent
motion for resolution on March 3, 2006, the appellate court had as yet not
issued any injunctive relief.[20]
As for the issuance by Atty. Ignes of
the December 5, 2005 Entry of Judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 79772, “Montessori de Oro, Inc. v. [First] Malayan
Leasing and Finance Corp.,” the same appears to be regular and in conformity with
established court procedures. She acted appropriately on First Malayan
Leasing’s motion for entry of judgment only after
receipt of this Court’s October 24, 2005 certification issued by Deputy Clerk
of Court and Chief Judicial Records Office Teresita Dimaisip confirming the denial
of Montessori de Oro’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review
and the absence of any actual petition for review on certiorari filed by the same party litigant.
ALL TOLD, the allegations
of corruption against respondents do no lie.
The tenet ─
that while this Court will never tolerate or condone
any act, conduct or omission that would violate the norms of public
accountability or diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary, neither will it
hesitate to reject suits that only serve
to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice ─
bears emphatic reiteration.[21]
WHEREFORE, for failure to substantiate the complaint
for corruption−subject of the anonymous letter dated June 10, 2007
against Court of Appeals Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez,
and Division Clerk of Court (21st Division) Cherry Hope
Valledor-Ignes, (Mindanao Station), Cagayan de Oro City, it is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice (NO PART) |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
MARIA
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 11.
[2]
[3] Annex “B,” id. at 26-30.
[4] Vide Annex “C.” id. at 31.
[5] The Anastacio Law Office with offices at Unit 10G Burgundy Corporate Tower, Sen. Gil Puyat Ave., Makati City.
[6] Dated December 5, 2005, vide Annex “I,” rollo, pp. 52-53.
[7]
[8] In G.R. No. 168389; Vide Annex “H-3,” id. at 45-49.
[9] Rollo, pp. 22-23.
[10] Id. at 126-133.
[11]
[12] Penned by CA (Division of five) Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. with the concurrence of Justices Ricardo R. Rosario and Mario V. Lopez; Justices Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores and Sixto Marella, Jr. dissenting, Annex “1,” rollo, pp. 134-135.
[13]
[14] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Pascual, A.M. No. MTJ-93-783,
[15] Sec. 15(1), Article VIII, Philippine Constitution.
[16] Re:
Complaint against Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion of the Court of Appeals,
A.M. No. 06-6-8-CA,
[17] Concerned Trial Lawyers of
[18] Rollo, p. 7.
[19] Vide at note 4.
[20] Ibid, p. 27.
[21] Ang
v. Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1590,