G.R. No. 152309. December 2002

AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE vs. UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 2 DECEMBER 2002:

G.R. No. 152309 (Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine vs. University of the Philippines Board of Regents, Francisco Nemenzo II, Emerlinda Roman, Maria Serena Diokno, Consuelo Paz, Isagani Medina, Roger Posadas, Olivia Caoili, Pacifico Agabin, Carmelita Guno, and Marichu Lambino).

For consideration are two matters: (1) letters, dated October 4, 11, and 21, 2002, of petitioner Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine seeking a reconsideration of the Court’s resolution dated September 18, 2002 and (2) motion, dated November 25, 2002, filed by petitioner seeking the referral of this case to the Regional Trial Court. The dispositive portion of this Court’s resolution dated September 18, 2002 reads:

“WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to:

“(a) DENY the Motion for Reconsideration praying for the reconsideration of the Courts resolution, dated July 29, 2002, for being a prohibited pleading. No further pleadings will be entertained. Let entry of judgment be made in due course;

“(b) DENY the motion to refer the case to the Court en banc for lack of merit;

“(c) DENY the motion to inhibit Justice Vicente V. Mendoza from participating in the deliberations of the present case for lack of factual and legal basis;

“(d) DENY the motion for appropriate sanction against Justice Vicente V. Mendoza by this Court for lack of factual and legal basis; and

“(e) DENY petitioner’s use of the title “Dr.” and “Ph.D.” in her pleadings in this case.

“Petitioner Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine is found GUILTY of contempt of court and is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10000.00) to be paid within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution

I.

MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION

(a) Letter dated October 4, 2002

Petitioner asks the Court to allow her to use the title “Dr.” and the degree “Ph.D.” which, according to her, should appear in the caption of the present case and, upon its finality, in the entry of judgment thereof. She also seeks to reconsider the Court’s resolution of September 18, 2002 finding her guilty of contempt of Court and imposing upon her a fine of P10,000.00.

In justifying her right to add the title “Dr.” and the degree “Ph.D.” to her name, petitioner says that since the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) is not part of the Second Division of this Court which decided her cases, i.e., G.R. No. 134625 and the present case (G.R. No. 152309), the OCJ’s withdrawal of the title in its correspondences to petitioner cannot prevent her from using the same in this case; that the withdrawal of her doctoral degree in the Court’s resolution of July 29, 2002 -was without any justification; that the OCJ had included the designations “Dr.” and “Ph.D.” in its letter-response to her on August 3, 2002 and in its First Indorsement, dated June 7, 2002, to the Clerk of Court of the Second Division for appropriate action where she was furnished a copy thereof; that petitioner had in tact been using the title even before she filed her petition in this case; that in December 2001, U.P. sent her a copy of its Alumni Newsletter (Carillon) adding “Ph.D.” to her name; and that since the Court’s resolution of April 1, 2002 was a final one - where the title “Dr.” and the degree “Ph.D.” were appended to her name - the same should not be removed from the caption of the present case.

With regard to the fact that the Court found petitioner guilty of contempt and imposed on her a fine of P10,000.00, she states:

“In my earlier pleadings, I have complained that the Honorable Justice Vicente Mendoza was a member of the U.P. Diliman university Council which voted to withdraw my doctorate, and so his participation in the case could have prejudiced the outcome of it. But I clearly stated in my Omnibus Motion, dated August 21, 2002, that I have not been motivated by malice and ill will in uttering the aforementioned statements against the same Justice.

“However, the September 18, 2002 resolution of the II Division has stated that my statements were malicious and contemptuous because Justice Mendoza was never a member of the U.P. Diliman university Council (P. 9). To disprove this claim, I hereto have attached as biography of the Honorable Justice Vicente Mendoza which shows that from 1967 up to 1994 he was a Law Professor at the U.P. Diliman. The portion showing his professional career from period.1967 to 1994 is marked as Annex ‘F-1’.

The U.P. Diliman university Council voted to withdraw my doctorate on April 14, 1993, which is one year before the Honorable Justice Vicente Mendoza’s partition [sic] from the U.P. Diliman (in 1994). He was a law professor and he venue for the U.P. Diliman meetings is the College of Law, Malcolm Hall.

“In view of the proof of my claim or the factual basis for my apprehension regarding the outcome of my cases in the Supreme Court, I request the Honorable Members of the Supreme Court to reconsider the decision [finding] me guilty of contempt (for saying that Justice Mendoza could have been prejudice).

“Further, the September 18, 2002 Resolution states that whatever resolution taken in my case was arrived at unanimously by all the members of the Division, and that whatever I have said against Justice Mendoza have also been addressed to the other members of the Court.

“In my Omnibus Motion, I apologized to the other Members of the Court if they have been offended by whatever I had said against the Honorable Justice Mendoza. Now, if the Members of the Honorable Supreme Court feel that the resolutions taken in my case were arrived at in consultation with the Honorable Senior Associate Justice Josue Bellosillo, the Honorable Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, the Honorable Associate Justice Sabino De Leon and the Honorable Associate Justice Renato Corona, and all that I have said against Justice Mendoza are not true, I sincerely apologize for the same. And, I request that the Supreme Court to pardon me over the same.”

(b) Letter dated October 11, 2002

This is a letter which petitioner has written to the Chief Justice requesting him to “tell the [Second] Division that the OCJ’s letter, dated August 7, 2002, should not be a reason for [the Court] to deny [the use] of [her] doctoral title” in the present case. Petitioner reiterated the allegation in her letter of October 4, 2002 that she started using the title “Dr.” only after she received a copy of the U.P. Alumni Newsletter which added “Ph.D.” to her name; that U.P. consented to her use of the title by not interposing any objection to such use; that in the resolution of April 1, 2002 of this Court in this case, her “doctoral title was sustained in the caption of the case;” and that since the said resolution was final and executory, the same caption bearing her doctoral title should be followed in the entry of judgment of this case.

(c) Letter dated October 21, 2002

Petitioner states that Justice Vicente V. Mendoza is “still officially connected with U.P.” as “he sits in the board of the U.P. Institute of Judicial Administration, a unit of U.P. Diliman College of Law.” She attaches as an annex to her letter a photocopy of the brief biography of Justice Mendoza taken from a Supreme Court publication as proof of what she alleges. She avers that since “the new materials show that Justice Mendoza was officially connected with u.s. even when he handled [her] case at the Supreme Court, [she] again requests to reconsider the order of the Second Division (dated September 18, 2002) finding [her] guilty of contempt of court and over the same.”

Petitioner also requests that the case be referred either to the Court en banc or to the First Division. She argues that the present case originated in a case (G.R. No. 147888) filed by her which the First Division of this Court referred to the Court of Appeals for adjudication on the merits; that the petition in this case was dismissed by the Second Division 2002] for failure of petitioner to pay the sheriff’s fees and clerk’s commission; that the Second Division overlooked the fact that the First Division did not dismiss the petition in G.R. No. 147888 but had only referred the case to the Court of Appeals for “adjudication on the merits.” Petitioner states if the Second Division can again examine the petition in this case without the participation of Justice Mendoza, she would abide by its decision.

(d) Manifestation and Motion to Refer the Case

to the Regional Trial Court dated November 25, 2002

Petitioner informs the Court that she received a copy of the 1st lndorsement, dated October 14, 2002, of the Office of the Chief Justice referring her letter, dated October 11, 2002, to the Division Clerk of Court of the Second Division for appropriate action claiming that “[petitioner’s] doctoral title had been reinstated;” that “such reinstatement of her doctoral title should cause the reversal of the Court’s resolution of September 18, 2002;” that “the ‘eventual reinstatement’ of petitioner’s doctoral title by the Second Division is a clear evidence for petitioner’s right to her doctoral diploma [which], however, this Court had no jurisdiction to consider for being purely [factual].” This being so, she prays that “the Court immediately refer the case to the Regional Trial Court for reconsideration in view of the ‘supervening facts’ and to decide petitioner’s application for release of her doctoral diploma” and asks that “Senior Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo write a separate opinion on her request.”

Petitioner is referring to an indorsement made to the Division Clerk of Court of the Second Division, in which Joseph Bryan Hillary P. Davide, Jr., Judicial Staff Head in the OCJ, apparently merely copied the full name of the petitioner including the designations “Dr.” and “Ph.D.” She now takes this as a “reinstatement” of her right to use the academic titles as part of her name.

II.

DISCUSSION

(a) Re: Petitioner’s Right to Add “Dr.” and “Ph.D.” to Her Name

In G.R. No. 134625[1], the decision of the U.P. Board of Regents withdrawing the grant of a Ph.D. degree to petitioners on the ground that the degree had been obtained through fraud by the latter who committed ninety (90) instances of intellectual dishonesty, was upheld by this Court. The Court’s decision in that case became final and the entry of judgment was made on November 16, 1999, so that the issue whether petitioner is entitled to her doctoral degree was finally laid to rest under the principle of res judicata. A necessary and inevitable consequence of the finality of this Court’s decision in that case is that petitioner’s use of the “Dr.” of “Ph.D.” titles in this case is unauthorized.

Petitioner’s allegation that in March 2000, after our decision in G.R. No. 134625, her Ph.D. thesis, portions of which had been found by the U.P. to have been plagiarized, was published in book form and copies were purchased by different colleges and universities, including U.P., and that pleadings filed by her in this case, in which she wrote her name using the title in question had been admitted, are immaterial and irrelevant. Petitioner ought to know that only a valid conferment of an academic degree by an educational institution can justify the use of the corresponding title by the graduate. Hence, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 104, Quezon City correctly dismissed petitioner’s action for mandamus which was based on this ground.

Petitioner filed a petition for review of the RTC decision in G.R. No. 147888.[2] The First Division of this Court, on July 25, 2001, referred the case to the Court of Appeals which eventually on August 20, 2001 denied the same for her failure to attach to her petition a copy of her petition for mandamus in the RTC and the comment of U.P. and for non-compliance with the rule regarding proof of service.

She then filed a petition for review on certiorari in this case, but the same was likewise denied for nonpayment of the deposit for sheriff’s fees and clerk’s commission.[3] The Court likewise denied with finality for-lack of merit her motions for reconsideration that the same be resolved individually by the members of this Court’s Second Division and that the case be raffled to the Court en banc.[4]

Thus, petitioner’s letters seeking reconsideration of the resolution of September 18, 2002 denying her motion to be allowed to add “Dr.” at the beginning and “Ph.D.” at the end of her name must be denied for lack of merit.

(b) Re: Petitioner’s Contempt Citation

Petitioner cites the biography, printed in a centennial publication of this Court, in which it is stated that Justice Mendoza “sits on the boards of the U.P. Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA) and the U.P. Malcolm Trust Fund Foundation” in support of her claim that Justice Mendoza should inhibit himself from the consideration of this case. Justice Mendoza’s membership in the boards in question is in an ex officio capacity. The Institute of Judicial Administration was created by virtue of a memorandum of agreement between the Supreme Court and the University of the Philippines. Justice Mendoza was designated member of the governing board of the IJA representing the Supreme Court. On the other hand, the Malcolm Trust Fund Foundation is a private nonprofit corporation and is not in any way a part of the U.P.

Indeed, what must be stressed is that Justice Mendoza was never a member of the various committees created by the University Council of U.P. Diliman to investigate the plagiarism charges against petitioner. Neither was he directly nor indirectly involved in the decision of the U.P. Board of Regents to withdraw her Ph.D. degree on the ground that her dissertation was plagiarized. There is thus no basis for petitioner’s charge that Justice Mendoza is prejudiced against her.

In any event, it is not so much for insisting that Justice Mendoza was prejudiced against petitioner as the latter’s claim that Justice Mendoza had “victimized her” by writing the opinion of the Court in G.R. No. 134625 that petitioner is being punished for contempt. Petitioner is guilty of making malicious and contemptuous imputations against a member of the Court for which she should be held accountable.

This Court has been tolerant of petitioner, knowing that she is not a lawyer. However, her continued attack on the Court and its members even after the nature of its proceedings had been explained to her makes it clear that she is aware that what she is doing constitutes abuse the judicial process. Her insolence leaves the Court no other recourse but to impose on her a sanction. The Court must preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attacks of a disgruntled litigant. It is high time that petitioner learn to accord due respect to the Court and its members.

As stated in the resolution of September 18, 2002, under Rule 52, Section 2 in relation to Rule 56, Section 4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the filing of a second motion for reconsideration is prohibited unless there are compelling reasons for granting it. None has been shown in this case. The arguments put forth are the same ones raised in her second motion for reconsideration entitled “Cause/Justification with Omnibus Motion,” dated August 21, 2002, which this Court has already passed upon. No further pleadings will, therefore, be entertained after this resolution. Entry of judgment shall be made in due course.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED:

(1) To DENY with FINALITY the three letters, dated October 4, 11, and 21, 2002, which are treated as a third motion for reconsideration, in which petitioner seeks the right to-add “Dr.” or “Ph.D.” to her name in the title of the instant case and in the entry of judgment therein and the referral of the present case to the Court en banc or to the First Division thereof. Petitioner’s manifestation and motion, dated November 25, 2002, to refer the case to the Regional Trial Court and for Justice Josue N, Bellosillo to write a separate opinion on her request is likewise DENIED for lack of basis.

(2) To DENY with FINALITY petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the resolution of September 18, 2002 finding her guilty of contempt of the Court and imposing upon her a fine of P10,000.00. Petitioner is WARNED that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely. Let entry of judgment be made in due course.

Very truly yours,

TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

---

[1] “University of the Philippines Board of Regents, Chancellor Roger Posadas, Dr. Emerlinda Roman, Dean Consuelo Paz, Dr. Isagani Medina, Dr. Maria Serena Diokno, Dr. Olivia Caoili, Dr. Francisco Nemenzo II, Dean Pacifico Agabin, Carmelita Guno and Marichu Lambino vs. Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine” (promulgated August 31, 1999, 313 SCRA 404 (1999)).

[2] ”Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine vs. University of the Philippines, et al.’

[3] See resolution dated April 1, 2002.

[4] See resolutions dated July 29, 2002 and September 18, 2002.