cojuangco vs palma

7/21/2019 Cojuangco vs Palma

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cojuangco-vs-palma-56dc0c40e6aab 1/11

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-46117 February 22, 1978

FRNC!SCO M. "UT!ST, petitioner,

vs.

#ON. LFRE$O S. RE"UENO, %U$GE OF T#E COURT OF F!RST !NSTNCE OF

NG C!T&, "RNC# !' a() !RENE P. MR!NO, respondents.

Pico, Borja & Fernandez for petitioner.

Emilio S. Samson & Balderama-Samson for private respondent.

FERNN$O, J.:

his !anda!us proceedin" see#s to co!pel respondent $ud"e %lfredo S. Rebueno of the

Court of &irst Instance of Na"a Cit', (ranch IV, to continue tr'in" a civil case assi"ned to his

sala, 1 the issue raised bein" that his Order dis)ualif'in" hi!self a!ounted to a "rave abuse of discretion

based as it *as on a "round other than that provided for in the Rules of Court. 2 o state the proposition is

to indicate the *ea#ness of the stand ta#en b' petitioner, the defendant in such civil case for he *ould

i"nore the second para"raph of Rule +- /% 0ud"e !a', in the e1ercise of his sound discretion, dis)ualif'hi!self fro! sittin" in a case, for 0ust or valid reasons, other than those !entioned above. * It is b' virtue

thereof that respondent $ud"e in the e1ercise of sound discretion dis)ualified hi!self, "rantin" a !otion

to that effect of private respondent, a defendant in such case. In such !otion reference *as !ade to

certain /attendant circu!stances, particularl' the fact that he 2respondent $ud"e3 is a to*n!ate and

distant relative of plaintiff, 2"ivin" rise to the3 stron" possibilit' that *hatever his actuations are in the

instant case and an' of its incidents, 2he3 !i"ht be suspected of bein" partial to

plaintiff4 ... . 4 Not*ithstandin" an opposition filed b' petitioner on the "round that the reason alle"ed is not

one of those provided for b' la* respondent $ud"e issued an Order dis)ualif'in" hi!self and thereafter

denied a !otion for its reconsideration.

he Order in )uestion reads as follo*s /his refers to the !otion for inhibition filed b' theplaintiff and the opposition thereto b' the defendant. he Court #no*s fro! reliable sources

that the defendant has been doubtin" the actuations of this Court as biased on the belief

that the Presidin" $ud"e is related to the plaintiff. Si!ilarl', ho*ever, fro! reliable sources

the Court also #no*s that the plaintiff is doubtin" his actuations because of the defendant5s

alle"ed utterances that he *ill surel' *in this case. hese circu!stances has placed the

Court in a ver' unpleasant and untenable position, because either *a' he acts in this case,

*hether in favor or a"ainst the plaintiff or vice6versa, his actuation *ill al*a's be tainted and



beset *ith doubt and !is"ivin"s *hich is hi"hl' detri!ental to the "ood na!e and inte"rit'

of the Court. he $ud"e !ust !aintain and preserve the trust and faith of the parties

liti"ants. 7e !ust hold hi!self above reproach and suspicion. %t the ver' first si"n of lac# of

faith and trust to his actions, *hether *ell "rounded or not, the $ud"e has no other

alternative but inhibit hi!self fro! the case. % 0ud"e !a' not be le"all' prohibited fro!

sittin" in a liti"ation, but *hen circu!stances appear that *hich induce doubt to his honestactuations and probit' in favor of either part', or incite such state of !ind, he should

conduct a careful self petition. 7e should e1ercise his discretion in a *a' that the people5s

faith in the Courts of $ustice is not i!paired. he better course for the $ud"e under such

circu!stances is to dis)ualif' hi!self. hat *a', he avoids bein" !isunderstood, his

reputation for probit' and ob0ectivit' is preserved. 8hat is !ore i!portant, the Ideal of

i!partial ad!inistration of 0ustice is lived up to. + he conclusion set forth in such Order concluded

*ith this para"raph /In vie* of the fore"oin" considerations, this Court hereb' inhabits hi!self fro!

further proceedin"s in this case. 9et the record of this case be for*arded to the 7onorable E1ecutive

$ud"e for proper disposition. 6

hat is the order assailed in this proceedin"s as bein" contrar' to la*. Such is not the case.

It is in accordance *ith the aforesaid rule as *ell as the doctrines enacted b' this Court.

!anda!us does not lie. 8hat *as done b' respondent $ud"e is five fro! the taint of an'

infir!it'.

+. Respondent $ud"e, inhibit hi!self lived up to the Ideal of a 0udiciar' strivin" ever to

preserve public faith in its fairness and ob0ectivit'. 8hat better *a' *as there to alla'

suspicion and distrust as to a possible bias and pre0udice in favor of a part' co!in" into a

pla'. hat *as to !anifest fealt' to a recent pronounce!ent inVillapando v. Quitain 7 /he

co!!it!ent of this Court to a strict application of the procedural due process !andate of ever' liti"ant

bein" entitled, to follo* the lan"ua"e of :utierre;, to 5nothin" less than the cold neutralit' of and i!partial

0ud"e5 is fir! and deep6seated./ 8 It has found e1plicit affir!ation in the Rule set forth above. Respondent

$ud"e clearl' acted in accordance *ith its ter!s. 7e e1ercised a discretion conferred on hint his ribunal

in three cases at least, People v. Gomes, 9 male v. Villaluz , 1 and Palan! v. "osa 11 "ave its approval to

lo*er court 0ud"es voluntaril' dis)ualif'in" the!selves as therein provided. 8e do so a"ain.

<. here is an even !ore i!pressive reinforce!ent to the conclusion thus reached. It is

undeniable that even before the +=>? a!end!ents to the Rules of Court providin" for

voluntar' dis)ualification, this ribunal on at least t*o occasions sustained the actuation of

lo*er court 0ud"es, *ho, of their o*n free *ill, decided to record fro! tr'in" cases for

reasons that did not call for their inhibition. he first decision of that nature, still b' far the

!ost often )uote is Gutierrez v. Santos 12 referred to in Villapando v. Quitain. he then $ud"e

%rsenio Santos, no* deceased, dis)ualified hi!self fro! a case. 7e issued such an order not because he

had to do so under the Rules of Court but because as a for!er private practitioner he had sent a

co!!unication lon" before to the then Secretar' of Interior e1pressin" an opinion favorable to the

contention pressed b' one of the parties in the suit pendin" before hi! althou"h not on his behalf as there

never *as bet*een the! a la*'er6client relationship. % !anda!us proceedin" brou"ht a"ainst M!

si!ilar to this petition, to co!pel hi! to tr' the case failed. % unani!ous Court, spea#in" throu"h $ustice

Di;on, could not be an' clearer in sanctionin" his voluntar' inhibition. hus /Petitioner, invo#in" the



provisions of section +, Rule +<> of the Rules of Court, ar"ues that the case of the respondent $ud"e

does not fall under an' one of the "rounds for the dis)ualification of 0udicial officers stated therein.

%ssu!in" ar"uendo that a literal interpretation of the le"al provision relied upon 0ustifies petitioner5s

contention to a certain de"ree, it should not be for"otten that, in construin" and appl'in" said le"al

provision, *e cannot disre"ard its true intention nor the real "round for the dis)ualification of a 0ud"e or

0udicial officer, *hich is the i!possibilit' of renderin" an i!partial 0ud"!ent upon the !atter before hi!. It

has been said, in fact that due process of la* re)uires a hearin" before an i!partial and disinterested

tribunal, and that ever' liti"ant is entitled to nothin" less than the cold neutralit' of an i!partial 0ud"e ...

Moreover, second onl' to the dut' of renderin" a 0ust decision, is the dut' of doin" it in a !anner that *in

not arouse an' suspicion as to its fairness and the inte"rit' of the $ud"e. Conse)uentl', *e ta#e it to the

true intention of the la* @ stated in "eneral ter!s @ that no 0ud"e shall preside in a case in *hich he is

not *holl' free, disinterested i!partial and independent ... . 1* hat *as in +=>+, three 'ears before the

a!ended Rules of Court. % 'ear later ca!e #el $astillo v. %avelona. 14 he voluntar' inhibition of

respondent $ud"e then a 0ustice of the peace, *as due to the fact that a la*'er of one of the parties *as

his first de"ree cousin. In dis!issin" a certiorari and !anda!us petition assailin" such order, this Court

*ith $ustice Parades as ponente held that the :utierre; doctrine *as applicable. hen ca!e this portion

of the opinion /9ittle need be co!!ented on the salutar' rulin", 0ust, )uoted, e1cept to add that if in the

instant case, counsel for respondent co!pan', *ill *in the case, the petitioner could not be preventedfro! appl'in" the sa'in" that 5(lood is thic#er than *ater,5 and fro! thin#in" and suspectin" that

respondent $avelona *as biased and pre0udiced. he courts should ad!inister 0ustice free fro! suspicion

of bias and pre0udice4 other*ise, parties liti"ants !i"ht lose confidence in the 0udiciar' and destro' its

nobleness and decoru!./ 1+ he principle *as further stressed in this *ise /In other *ords, *hile Rule

+<> provides for dis)ualification, it does not include nor preclude cases and circu!stances for voluntar'

inhibition *hich depends upon the discretion of the officers concerned./ 16 o repeat, *hat *as i!plicit

before is no* an e1plicit provision recordin" the discretion of a 0ud"e to dis)ualif' hi!self fro! sittin" in a

case, /for 0ust and valid reasons/ other than those !entioned in the first para"raph of Rule +-.

. he lac# of a*areness on the part of counsel of controllin" doctrines is thus evident.

here is reference to decisions of this ribunal none of *hich is applicable and one of

*hich, $oa)uin v. (aretto *as pro!ul"ated *a' bac# in +=+, al!ost >A 'ears a"o. 17 the

la*, it is not to be for"otten, is a pro"ressive science. here is then less than full co!pliance *ith the

de!ands of professional co!petence, if a !e!ber of a bar does not #eep hi!self abreast of the trend of

authoritative pronounce!ents. here is need in this particular case, it *ould see!, to i!press on counsel

of record *hat *as said in the afore6cited case of Palan! v. "osa /his voluntar' inhibition b' respondent

$ud"e is to be co!!ended. 7e has lived up to *hat is e1pected of occupants of the bench. he public

faith in the i!partial ad!inistration of 0ustice is thus reinforced. It is not enou"h that the' decide cases

*ithout bias and favoritis!. It does not suffice that the' in fact rid the!selves of prepossessions. heir

actuation !ust inspire that belief. his is an instance *here appearance is 0ust as i!portant as the realit'.

9i#e Cesar5s *ife, a 0ud"e !ust not onl' be pure but be'ond suspicion. %t least, that is an Ideal *orth

strivin" for. 8hat is !ore, there is deference to the due process !andate./ 18

87ERE&ORE, petition for certiorari is dis!issed. No costs.

ntonio, 'uino $oncepcion, %r. and Santos, %%., concur.



Searae O/(/o(0

"RRE$O, J., concurrin"

I concur in the result. Bnder the facts herein obtainin", the petition has no le"al basis,

considerin" that respondent 0ud"e, as e1plained in the !ain opinion of our Chair!an of the

Second Division, Mr. $ustice &ernando, acted clearl' *ithin the a!bit of discretion "ranted

to hi! b' the rules. I a! *ritin" this separate concurrence onl' to !a#e it clear that as far

as I a! concerned, the co!ple1ities of !ode! societ' and the chan"in" values re"ardin"

!atters of /delicade;a *hich no*ada's see!in"l' place !ore reliance on the personal

sense of 0ustice and obvious inte"rit' of a 0ud"e as reflected in the tenor and substance of

his decision than on possible circu!stances that could breed suspicion as to his!otivations, !a#e it a vain lu1ur' to insist on an' #ind of !eticulous insulation a"ainst such

possible suspicion. In !' particular case, I feel it is but fair that the people should not

i!pute an' personal reason to an' of !' actuations as a 0ud"e *hich on their faces appear

to be confor!able to la*, 0ustice and e)uit'. I consider it to be pure h'pocris' on !' part to

do !' best tr'in" to avoid suspicion instead of bein" actuall' upri"ht and technicall' correct

or basicall' 0ust and fair, as :od has "iven !e the li"ht to see, in an'thin" I do as a !e!ber

of the hi"hest court of the land. I have absolute faith that nothin" has, can and *ill ever

influence !' 0ud"!ent in an' case other than !' honest conviction of ho* it should be

accordin" to la* and 0ustice. he !o!ent I should feel I no lon"er possess the capacit' and

inte"rit' needed to properl' and dul' decide an' case that !i"ht be brou"ht to this Court, Ishall unhesitatin"l' do !' :odordained and sacred dut' to irrevocabl' resi"n fro! !'

position and leave i!!ediatel' the co!pan' of !' !ore deservin" collea"ues.

Searae O/(/o(0

"RRE$O, J., concurrin"

I concur in the result. Bnder the facts herein obtainin", the petition has no le"al basis,

considerin" that respondent 0ud"e, as e1plained in the !ain opinion of our Chair!an of the

Second Division, Mr. $ustice &ernando, acted clearl' *ithin the a!bit of discretion "ranted

to hi! b' the rules. I a! *ritin" this separate concurrence onl' to !a#e it clear that as far

as I a! concerned, the co!ple1ities of !ode! societ' and the chan"in" values re"ardin"

!atters of /delicade;a *hich no*ada's see!in"l' place !ore reliance on the personal



sense of 0ustice and obvious inte"rit' of a 0ud"e as reflected in the tenor and substance of

his decision than on possible circu!stances that could breed suspicion as to his

!otivations, !a#e it a vain lu1ur' to insist on an' #ind of !eticulous insulation a"ainst such

possible suspicion. In !' particular case, I feel it is but fair that the people should not

i!pute an' personal reason to an' of !' actuations as a 0ud"e *hich on their faces appear

to be confor!able to la*, 0ustice and e)uit'. I consider it to be pure h'pocris' on !' part todo !' best tr'in" to avoid suspicion instead of bein" actuall' upri"ht and technicall' correct

or basicall' 0ust and fair, as :od has "iven !e the li"ht to see, in an'thin" I do as a !e!ber

of the hi"hest court of the land. I have absolute faith that nothin" has, can and *ill ever

influence !' 0ud"!ent in an' case other than !' honest conviction of ho* it should be

accordin" to la* and 0ustice. he !o!ent I should feel I no lon"er possess the capacit' and

inte"rit' needed to properl' and dul' decide an' case that !i"ht be brou"ht to this Court, I

shall unhesitatin"l' do !' :odordained and sacred dut' to irrevocabl' resi"n fro! !'

position and leave i!!ediatel' the co!pan' of !' !ore deservin" collea"ues.

Foo(oe0

+ Civil Case No. -=<>.

< he first para"raph of Rule +-, Section I on dis)ualification of 0ud"es reads

as follo*s /No 0ud"e or 0udicial officer shall sit in an' case in *hich he, or his

*ife or child, is pecuniar' interested as heir, le"atee creditor or other*ise, or

in *hich he is related to either part' *ithin the si1th de"ree of consan"uinit'

or affinit', or to counsel *ithin the fourth de"ree, co!puted accordin" to the

rules of the civil la*, or in *hich he has been e1ecutor, ad!inistrator,

"uardian, trustee or counsel, or in *hich he has presided in an' inferior court*hen his rulin" or decision is the sub0ect of revie*, *ithout the *ritten

consent of all parties in interest si"ned b' the! and entered upon the record./

()id , Rule +-, par. <. his para"raph *as added in the +=>? a!end!ents

to the Rules of Court.

? Petition, %nne1 %, Motion for Inhibition *ith Suspension of Proceedin"s, par.

<.

A rder Of respondent $ud"e %nne1 C, +6<.

> ()id , <.

- 96?+, $anuar' <, +=--, -A SCR% <?.

()id , <=6.



= 96<<?A, Ma' <=, +=>-, < SCR% <=.

+ 96A, Ma' <A, +=-, A+ SCR% ?.

++ 96<<=. %u"ust , +=-?, A SCR% -->.

+< ++< Phil. +? +=>+F.

+ ()id, +=. Rule +<> is no* Rule +-.

+? ++> Phil. ?A+.

+A ()id, ?A>.

+> ()id.

+- <A Phil. <+.

+ A SCR% -->, --.

Gonzales vs Abaya

Facts: This is a complaint by Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria charging Judge Emannuel

M. Abaya ith:

!. Esta"a through "alsi#cation o" public or o$cial documents. The gra%ement o" this charge is that Annabelle &ardenas ho as appointed

as 'tenographic (eporter o" )ranch *!+ (T& as a ghost employee "rom

August !, to May !,/ as she ne%er reported "or or0 during said period+

being then employed at 1rincess Tours (a"ols 2otel as a tourist guide.

3otithstanding+ ith her 0noledge and consent+ Judge Abaya %eri#ed as

true and correct her daily time records as stenographic reporter purportedly

shoing that she rendered ser%ice and incurred no absences or tardiness and

as granted lea%e.



4. Gross dishonesty and corruption by soliciting+ demanding+ recei%ingbribed money in e5change "or "a%orable resolutions and decisions "romdi6erent litigants.7t as alleged that Judge Abaya denied the application "or bail o" theaccused in &riminal case entitled 81eople %s 2enry Arias and Fernando

9niot "or murder+ in consideration o" the sum o" 14+;;;.;; gi%en byMrs. Leonila Fuertes+ complainant and mother o" the %ictim in thea"oresaid case.

. 7llegal e5action o" portion o" the salaries o" his subordinates.7t is alleged that Judge Abaya e5acted portions o" the salaries o" toemployees in )ranch *! o" the 1alaan (T& as a condition "or theircontinued employment.

Judge Abaya denied all these charges. 2e asserted that these charges ere

concocted in retaliation against the administrati%e complaint against Atty. Gonzales-

Austria "or dishonesty and gra%e misconduct in ha%ing "orged his signature in aprobation order. Atty. Gonzales-Austria admits to ha%ing signed the probation order

and o" ha%ing promulgated it+ but e5plains that these ere done ith the 0noledge

and consent o" Judge Abaya+ ho as0ed her to prepare orders and decisions in

)ranch *4 to ease his load o" presiding o%er to branches. The &ourt resol%ed to

consolidate these related cases.

7ssue: <93 respondent Judge is guilty o" the charges o"

!. Esta"a through "alsi#cation o" public or o$cial documents

4. Gross dishonesty and corruption by soliciting+ demanding+ recei%ingbribed money in e5change "or "a%orable resolutions and decisions "romdi6erent litigants

. 7llegal e5action o" portion o" the salaries o" his suburdinates

<93 Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria is guilty o" dishonesty and gra%e

misconduct

2eld:

7. A.M 3o. (-=;*-(TJ:

a. <e #nd the charges against Judge Abaya and Annabelle&ardenas to be supported by substantial e%idence. Especiallydamaging to the pretensions o" the respondents that Annabelle



&ardenas rendered ser%ice as stenographic reporter during theperiod under consideration are the school records o" the 2oly Trinity &ollege+ shoing the &ardenas as attending school in the#rst semester o" school year !,-!,/. E>ually damaging torespondents? assertions are the @aily Time (ecords o" 1rincess

Tours shoing that Annabelle &ardenas acted as tourist guide on/ or0ing days hen she as supposedly rendering ser%ices asstenographic reporter.

b. Judge Abaya denied the solicitation as ell as the receipt o" money "rom Mrs. Fuertes. 2e surmised that Mrs. Fuertes and3elly icente had been pressured by Atty. Gonzales-Austria intotesti"ying against him out o" sheer %indicti%eness and that Mrs.Fuertes might ha%e been blaming him "or the delay in theresolution o" the criminal case against her son?s alleged 0illers. The &ourt #nds no improper moti%e as to hy Mrs. Fuertes+ aschool teacher+ ould impute such a serious o6ense against a

Budge unless it be the truth. Cpon the other hand+ the testimonyo" Mrs. Fuertes is too rich in details brought out on cross-e5amination hich cannot simply be sept aside as mere"abrications.

c. <hile the in%estigating o$cer+ Justice 2errera obser%ed that both'er%ando and Jamora 8testi#ed in a natural and straight"orard+albeit in an angry manner ithout attempting to conceal theircontempt "or Judge Abaya+ he concluded that 8the e%idence inthis regard ould be unable to ithstand Budicial scrutiny "orant o" ample corroboration. 7t ould simply be the ord o" oneagainst a Budge.

7n summation+ e #nd Judge Emmanuel M. Abaya guilty o" gra%e and seriousmisconduct a6ecting his integrity and moral character hich ould ha%e arranted

his dismissal "rom the ser%ice had his resignation not been accepted. )y these acts+

Judge Abaya has demonstrated his un#tness and unorthiness o" the honor and

per>uisites attached to his o$ce.

77. A.M 3o. (-D,-1 and Adm. &ase 3o. 4,;,

Atty. Austria Busti#es her action under the theory o" agency that ha%ing been

granted "ull authority to promulgate the probation order+ she necessarily had the

authority to sign the Judge?s name i" the need arose. Atty. Austria?s theory o" agency

that she la"ully acted as agent o" the Judge is holly de%oid o" merit. The Budicial

poer %ested in a Budge and its e5ercise is strictly personal to the Judge because o"+

and by reason o" his highest >uali#cation+ and can ne%er be the subBect o" agency.

That ould not only be contrary to la+ but also sub%ersi%e o" public order and

public policy.



<e #nd Atty. Austria?s misconduct as )ranch &ler0 o" &ourt to a6ect her

>uali#cation as a member o" the )ar+ "or precisely as a layer+ she ought to ha%e

0non the illegality o" the act complained o".

<2E(EF9(E+ #nding the respondents Judge Emmanuel M. Abaya+ Annabelle

&ardenas and Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria guilty as charged+ e5cept that o" illegal

e5action against Judge Abaya.

G.R. No. 7**2-4* Nove!ber +, +=>



GENEROSO TR!ESTE, SR., petitioner,

vs.

SN$!GN"&N SECON$ $!'!S!ON., respondent.

FCTS3rieste *as the !a'or of Nu!ancia, %#lan. In +=, durin" his ter!, the

Municipalit' of Nu!ancia purchased construction !aterials fro! ri"en %"ro6

Industrial Develop!ent Corporation. rieste *as alle"edl' the president of said

corporation. rieste *as then sued for alle"edl' violatin" the %nti6:raft and Corrupt

Practices %ct particularl' for *illfull' and unla*full' havin" financial or pecuniar'

interest in a business, contract or transaction in connection *ith *hich said accused

intervened or too# part in his official capacit' and in *hich he is prohibited b' la*

fro! havin" an' interest.

rieste, in defense, said that he alread' divested his interest fro! the corporation

*hen he too# his office as !a'or4 that he sold his shares to his sister4 he presented

evidence to that effect. he Solicitor :eneral doubted said sale because it *as not

re"istered in the Securities and E1chan"e Co!!ission. &urther, the advertise!ent

of ri"en in the local rotar' club sho*s that rieste is the president of the

corporation.

In ti!e, the old Sol6:en *as replaced b' a ne* one. he ne* Sol6:en "ave credit

to the ar"u!ents presented b' rieste as it reco!!ended the dis!issal of the case

on the "round that rieste did divest his interest fro! the corporation b' virtue of his

sellin" his shares to his sister4 that said sale cannot be doubted si!pl' because it

*as not reported to the SEC4 that sales of stoc#s are not re)uired to be reported in

the SEC.

!SSUE3 8hether or not the reco!!endation of the Solicitor :eneral is correct.

#EL$3 Ges. he Solicitor :eneral is *ell *ithin his ri"hts to !a#e such

reco!!endation. % public prosecutor should not hesitate to reco!!end to the court

the accusedHs ac)uittal if the evidence in his possession sho*s that the accused is

innocent. If on appeal b' the accused fro! a conviction b' the trial court he finds no



le"al basis to sustain the conviction, he should not also hesitate to reco!!end that

the accused be ac)uitted.

cojuangco vs palma

Documents