Ethics Falsifying

7/24/2019 Ethics Falsifying

1/76

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 6732 October 22, 2013

ATTY. OSCAR L. EMBIDO, REIONAL DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

BUREAU O! IN"ESTIATION, #ESTERN "ISA YAS, REIONAL

O!!ICE NBI$#E"RO%, !OR SAN PEDRO, ILOILO CITY,Complainant,

vs.

ATTY. SAL"ADOR N. PE, &R., ASSISTANT PRO"INCIAL

PROSECUTOR, SAN &OSE, ANTI'UE,Respondent.

D E C I S I N

BERSAMIN,J.:

A la!"e# !ho fo#$es a cou#t decision and #ep#esents it as that of a cou#t of

la! is $uilt" of the $#avest misconduct and dese#ves the sup#eme penalt"

of disba#ment.

%he Case

Befo#e this Cou#t is the complaint fo# disba#ment a$ainst Assistant

P#ovincial P#osecuto# Att". Salvado# N Pe, . #espondent' of San &ose,

Anti(ue fo# his havin$ alle$edl" falsified an in e)istent decision of B#anch

*+ of the Re$ional %#ial Cou#t stationed in Bu$ason$, Anti(ue R%C'

instituted b" the National Bu#eau of Investi$ation NBI', -este#n isa"asRe$ional ffice, #ep#esented b" Re$ional Di#ecto# Att". sca# /. Embido.

Antecedent

n &ul" 0, 122+, Att". Ronel 3. Sustitu"a, Cle#4 of Cou#t of the R%C,

#eceived a !#itten communication f#om M#. Ballam Delane" 5unt, a

Solicito# in the 6nited 7in$dom 67'. %he lette# #e(uested a cop" of the

decision dated 3eb#ua#" 81, 8990 #ende#ed b" &ud$e Rafael . Penuela in

Special P#oceedin$s Case No. 2:+ entitled In the Matte# of the Decla#ation

of P#esumptive Death of Re" /ase#na, !hose petitione# !as one Shi#le"

;uio"o.8

n Septembe# 9, 122+, the R%C #eceived anothe# lette# f#om M#. 5unt,

#eite#atin$ the #e(uest fo# a cop" of the decision in Special P#oceedin$s

Case No. 2:+ entitled In the Matte# of the Decla#ation of P#esumptive

Death of Re" /ase#na.1

&ud$e Penuela inst#ucted the civil doc4et cle#4 to #et#ieve the #eco#ds of

Special P#oceedin$s Case No. 2:+ entitled In the Matte# of the Decla#ation

of P#esumptive Death of Re" /ase#na. It !as then discove#ed that the R%C

had no #eco#d of Special P#oceedin$s No. 2:+ !he#ein Shi#le" ;uio"o !as

the petitione#. Instead, the cou#t files #evealed that &ud$e Penuela had

decided Special P#oceedin$s No. 2:+ entitled In the Matte# of the

Decla#ation of P#esumptive Death of Rolando Aust#ia, !hose petitione# !as

one Se#ena Catin Aust#ia.

Info#med that the #e(uested decision and case #eco#ds did not e)ist,


2/76

Afte# conductin$ its investi$ation, the NBI fo#!a#ded to the ffice of the

mbudsman fo# isa"as the #eco#ds of the investi$ation, !ith a

#ecommendation that the #espondent be p#osecuted fo# falsification of

public document unde# A#ticle 808, 8 and 1, of the Revised Penal Code,

and fo# violation of Section affidavit as his comment, and #efe##ed the case to the Inte$#ated

Ba# of the Philippines IBP' fo# investi$ation, #epo#t and #ecommendation.

%he IBP@s Repo#t and Recommendation

In a #epo#t and #ecommendation dated &une 8+, 122*,80Att". /olita A.

;uisumbin$, the IBP Investi$atin$ Commissione#, found the #espondent

$uilt" of se#ious misconduct and violations of the Atto#ne"@s ath and Code

of P#ofessional Responsibilit" , and #ecommended his suspension f#om the

p#actice of la! fo# one "ea#. She concluded that the #espondent had fo#$ed

the pu#po#ted decision of &ud$e Penuela b" ma4in$ it appea# that Special

P#oceedin$s No. 2:+ conce#ned a petition fo# decla#ation of p#esumptive

death of Re" /ase#na, !ith Shi#le" ;uio"o as the petitione#, !hen in t#uth

and in fact the p#oceedin$s #elated to the petition fo# decla#ation of

p#esumptive death of Rolando Aust#ia, !ith Se#ena Catin Aust#ia as the

petitione#8:and that the #espondent had #eceived P*2,222.22 f#om D"

;uio"o fo# the falsified decision. She #ationalied he# conclusions thusl"

Respondent@s denials a#e not !o#th" of me#it. Respondent contends that it

!as one Manuel &alipa deceased' !ho facilitated the issuance and as

p#oof the#eof, he p#esented the s!o#n statement of the !ido! of 3lo#encia

&alipa sic'. Such a contention is ha#d to believe. In the fi#st place, if the

decision !as obtained in Recto, Manila, !h" !as it an almost ve#batim

#ep#oduction of the authentic decision on file in &ud$e Penuela@s b#anch

e)cept fo# the names and dates Respondent failed to e)plain this.

Secondl", #espondent did not attend the NBI investi$ation and me#el"

invo4ed his #i$ht to #emain silent. If his side of the sto#" !e#e t#ue, he

should have made this 4no!n in the investi$ation. 5is sto#" the#efo#e

appea#s to have been a me#e afte#thou$ht. 3inall", the#e is no plausible

#eason !h" D" ;uio"o and his siste#, Ma#" Rose ;uio"o !ould falsel"

implicate him in this incident.89

In its Resolution No. II>1220>2*< dated 3eb#ua#" 8, 122, 12the IBP

Boa#d of ?ove#no#s adopted and app#oved, !ith modification, the #epo#t

and #ecommendation of the Investi$atin$ Commissione# b" suspendin$ the

#espondent f#om the p#actice of la! fo# si) "ea#s.

n Decembe# 88, 122:, the IBP Boa#d of ?ove#no#s passed Resolution No.

III>122:>02918den"in$ the #espondent@s motion fo# #econside#ation and

affi#min$ Resolution No. II>1220>2*


3/76

-e affi#m the findin$s of the IBP Boa#d of ?ove#no#s. Indeed, the

#espondent !as $uilt" of $#ave misconduct fo# falsif"in$ a cou#t decision in

conside#ation of a sum of mone".

%he #espondent@s main defense consisted in blan4et denial of the

imputation. 5e insisted that he had had no hand in the falsification, and

claimed that the falsification had been the handi!o#4 of D" ;uio"o. 5e

implied that D" ;uio"o had #eso#ted to the shad" cha#acte#s in Recto

Avenue in Manila to #esolve the p#oblems he had encounte#ed as an 3-,

hintin$ that D" ;uio"o had a histo#" of emplo"in$ unsc#upulous means to

achieve his ends.

5o!eve#, the #espondent@s denial and his implication a$ainst D" ;uio"o in

the illicit $ene#ation of the falsified decision a#e not pe#suasive. D"

;uio"o@s cate$o#ical decla#ation on the #espondent@s pe#sonal #esponsibilit"

fo# the falsified decision, !hich b" natu#e !as positive evidence, !as not

ove#come b" the #espondent@s blan4et denial, !hich b" natu#e !as

ne$ative evidence.1e)istent cou#t p#oceedin$. Canon 0 of the Code of P#ofessional

Responsibilit" demands that all la!"e#s should uphold at all times the

di$nit" and inte$#it" of the /e$al P#ofession. Rule 0.2< of the Code of

P#ofessional Responsibilit" states that Ga la!"e# shall not en$a$e in

conduct that adve#sel" #eflects on his fitness to p#actice la!, no# shall he

!hethe# in public o# p#ivate life, behave in a scandalous manne# to the

disc#edit of the le$al p#ofession.G /a!"e#s a#e fu#the# #e(ui#ed b" Rule

8.28 of the Code of P#ofessional Responsibilit" not to en$a$e in an"

unla!ful, dishonest and immo#al o# deceitful conduct.

?#oss immo#alit", conviction of a c#ime involvin$ mo#al tu#pitude, o#

f#audulent t#ansactions can Hustif" a la!"e#@s disba#ment o# suspension

f#om the p#actice of la!.1=Specificall", the delibe#ate falsification of the

cou#t decision b" the #espondent !as an act that #eflected a hi$h de$#ee of

mo#al tu#pitude on his pa#t. -o#se, the act made a moc4e#" of the

administ#ation of Hustice in this count#", $iven the pu#pose of the

falsification, !hich !as to mislead a fo#ei$n t#ibunal on the pe#sonal status

of a pe#son. 5e the#eb" became un!o#th" of continuin$ as a membe# of

the Ba#.

It then becomes timel" to #emind all membe#s of the Philippine Ba# that

the" should do nothin$ that ma" in an" !a" o# de$#ee lessen the

confidence of the public in thei# p#ofessional fidelit" and inte$#it".1*%he

Cou#t !ill not hesitate to !ield its heav" hand of discipline on those amon$

them !ho !ittin$l" and !illin$l" fail to meet the endu#in$ demands of

thei# Atto#ne"@s ath fo# them to

) ) ) suppo#t the Constitution and obe" the la!s as !ell as the le$al

o#de#s of the dul" constituted autho#ities the#ein ))) do no falsehood, no#

consent to the doin$ of an" in cou#t ) ) ) not !ittin$l" o# !illin$l"

p#omote o# sue on $#oundless, false o# unla!ful suit, no# $ive aid no#

consent to the same ) ) ) dela" no man fo# mone" o# malice, and ) ) )

conduct themselves as la!"e#s acco#din$ to the best of thei# 4no!led$e

and disc#etion !ith all $ood fidelit" as !ell to the cou#ts as to thei# clients

) ) ).

No la!"e# should eve# lose si$ht of the ve#it" that the p#actice of the le$al

p#ofession is al!a"s a p#ivile$e that the Cou#t e)tends onl" to the

dese#vin$, and that the Cou#t ma" !ithd#a! o# den" the p#ivile$e to him

!ho fails to obse#ve and #espect the /a!"e#@s ath and the canons of

ethical conduct in his p#ofessional and p#ivate capacities. 5e ma" be

disba##ed o# suspended f#om the p#actice of la! not onl" fo# acts and

omissions of malp#actice and fo# dishonest" in his p#ofessional dealin$s,

but also fo# $#oss misconduct not di#ectl" connected !ith his p#ofessional

duties that #eveal his unfitness fo# the office and his un!o#thiness of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/oct2013/ac_6732_2013.html#fnt26


4/76

p#inciples that the p#ivile$e to p#actice la! confe#s upon him.10e#il", no

la!"e# is immune f#om the disciplina#" autho#it" of the Cou#t !hose dut"

and obli$ation a#e to investi$ate and punish la!"e# misconduct committed

eithe# in a p#ofessional o# p#ivate capacit".1:%he test is !hethe# the

conduct sho!s the la!"e# to be !antin$ in mo#al cha#acte#, honest",

p#obit", and $ood demeano#, and !hethe# the conduct #ende#s the la!"e#

un!o#th" to continue as an office# of the Cou#t.19-5ERE3RE, the Cou#t

3INDS AND PRN6NCES ASS%. PRINCIA/ PRSEC6%R SA/ADR N.

PE, &R. $uilt" of violatin$ Rule 8.28 of Canon 8, and Rule 0.2< of Canon 0

of the Code of P#ofessional Responsibilit", and DISBARS him effective upon

#eceipt of this decision.

%he Cou#t DIREC%S the Ba# Confidant to #emove the name of ASS%.

PRINCIA/ PRSEC6%R SA/ADR N. PE, &R. f#om the Roll of

Atto#ne"s.

%his decision is !ithout p#eHudice to an" pendin$ o# contemplated

p#oceedin$s to be initiated a$ainst ASS%. PRINCIA/ PRSEC6%R

SA/ADR N. PE, &R.

/et copies of this decision be fu#nished to the ffice of the Ba# Confidant

the ffice of the Cou#t Administ#ato# fo# dissemination to all cou#ts of the

count#" and to the Inte$#ated Ba# of the Philippines.

S RDERED.

Re( !A)E DECISION ALLEEDLY *+ .R. No 72-2

R E S O L U T I O N

CALLE&O, SR.,J.(

%he instant administ#ative matte# a#ose !hen Da#io ?. Silvest#e,

Senio# Mana$e#, C#edit and App#aisal Mana$ement PS of the

Development Ban4 of the Philippines DBP', fu#nished the Cou#t !ith a

photocop" of an alle$ed ce#tified t#ue cop" of a t!o>pa$e decision of the

Second Division of the Cou#t composed of and dul" si$ned b" Chief &ustice

5ila#io ?. Davide, ., Associate &ustices &osue N. Bellosillo, &ose . itu$,

Santia$o M. 7apunan, /eona#do A. ;uisumbin$, A#temio . Pan$aniban,

A#tu#o B. Buena and Mine#va P. ?onales>Re"es sic'. %he decision

entitled University of the Philippines, et al., Petitioner, vs. St. MaryCrusade to Alleviate Poverty of Brethren Foundation, Inc.

Applicant,!as doc4eted as .R. No. L$72-2,and appea#ed to have

been p#omul$ated on Ma" 89, 1222. %he alle$ed decision is (uoted

he#eunde#

5. ?. DAIDE, &R. C&.

%his is a petition filed b" the 6nive#sit" of the Philippines

fo# the #evie! and #econside#ation of a #esolution p#omul$ated b"

this division on Ma#ch 1, 1222 affi#min$ the decision of the

Re$ional %#ial Cou#t of ;ueon Cit", B#anch :* in favo# of the

applicant in /RC Case No. ;>92>218.

%he case a#ose f#om an application fo# #e$ist#ation filed

b" Saint Ma#" C#usade %o Alleviate Pove#t" of B#eth#en

3oundation, Inc. !ith the Re$ional %#ial Cou#t, B#anch :* of

;ueon Cit", fo# a pa#cel of land situated at 7#us na /i$as,

;ueon Cit", !ith an a#ea of app#o)imatel" fou# hund#ed thi#t"

+


5/76

Petitions fo# #evie! and #econside#ation filed b"

#espondents on Ma" 10, 8999 and &une 18, 8999 !e#e both

denied b" the cou#t fo# lac4 of me#its and on Decembe# 1:, 8999

#uled that the #e$ist#ation of the p#ope#t" in the name of

applicant !as me#ito#ious and dese#ved the full p#otection of the

la!.

-he#efo#e, let copies of this decision be fo#!a#ded to the

Re$iste# of Deeds of Rial P#ovince, the Re$iste# of Deeds of

;ueon Cit" and the Di#ecto# of /ands fo# thei# info#mation and

$uidance.

%he follo!in$ documents accompanied the alle$ed Cou#t decision

a' A fou#>pa#a$#aph Resolution dated Ma#ch 1, 1222 pu#po#tedl"

issued b" the Second Division of this Cou#t and si$ned b" Chief &ustice

5ila#io ?. Davide, . and Associate &ustices &osue N. Bellosillo, &ose .

itu$, Santia$o M. 7apunan, /eona#do A. ;uisumbin$, A#temio .

Pan$aniban, A#tu#o B. Buena and Mine#va P. ?onales>Re"es sic' in

?ene#al /and Re$ist#ation ffice Reco#d No. /RC Case No. ;>92>218

entitled Saint Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate Pove#t" of B#eth#en 3oundation,

Inc., Applicant, !hich states in full as follo!s

5.?. DAIDE, &R., C.&.

%he petition fo# #evie! and #econside#ation filed b" the

/and Re$ist#ation Autho#it" is he#eb" DENIED and the decision of

the Re$ional %#ial Cou#t, B#anch :*, ;ueon Cit", is sustained and

APPRED.

Ca#eful evaluation of the #eco#ds of the case, as !ell as

the #easons cited in the petition, p#oves that the Re$ional %#ial

Cou#t did not e## in its decision in favo# of the applicant.

-he#efo#e, the fo#e$oin$ #esolution is he#eb" decla#ed

final and i##evocable.

%he Cle#4 of Cou#t is he#eb" di#ected to fu#nish all the

pa#ties and offices conce#ned !ith copies of this #esolution.

b' A /ette# pu#po#tedl" that of Att". /uviminda D. Puno, Cle#4 ofCou#t, to !it

%5E P6B/IS5ER

SCRA, Annotated

Re Saint Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate Pove#t" of B#eth#en 3oundation

vs. 6P 8++ SCRA 0*< 8999'

B" vi#tue of the autho#it" vested upon me, it is he#eb"

o#de#ed that the attached Resolution en banc, dul" concu##ed and

attested b" the pa#ties conce#ned, be included and compiled in the

publication of the SCRA, Annotated boo4s.

%he inclusion in the publication is deemed necessa#" in the

li$ht of maHo# developments in appellate Hu#isdiction and

p#ocedu#es on the basis of Hudicial decisions and administ#ative

ci#cula#s of the Sup#eme Cou#t bea#in$ in the administ#ation of

Hustice.

%he accessibilit" of othe# le$al publication, not!ithstandin$the intent in the inclusion in the SCRA, Annotated boo4s, is still to

publish a pu#el" te)tual o# topical t#eatment of Hudicial p#oceedin$s

and to cont#ibute to the en#ichment of Philippine le$al lite#atu#e.

Sup#eme Cou#t, Manila, Ma#ch 1, 1222.

S$

d.'

/6JIMINDA D.

P6N

Cle#4 of

Cou#t

c' Notice of Resolution in /RC Case No. ;>92>218 dated Ma#ch


6/76

S6PREME C6R% on the above>entitled case, the o#i$inal of

!hich is no! on file in this office.

Please be $uided acco#din$l".

e#" t#ul"

"ou#s,

S$d.

'

/6JIMINDA

D. P6N

Cle#4 of

Cou#t

d' Ce#tification dated Au$ust 8+, 1222, !hich states

Ce#tification

I, /6JIMINDA D. P6N, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, do

hereby certify that I have examined the attached documents described as

follows:

e#o) copies of the decision of this Cou#t in ?.R. No. />0=1+1 entitled

6nive#sit" of the Philippines, et al. v. Saint Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate

Pove#t" of B#eth#en 3oundation, Inc. p#omul$ated on Ma" 89, 1222

consistin$ of t!o 1' pa$es the#eof.

%hat I have compa#ed the same !ith the o#i$inal on file in m" office and

that the same is a t#ue cop" the#eof.

In !itness !he#eof, I have he#eunto si$ned m" name and affi)ed the seal

of this Cou#t, this 8+th da" of Au$ust 1222.

S$d.

'

/6JIMINDA

D. P6N

Cle#4 of

Cou#t

%he #eco#ds of the Cou#t #evealed, ho!eve#, that the doc4et numbe#

?.R. No. 0=1+1' of the alle$ed Cou#t decision !as assi$ned to the case

of Manila esource !evelop"ent Corporation, Petitioner vs.

#ational $a%or elations Co""ission and u%en Manahan,

espondents,!hich !as p#omul$ated on Septembe# +, 8991. %he

Decision of the Cou#t in this case became final and e)ecuto#" and Ent#" of

&ud$ment !as made of #eco#d on Septembe# 1:, 8991.

%hus, in a Resolution dated Septembe# 1+, 1221, the Cou#t o#de#ed

the Di#ecto# of the National Bu#eau of Investi$ation NBI' to conduct a

disc#eet investi$ation of the matte# and to the#eafte# submit a #epo#t

the#eon. M#. Silvest#e !as, li4e!ise, di#ected to submit to the Cou#t the

names of the pa#t" o# pa#ties !ho fu#nished his office !ith the spu#ious

decision and a detailed na##ation of the events su##oundin$ the delive#"

the#eof.

In his S!o#n Statement dated Novembe# 1=, 1221, M#. Silvest#e

na##ated that sometime in &une 1221, a ce#tain Ms. %eodo#a N. illanueva

came to thei# office at the DBP Buildin$, Sen. ?il Pu"at co#ne# Ma4ati

Avenues, Ma4ati Cit". She claimed to be the dul">autho#ied #ep#esentative

of the Saint Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate Pove#t" of B#eth#en 3oundation, Inc.

!hom she alle$ed to be the o!ne# of a t#ac4 of land in ;ueon Cit". She

then in(ui#ed if the ban4 could finance the alle$ed 5ousin$ P#oHect of the

3oundation, o# if the#e could be a local and fo#ei$n funde# !ho !ould be

!illin$ to finance the same. M#. Silvest#e info#med Ms. illanueva that the

ban4 !ould fi#st have to conduct the p#ope# ve#ification and investi$ation

of the p#ope#t", and that it !as a lon$ p#ocess. She then p#esented and

handed ove# to M#. Silvest#e the follo!in$ photocopies of documents

p#ovin$ the alle$ed o!ne#ship of the p#ope#ties

a' Autho#iation dated Ma" 1:, 1221 issued b" &aime B. Bo#Hal,

P#esident and Chai#man of the Boa#d of the 3oundation and attested b"

3elicisimo C. A#ellano, Co#po#ate Sec#eta#", vestin$ upon Ms. %eodo#a N.

illanueva Associates the autho#it" to t#ansact business and to ne$otiate

fo# the ac(uisition of localFfo#ei$n fundin$ assistance to finance the

5ousin$ and othe# #elevant p#oHects of the 3oundationK8L

b' Sec#eta#"s Ce#tificate dated Ma" 1=, 1221 issued b" 3elicisimo

C. A#ellano of B>9 />= Sunn"ville + Subd., Ampid I, San Mateo, Rial,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/am_02_8_23_0.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/feb2005/am_02_8_23_0.htm#_ftn1


7/76

statin$ that on Ma" 1=, 1221, the Boa#d of Di#ecto#s of the 3oundation,

!ith add#ess at 6nit *10 Cit"land Sha! %o!e#s, Sha! Blvd., Mandalu"on$

Cit", issued Boa#d Resolution No. 21.229 manifestin$ the autho#it" of

%eodo#a N. illanueva Associates, to t#ansact business and to ne$otiate

fo# the ac(uisition of localFfo#ei$n fundin$ assistance fo# housin$ and othe#

#elevant p#oHects of the 3oundation, and to act as ne$otiato# fo# and in

behalf of the 3oundation and di#ectin$ that copies of the Resolution be

fu#nished the Secu#ities and E)chan$e Commission SEC' and othe#

conce#ned officesFa$encies fo# thei# info#mation and $uidance.K1L

c' A Resolution dated Ma#ch 1, 1222 alle$edl" issued b" the

Second Division of this Cou#t and si$ned b" Chief &ustice 5ila#io ?. Davide,

. and Associate &ustices &osue N. Bellosillo, &ose . itu$, Santia$o M.

7apunan, /eona#do A. ;uisumbin$, A#temio . Pan$aniban, A#tu#o B.

Buena and Mine#va P. ?onales>Re"es sic' in /RC Case No. ;>92>218

entitled Saint ary Crusade to !lleviate Poverty of "rethren #oundation,

Inc$, !pplicant,(uoted aboveK


8/76

to cove# the cost and othe# #elated e)penses fo# the su#ve"

must fi#st be deposited !ith us.

ou a#e, the#efo#e, #e(uested to ma4e the #e(ui#ed deposit

!ithin five =' da"s f#om #eceipt he#eof so that !e can

implement the o#de# soonest.

e#" t#ul"

"ou#s,

S$d.

'

SA/ADR

/. RIE/

/RA ffice

Administ#ato#

Reco#ds

Dec#ee

Section

M#. Silvest#e info#med Ms. illanueva that all the documents !ould be

ve#ified b" the ban4, to !hich the latte# made the assu#ance that the said

documents !e#e authentic, le$al and valid. M#. Silvest#e then pe#sonall"

conducted the investi$ation and ve#ification of the said documents. In his

S!o#n Statement, he na##ated the #esult of his investi$ation, as !ell as the

events that t#anspi#ed the#eafte#, as follo!s

*. %hat the 3oundation is #e$iste#ed befo#e the ffice of the

Secu#ities and E)chan$e Commission and the Boa#d Resolution

and the Sec#eta#"s Ce#tificate !e#e all #e$iste#ed

0. %hat afte# ve#if"in$ the #e$ist#ation of the 3oundation, I

p#oceeded to the Sup#eme Cou#t to ve#if" the authenticit" of the

Resolution p#omul$ated b" the Sup#eme Cou#t dated Ma#ch 1,

1222 in /RC Case No. ;>92>218, b" p#esentin$ the ve#"

documents $iven b" Ms. %eodo#a N. illanueva, !hich a#e all

photocopies

:. %hat I !as su#p#ised to lea#n that the documents pe#tainin$ to

/RC Case No. ;>92>218 !e#e all fab#icated and Kfo#$edL

documents. K-o#stL of all the si$natu#es of the 5ono#able

&ustices of the Second Division includin$ that of the Cle#4 of

Cou#t !e#e not $enuine and, hence, a fo#$e#"

9. %hat I info#med the Cle#4 !ho assisted me in the said

ve#ification, that the ve#" #eason fo# m" ve#ification is to confi#m

and ve#if" the authenticit" of the #ulin$ of the 5ono#able

Sup#eme Cou#t in the said case because Ms. %eodo#a N.

illanueva is then t#"in$ to t#ansact !ith the DBP and to othe#

local and fo#ei$n funde# to finance the 5ousin$ P#oHect of the

3oundation

82. %hat bein$ a c#edit investi$ato# fo# a lon$ pe#iod of time at

DBP, ve#ification of documents is one of m" duties and

#esponsibilities befo#e acceptin$ an" application to finance a

ce#tain p#oHect

88. %hat in $ood faith I p#esented to the 5ono#able Sup#eme

Cou#t all the documents supplied and p#esented b" Ms. %eodo#a

N. illanueva fo# the pu#pose of ve#ification of the p#ope#t"

alle$edl" #e$iste#ed in the name of the 3oundation

M#. Silvest#e fu#the# ce#tified that the documents p#esented b" Ms.

illanueva to the ban4 !e#e me#e photocopies and that no business

t#ansaction !as p#ocessed b" the latte# in favo# of the said 3oundation.

In compliance !ith the Cou#ts #esolution, the National Bu#eau of

Investi$ation NBI', th#ou$h Di#ecto# Re"naldo ?. -"coco, fu#nished theCou#t !ith a cop" of the /ette# dated Ma#ch 1*, 122< of NBI Deput"

Di#ecto# 3e#min N. Nasol, Special Investi$ative Se#vices, NBI, and the

A$ents P#o$#ess Repo#t dated Ma#ch 89, 122< of 5a Rachel R. Ma#fil,

Repo#tin$ A$ent, %eam /eade#, Att". Nesto# M. Manta#in$, Deput" Di#ecto#

of the NBI Special Investi$ative Se#vices, #e$a#din$ thei# disc#eet

investi$ation on the matte#.

In his /ette# dated Ma#ch 1*, 122


9/76

the Cit" P#osecuto# of Manila. n the othe# hand, the A$ents P#o$#ess

Repo#t si$ned b" 5a Rachel R. Ma#fil, Repo#tin$ A$ent and %eam /eade#,

stated, thus

2=. Su#veillance ope#ations dete#mined that SubHect %EDRA

I//AN6EA and the St. Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate Pove#t" B#eth#en

3oundation, Inc. !e#e conductin$ business at 6nit *10 Cit"land Sha!

%o!e#s, Sha! Blvd., Mandalu"on$ Cit". n seve#al occasions, Emplo"ees of

said 3oundation #efused to divul$e the !he#eabouts of SubHect %EDRA

I//AN6EA, &AIME BR&A/ P#esident' and 3E/ICISIM ARE//AN

Co#po#ate Sec#eta#"'.

2*. In a confe#ence !ith Assistant Cle#4 of Cou#t, MA. /6ISA D.

I//ARAMA, A$ent Ma#fil #e(uested fo# the names of the Cle#4 !ho

assisted M#. DARI SI/ES%RE !hen he made the ve#ification at the ffice

of the Cle#4 of Cou#t at the Sup#eme Cou#t and the pe#son !ho shall

#ep#esent the Sup#eme Cou#t !hen the complaint fo# 3alsification of Public

Document a$ainst SubHects %EDRA I//AN6EA, &AIME BR&A/ and

3E/ICISIM ARE//AN of said 3oundation. %he A$ents on case a#e #ead"

to file the complaint befo#e the Cit" P#osecuto# of Manila as soon as the

above stated evidence a#e submitted to the NBI.

20. %he Affidavits of the Cle#4, Sup#eme Cou#t Rep#esentative and the

Ce#tification that the said Decision and othe# Ce#tifications !e#e not issued

b" the Second Division o# Att". /6JIMINDA D. P6N and the#efo#e

spu#ious a#e necessa#" befo#e filin$ the c#iminal complaint befo#e the Cit"

P#osecuto# of Manila.

A$ent Ma#fil made the follo!in$ #ecommendations

2:. IN IE- %5ERE3, it is most #espectfull" #e(uested that the Sup#eme

Cou#t fu#nish the name of the Cle#4 f#om the Second Division !ho assisted

MR. DARI SI/ES%RE to complete the chain of evidence, name of the

Rep#esentative of the Sup#eme Cou#t !ho !ill appea# as Complainant in

the c#iminal case to be filed b" the NBI and the Ce#tification f#om the

app#op#iate Sup#eme Cou#t pe#sonnel that the Decision Photocop"

attached to this Repo#t' in ?.R. No. />0=1+1 entitled %P vs$ St$ ary

Crusade to !lleviate Poverty of "rethren #oundation, Inc$that !as

fu#nished b" SubHect %EDRA I//AN6EA and othe# Ce#tifications

Photocopies, attached to this Repo#t' a#e spu#ious. /et a cop" of the

A$ents P#o$#ess Repo#t be fu#nished Att". /6JIMINDA D. P6N, of the

ffice of the Cle#4 of Cou#t #e(uestin$ pa#t"' fo# the info#mation and

disposition of the Sup#eme Cou#t.

n 3eb#ua#" 80, 122+, the Cou#t #e(ui#ed Att". /uviminda D. Puno,

Cle#4 of Cou#t, to comment on the #epo#t and #ecommendation of NBI

A$ent Ma#fil. In compliance the#e!ith, Att". Puno made the follo!in$

obse#vation in he# Comment dated 3eb#ua#" 1+, 122+

Dili$ent effo#t !as made b" this office to find out the name of the cle#4

f#om the Second Division !ho assisted M#. Da#io Silvest#e !hen M#.

Silvest#e made the ve#ification on !hethe# o# not the subHect documents

!e#e fa4e o# not. B" the lapse of time, and the fact that the#e a#e

nume#ous clients !ho constantl" ve#if" !ith said office, the cle#4s in the

Second Division could not an"mo#e #ecall !ho amon$ them assisted M#.

Silvest#e. Be that as it ma", KabsentL the affidavit of the cle#4, the affidavit

of M#. Silvest#e !ould suffice to p#ove that, indeed, he made the p#ope#

ve#ification. As to !ho ma" #ep#esent the cou#t as complainant, the

unde#si$ned #ecommends the CMP/AIN%S AND INES%I?A%IN

DIISIN of the ffice of the Administ#ative Se#vices. -ith #e$a#d to the

ce#tification on !hethe# the subHect documents a#e authentic o# spu#iousK,L

KtLhe National Bu#eau of Investi$ation th#u A$ent Ma#fil ma" coo#dinate

!ith the office of the unde#si$ned fo# the issuance the#eof.

In a Resolution dated Ma#ch 1, 122+, the Cou#t #esolved to app#ove

the above #ecommendation to desi$nate the Chief of Complaints and

Investi$ation Division to #ep#esent the Cou#t as the Complainant, and

fu#the# di#ected the NBI to coo#dinate !ith Att". Puno fo# the ce#tifications

needed in the filin$ of the c#iminal case.

In a Resolution dated Septembe# 18, 122+, the Cou#t #esolved to

#efe# the instant administ#ative matte# to the ffice of the Chief Atto#ne"

fo# evaluation, #epo#t and #ecommendation.

In thei# Repo#t dated Decembe# :, 122+, Att". Edna E. Dio, Deput"

Cle#4 of Cou#t and Chief Atto#ne", Att". -ilf#edo . /apitan, Assistant Chief

Atto#ne", and Att". Cenon oltai#e B. Repollo, Cou#t Atto#ne" III, all of the

ffice of the Chief Atto#ne", na##ated the events that t#anspi#ed the#eafte#

80. n 1= &une 122+, Att". Ed!in B. And#ada of the ffice of

Administ#ative Se#vices of this Cou#t, submitted a Repo#t on the Alle$ed

3a4e Decision of the Sup#eme Cou#t to Att". -endel . Custodio, Chief ofthe Anti>?#aft Division of the NBI, pu#po#tedl" in compliance !ith the


10/76

Resolution of 1 Ma#ch 122+ di#ectin$ the Chief of the Complaints and

Investi$ation Division of this Cou#t to #ep#esent it as Complainant in the

filin$ of app#op#iate c#iminal cases a$ainst individuals !ho made use of

fa4ed decisions to the Sup#eme Cou#t to advance thei# inte#ests. 5e said

Sometime in Ap#il 122+, pu#suant to the afo#esaid Resolution of the

Sup#eme Cou#t, Att". Rachel Ma#fil>An$eles met !ith the unde#si$ned to

confe# and discuss the necessa#" documents to be secu#ed f#om the ffice

of the Cle#4 of Cou#t &n "ancfo# the p#epa#ation of the necessa#"

complaint to be filed befo#e the ffice of the Cit" P#osecuto#. In this

meetin$, Att". Ma#fil>An$eles and the unde#si$ned a$#eed that the latte#

secu#e 8' a ce#tification f#om the ffice of the Cle#4 of Cou#t &n

"ancthat the decision used b" the fo#$e#s' !as neve# issued b" the

Cou#t and 1' the identit" of the Sup#eme Cou#t emplo"ee !ho assisted in

the ve#ification and to !hom the )e#o) cop" of the alle$ed fa4e decision of

the Sup#eme Cou#t !as handed b" M#. Da#io ?. Silvest#e, Senio# Mana$e#,

C#edit Depa#tment of the Development Ban4 of the Philippines. She,

li4e!ise, #e(uested the unde#si$ned to p#epa#e a complaint to be filed !ith

the NBI in acco#dance to his tas4 as di#ected unde# the said #esolution of

the Cou#t.

As a$#eed, the unde#si$ned !ent to the CC &n "anc. 5o!eve#, he !as

info#med b" Att". Basilia Rin$ol, Cou#t Atto#ne" the#eat that thei# office

does not issue ne$ative ce#tifications. It onl" ce#tifies as to the fact that a

ce#tain decision o# p#ocess !as issued. She elucidated that the me#e fact

that the Cou#t has doubts as to its authenticit", and b" necessa#"

implication, the Cou#t ce#tifies that it did not #ende# the said decision.

Anent the identit" of the emplo"ee of the Cou#t !ho assisted the

ve#ification and to !hom a )e#o) cop" of the fa4ed decision !as handed b"

M#. Da#io ?. Silvest#e, Att". Rin$ol stated that it is ha#d to identif" the

same because it !as not even clea# f#om the #eco#ds to !hat pa#ticula#

office the said emplo"ee is assi$ned. 3u#the#mo#e, the emplo"ees in the

CC En Banc deals sic' !ith cases, Hudicial and administ#ative, b" the

hund#eds that one cannot possibl" #emembe# the natu#e o# title of a

pa#ticula# case.

As #e$a#ds the complaint !hich the unde#si$ned !as #e(uested to d#aft,

Att". Ma#fil>An$eles conside#ed it no lon$e# necessa#" conside#in$ that the

#e(ui#ements, i.e., the ce#tification f#om the ffice of the Cle#4 of Cou#t,

and mo#e especiall" the identit" of the Sup#eme Cou#t emplo"ee adve#ted

to above, that !ould se#ve as lin4s fo# the successful p#osecution of the

case, !e#e not obtained.

8:. %h#ou$h 3i#st Indo#sement dated 19 &ul" 122+, ?en. Re"naldo ?.

-"coco, NBI Di#ecto# and Depa#tment of &ustice 6nde#sec#eta#",

fo#!a#ded to Assistant Cle#4 of Cou#t Ma. /uisa D. illa#ama fo# he#

info#mation and !hateve# action she ma" deem p#ope# to ta4e unde# the

p#emises, a cop" of the NBIs Evaluation Comment and the A$ents Repo#t.

89. %he NBI Comment dated 19 &ul" 122+, !#itten in a Disposition 3o#m

b" &anette . 5e##as>Ba$$as, Chief, S/PS, and app#oved b" Robe#to S. de

Alban, Chief of the /ED, na##ates the facts that led to Silvest#es ve#ification

in this Cou#t of the documents p#esented to him b" %eodo#a illanueva,

addin$ as follo!s

Sometime in Ap#il 122+, A$ent>on>case app#oached A%%. ED-IN B.

ANDRADA, Cou#t Atto#ne" I, Complaints and Investi$ation Division,

Sup#eme Cou#t, to confe# and discuss !ith him the documents necessa#"

in filin$ the co##espondin$ complaint. In that meetin$, it !as a$#eed that

A%%. ANDRADA !ill secu#e 8' a ce#tification f#om the ffice of the Cle#4

of Cou#t &n "anc, Sup#eme Cou#t, sho!in$ that the (uestioned Resolution

!as neve# issued b" the Cou#t and 1' the identit" of the Sup#eme Cou#t

emplo"ee !ho assisted DARI ?. SI/ES%RE in ve#if"in$ the authenticit"

of the (uestioned Resolution and to !hom the photocop" of the fa4e

Resolution !as handed b" the latte#. 5o!eve#, A%%. ANDRADA !as

info#med b" A%%. BASI/ISA RIN?/, Cou#t Atto#ne" , ffice of the Cle#4

of Cou#t &n "anc, Sup#eme Cou#t, that thei# office KdoL not issue ne$ative

ce#tifications. -ith #espect to the Sup#eme Cou#t emplo"ee !ho assisted in

the ve#ification and to !hom the photocop" of the fa4e decision !as

handed b" DARI ?. SI/ES%RE, A%%. RIN?/ stated that it !as difficult

to identif" the said emplo"ee because it !as not clea# f#om the #eco#ds to

!hat pa#ticula# office the emplo"ee !as assi$ned, and the ffice of the

Cle#4 of Cou#t &n "ancdealt !ith cases, Hudicial and administ#ative, b" the

hund#eds so that one could not possibl" #emembe# the natu#e o# title of a

pa#ticula# case.

the# documents submitted b" %EDRA N. I//AN6EA to DARI ?.

SI/ES%RE !as a Boa#d Resolution No. 21>229 and the Sec#eta#"s

Ce#tificate of SAIN% MAR CR6SADE % A//EIA%E PER% 3

BRE%5REN 36NDA%IN, INC. si$ned b" 3E/ICISIM C. ARE//AN and

&AIME B. BR&A/ Co#po#ate Sec#eta#" and P#esident Chai#man of the

Boa#d, #espectivel". -hen these documents !e#e p#esented b" DARI ?.


11/76

SI/ES%RE fo# ve#ification !ith the office of the Secu#ities and E)chan$e

Commission the" !e#e found to be authentic.

Mo#eove#, p#obe conducted sho!ed no evidence sho!in$ SubHects

3E/ICISIM ARE//AN, &AIME BR&A/ and %EDRA I//AN6EA,

ffice#s of St. Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate Pove#t" of the B#eth#en

3oundation, Inc., as the pe#sons !ho made the falsification o# !ould

benefit f#om the decision. 3u#the#mo#e, althou$h it !as SubHect %EDRA

I//AN6EA !ho p#esented the (uestioned Resolution at the Development

Ban4 of the Philippines, the#e !as no indication f#om said ban4 of thei#

intention to file the co##espondin$ complaint a$ainst SubHect %EDRA

I//AN6EA since dama$e !as p#evented b" the timel" ve#ification made

b" DARI SI/ES%RE.

CMMEN%FRECMMENDA%IN

Based on the above, A$ent>on>case #ecommended that this case be

tempo#a#il" closed. -e a$#ee. %he#efo#e, it is #espectfull" #ecommended

that the #eco#ds of this case be filed !ith ou# IRD and that the ffice of

the Re(uestin$ Pa#t" be info#med acco#din$l".

12. A$ents Ma#fil, Ma. /eticia R. Mamalateo and Dennis S. Si"hian

p#epa#ed the A$ents Repo#t dated 19 &une 122+ #efe##ed to b" Ms. 5e##as>

Ba$$as. Its pe#tinent po#tions state

A?EN%S CMMEN%S

20. %he chain of evidence !as not established. %he#e !as no identit" of

the cou#t pe#sonnel !ho made the ve#ification of the alle$ed spu#ious cou#t

decision and !ho !ould identif" the DBP Mana$e# !ho p#esented the cou#tdecision fo# ve#ification.

2:. %he#e !as neithe# dama$e to the cou#t o# to the Development Ban4 of

the Philippines.

29. %he#e is no cou#t #eco#d to sho! that the (uestioned photocopies of

cou#t decision and ce#tifications !e#e ve#ified in &une 1221 b" the cou#t

pe#sonnel.

2:. SubHects 3E/ICISIM ARE//AN, %EDRA I//AN6EA and &AIME

BR&A/ of St. Ma#" C#usade to alleviate pove#t" of B#eth#en 3oundation,

Inc. !e#e sent NBI subpoena but did not appea# befo#e this Command on

3eb#ua#" 80, 122


12/76

mo#t$a$ed p#ope#t"' unde# I.S. No. 00>1212 of the ffice of the Cit"

3iscal, Malolos, Bulacan, on 1 Ma#ch 890: d' less se#ious ph"sical

inHu#ies unde# C#im. Case No. 0=8 of the Municipal Cou#t of Candaba,

Pampan$a, on + ctobe# 89** but case !as dismissed on 8: Ma" 8902

and e' s!indlin$Festafa unde# I.S. No. :8>80< befo#e the Cit"

P#osecuto#s, Bicol Re$ion, Cama#ines Su#, Na$a Cit". %he NBI also has

#eco#ds of cha#$es a$ainst th#ee pe#sons !ith the name &aime Bo#Hal a'

one f#om /u4lu4an Su#, &. Pan$aniban, Cama#ines No#te !as cha#$ed !ith

acts of lasciviousness on 8* Ap#il 890+ b' &aime Bo#Hal " Aonuevo !ascha#$ed fo# va$#anc" befo#e the Pasa" Cit" Cou#t on 8+ Ap#il 8908 and

c' &aime Bo#Hal " ?u#an$o of Panal, %abaco, Alba", !as cha#$ed !ith

dama$e to p#ope#t" th#u #ec4less imp#udence in Da#a$a, Alba", on 1*

Novembe# 8992. ne #elicisimo !rellano ' 3elicin$ of So. Campe#at, B#$".

Bun$alunan, Basa", Ne$#os #iental, !as cha#$ed !ith estafaunde#

C#iminal Case No. M>1*:0' befo#e the 1nd MC%C of Bindo", Ne$#os

#iental, and the case !as fo#!a#ded to the R%C of Ne$#os #iental at

Duma$uete Cit" on 19 Novembe# 8998.

11. ne of the anne)es !as a subpoena duces tecumissued b" Att". &ose

&usto S. ap, Chief of the Anti>?#aft Division of the NBI, and se#ved uponthe Cle#4 of Cou#t on = 3eb#ua#" 122+, #e(ui#in$ he# to appea# befo#e said

office on 8< 3eb#ua#" 122+ to submit official ce#tification that the Sup#eme

Cou#t did not issue Decision in ?.R. 0=1+1 AM No. 21>:12'. %he

#eco#d does not sho! !hethe# this subpoena !as complied !ith. Notabl",

Da#io ?. Silvest#e !as also se#ved a subpoena on 1: ctobe# 1221 fo# him

to appea# befo#e the same Anti>?#aft Division on = Novembe# 1221 and to

$ive his statement and submit the cou#t o#de# #e(ui#in$ 6P v. St. Ma#"

C#usade to Alleviate Pove#t" ?.R. />0=1+1.

%he ffice of the Chief Atto#ne" made the follo!in$ obse#vations and

evaluation

&%servations on alle'ed spurious docu"ents

%he Resolution of 1+ Septembe# 122+ states that Silvest#e fu#nished the

Cou#t !ith a cop" of the Decision in ?.R. No. />0=1+1 entitled %niversity of

the Philippines, et al$ v$ St$ ary Crusade to !lleviate Poverty of "rethren

#oundation, Inc$ alle$edl" p#omul$ated b" the Second Division on 89 Ma"

1222. 5o!eve#, aside f#om that decision, Silvest#e subse(uentl"

submitted, in compliance !ith the Resolution of 1+ Septembe# 1221, his

s!o#n statement dated 1= Novembe# 122+, !ith photocopies of othe#

documents includin$ a Resolution alle$edl" p#omul$ated b" the Second

Division on 1 Ma#ch 1222 in ?ene#al Re$ist#ation ffice Reco#d No. /RC

Case No. ;>92>218 entitled Saint ary Crusade to !lleviate Poverty of

"rethren #oundation, Inc$, !pplicant$

%he photocopies of the Decision and the Resolution sho!, on thei#

#espective faces, that both a#e, indeed, simulated and falsified.

%he Resolution alle$edl" issued on 1 Ma#ch 1222 b" the Second Division

has the doc4et numbe# of a land #e$ist#ation case befo#e the Re$ional %#ial

Cou#t. %he title of the case is also fashioned afte# that of a t#ial cou#t

issuance in a land #e$ist#ation case. %he Membe#s of the Second Division

a#e listed continuousl" o# in such a !a" that each name is not !#itten on a

line b" itself as in the fo#m obse#ved in authentic si$ned e)tended

Resolutions. %he Chief &ustice is the Chai#man of the Second Division,

!hich is cont#a#" to the p#actice that he chai#s the 3i#st Division. Aside

f#om the Chief &ustice, seven 0' othe# &ustices a#e in the list a Division in

this Cou#t has onl" five =' Membe#s. In 1222, the#e !as no &ustice b" the

name of ?onales>Re"es &ustice ?ona$a>Re"es used to be a Membe# of

the Cou#t. No initials o# si$natu#e of the Cle#4 of Cou#t o# the Assistant

Cle#4 of Cou#t is affi)ed afte# the date of p#omul$ation. 5. ?. Davide,

. C&. Is not the usual !a" of indicatin$ the name of theponente it

should have been Davide, ., C$(. !ith a colon.

%he subHect of the Resolution is not p#ope# fo# an e)tended and si$ned

#esolution it ma" be disposed in a minute #esolution. %he fi#st sentence of

the Resolution spea4s of a petition fo# #evie! and #econside#ation !hich

!ould mean that both the petition fo# #evie! and the motion fo#

#econside#ation !e#e conside#ed in one #esolution, a p#ocedu#e !hich is

i##e$ula# and not sanctioned b" the Rules of Cou#t. %he second sentence

!hich sta#ts !ith Ca#eful evaluation . . . is a $ene#al statement that should

have e)plained the #eason fo# the denial of the petitionFmotion fo#

#econside#ation. %he dispositive po#tion of the Resolution sta#tin$ !ith

-he#efo#e should state that the petition o# motion is denied. %he di#ective

that the Cle#4 of Cou#t should fu#nish all the pa#ties to the case is a

su#plusa$e, as it is the ministe#ial the dut" of the Cle#4 of Cou#t to fu#nish

all pa#ties to a case !ith copies of all issuances #elative the#eto. %he othe#

di#ective statin$ that the offices conce#ned should be fu#nished b" the

Cle#4 of Cou#t !ith copies of the #esolution should o#dina#il" specif" the

offices that should be $iven a cop" the#eof. %he te#m S RDERED at the

end of the dispositive po#tion is missin$ in the same !a" that the !o#ds

-E CNC6R befo#e the si$natu#es of the concu##in$ &ustices a#e missin$.


13/76

%hat the Decision in ?.R. No. />0=1+1 is a sham is also appa#ent on its

face. %he / in the doc4et numbe#, !hich means libe#ation, has been

deleted f#om doc4et numbe#s afte# the numbe# of cases f iled !ith the

Sup#eme Cou#t #eached =2,222. %he petitione#s a#e %niversity of the

Philippines, et al$meanin$ the#e a#e pa#ties othe# than 6.P. but the !o#d

Petitione# !#itten unde# it is still in the sin$ula# fo#m and !ith no comma

afte# Petitione#. %he !o#d versusis not !#itten afte# Petitione# and befo#e

the name of the opposin$ pa#t" unde# !hich is !#itten the !o#d Applicant.

%he latte# !o#d should have been Respondent. As in the (uestionedResolution, the names of ei$ht :' Membe#s of the Second Division a#e not

p#ope#l" !#itten in that the names a#e !#itten continuousl" and not one

name fo# one line. %he same e##oneous name of )on*ales+eyesis in the

list. %he othe# indicia of falsification manifest in the Resolution and

#epeated in the Decision a#e the omission of the initials o# si$natu#e of the

Cle#4 of Cou#t o# the Assistant Cle#4 of Cou#t afte# the date of

p#omul$ation, the inclusion of the fi#st and middle initials in the name of

theponente!ith no colon afte# C&, the fact that the Chief &ustice does not

p#eside ove# the Second Division, the missin$ command S RDERED, and

the missin$ ph#ase -E CNC6R befo#e the si$natu#es of the concu##in$

&ustices.

%he fi#st sentence of the Decision bet#a"s the lac4 of le$al 4no!led$e of

!hoeve# !#ote it. It states %his is a petition filed b" the 6nive#sit" of the

Philippines fo# the #evie! and #econside#ation of a #esolution p#omul$ated

b" this division on Ma#ch 1, 1222 affi#min$ the decision of the Re$ional

%#ial Cou#t of ;ueon Cit", B#anch :*, in favo# of the applicant in /RC Case

No. ;>92>218. %he Cou#t simpl" does not review its o!n Resolution in a

petition fo# #evie!. Mo#eove#, the alle$ed Decision !as p#omul$ated late#

than the Resolution. A decision is p#omul$ated fi#st befo#e a #esolution

#esolvin$ the motion fo# #econside#ation of the same decision is issued and

p#omul$ated. Anothe# tellin$ si$n of simulation is the use of the te#m lac4of me#its !ith #espect to the petitions fo# #evie! and #econside#ation. %he

dispositive po#tion simpl" di#ects that copies of the Decision be fo#!a#ded

to the Re$iste# of Deeds of Rial P#ovince, the Re$iste# of Deeds of ;ueon

Cit", and the Di#ecto# of /ands fo# thei# info#mation and $uidance.

%hus, even !ithout ve#if"in$ f#om this Cou#t, to a p#actitione# of la! befo#e

this Cou#t, the alle$ed Resolution and Decision !ould be conside#ed

offhand as spu#ious.

-ith #espect to the communication of the Cle#4 of Cou#t dated 1 Ma#ch

1222 to the publishe# of the SCRA, no such communication is eve# sent.

3ollo!in$ the standin$ a$#eement bet!een the Sup#eme Cou#t and Cent#al

Boo4 Suppl", Inc., the messen$e# of the latte# simpl" pic4s up the

decisions p#omul$ated fo# the month fo# publication in the SCRA, based on

a list of cases !hich a cle#4 in the ffice of the Cle#4 of Cou#t p#epa#es

Pe# Att". 3elipa B. Anama of the ffice of the Cle#4 of Cou#t'. %he subHect

of the communication is stated, thus Re Saint Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate

Pove#t" of B#eth#en 3oundation vs. 6P, 8++ SCRA 0*< 8999'. olume 8++

of the SCRA publishes decisions of the Cou#t f#om Septembe# to ctobe#

82, 89:* and it has onl" 089 pa$es. It appea#s that the alle$edcommunication !as needed to p#oHect the idea that the Resolution en

banc, not the Second Division, !as to be published in the SCRA.

%he Notice of Resolution that the Cle#4 of Cou#t alle$edl" si$ned on 92>

218 entitled Saint Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate Pove#t" of B#eth#en

3oundation, Inc. Applicant !as eve# elevated to this Cou#t the &R

info#med it that no such case !as appealed to this Cou#t.

Pu#suin$ that aspect of this matte#, this ffice in(ui#ed f#om the Re$ional

%#ial Cou#t of ;ueon Cit", th#ou$h Att". %helma C. Bahia, IC of the Cou#tMana$ement ffice of the ffice of the Cou#t Administ#ato#, if 5on.

%eodo#o A. Ba", p#esidin$ &ud$e of the Re$ional %#ial Cou#t of ;ueon cit",

B#anch :*, issued the #de# dated 1: Decembe# 8999 in /.R.C. Case No.

;>92>218. %he cle#4 of cou#t of that cou#t info#med this ffice, th#ou$h

Att". Bahia, that said #de# is falsified because the petition !as dismissed.

%his ffice #eceived toda" a cop" of the #de# of < Septembe# 899: issued

b" &ud$e Ba" dismissin$ the petition on the $#ound that the land sou$ht to

be #e$iste#ed b" the applicant 3oundation is al#ead" cove#ed b" the

%o##ens S"stem of Re$ist#ation Anne) B'. %he same #de# #e(ui#ed the

applicant 3oundation and its counsel to sho! cause !h" no action shall be

ta4en a$ainst them fo# #e>filin$ a case !hich has been p#eviousl"dismissed b" this Cou#t !ithout info#min$ the Cou#t of such p#evious case

in violation of the Anti>3o#um shoppin$ #ule and othe# pe#tinent la!s o#

#ules'.

%he issue in this administ#ative matte# is no less than the inte2rity of the

Court and its processes$%his, the Cou#t has e)p#essl" #eco$nied in the

Resolution of 1+ Septembe# 1221. As such, despite the fact that illanueva

!as not able to $et financial benefit f#om the DBP th#ou$h the bo$us

documents she p#esented, the dama$e that has been !#ou$ht upon

the inte2rity of the Court and its processesis incalculable. It is e##oneous

fo# the NBI to conclude that no dama$e has been done to the Cou#t.Should the matte# be left han$in$ and un#esolved, the#e is no stoppin$

othe# unsc#upulous pe#sons f#om passin$ off falsified decisions and

#esolutions of this Cou#t as $enuine fo# pe#sonal and financial $#atification.

5o!eve#, the NBI could #esume its investi$ation onl" if Cou#t officials

e)tend full coope#ation. %he Cle#4 of Cou#t of the Second Division, the

Chief of the &R, and the Repo#te# should each issue a Ce#tification on the

case doc4eted as ?.R. No. />0=1+1. the" ma" state the#ein its t#ue title,

the date of p#omul$ation of the Decision, and theponente, as !ell as

!hethe# a motion fo# its #econside#ation !as filed and if one !as filed,

!hen the Cou#t #esolved the motion. %o satisf" the NBI #e(ui#ement, the"

ma" be as4ed to state, afte# statin$ thosepositivedata, that the#e is no

such case as ?.R. No. 0=1+1, entitled 6nive#sit" of the Philippines, et al. v.

St. Ma#" C#usade to Alleviate Pove#t" of B#eth#en 3oundation, Inc., if,

indeed, no such case is on #eco#d in this Cou#t. Cont#a#" to the claim of

Att". Rin$ol, the NBI ma" not be e)pected to #el" on a ce#tification b"

implication a#isin$ f#om the fact that the Cou#t doubts the authenticit" of

the Decision and Resolution, Documenta#" evidence issued b" this Cou#t is

needed fo# the p#o$#ess of an" c#iminal case that ma" be filed a$ainst

those !ho falsified o# simulated the Decision and Resolution and usedthese.

3o# the same pu#pose, !ith all due #espect, the Cle#4 of Cou#t en

banc should ma4e a statement on the authenticit" of the ce#tifications and

communications att#ibuted to he#. If, indeed, she did not issue the same,

then a disclaime# should be made in a s!o#n statement o# affidavit. Alon$

!ith the ce#tifications that othe# Cou#t officials shall issue, he# affidavit !ill

$o a lon$ !a" in the p#osecution of an" c#iminal case a#isin$ f#om the

falsification of the Decision and Resolution. %he Resolution of 1 Ma#ch 122+

unde#sco#es the impo#tance of such ce#tification, and he# affidavit, !hen

the Cou#t di#ected he# to coo#dinate !ith the NBI fo# the ce#tificationsneeded in the filin$ of the c#iminal case.

Notabl", the Resolution of 1 Ma#ch 122+ app#oves the #ecommendation of

the Cle#4 of Cou#t that the Chief of the Complaints and Investi$ation

Division of this cou#t shall #ep#esent the Cou#t as the Complainant.

-ith all due #espect, the Cle#4 of Cou#t enbancshould be named the

complainant in filin$ the c#iminal case o# cases a$ainst the suspected

autho#s of the falsification. As the case involves no less than the inte2rity

of the Court and its processes, the Cou#t itself is the offended pa#t".

Inasmuch as the Cou#t itself cannot be on #eco#d as the complainant to

avoid the absu#d situation !he#eb" the Sup#eme Cou#t !ould be a

complainant to avoid the absu#d situation !he#eb" the Sup#eme Cou#t

!ould be a complainant in a c#iminal case filed !ith the Re$ional %#ial

Cou#t, the Cou#t should be #ep#esented as complainant b" no less than its

hi$hest official, the Cle#4 of Cou#t en banc!ho, afte# all, is #esponsible fo#

the mana$ement of the adHudication function of the Cou#t as opposed to

administ#ative supe#vision of cou#ts pe#fo#med b" the Cou#t

Administ#ato#', includin$ the p#otection of the inte$#it" of its Decisions and

Resolutions.


17/76

Althou$h the Decision !as alle$edl" p#omul$ated b" the Second Division,

the Cle#4 of Cou#t of that Division should not be named the complainant in

#ep#esentation of the Cou#t. 3i#stl", the Cou#t itself e)plicitl" e)p#essed in

the Resolution of 1+ Septembe# 1221 that the inte$#it" of the Cou#t,

!ithout (ualif"in$ !hethe# it is the Cou#t en banco# the Second Division,

is involved. Secondl", it is settled that the decision of a Division is a

decision of the Cou#t itself. %hi#dl", f#om the list of Membe#s of the Cou#t in

the falsified decision, ei$ht :' &ustices have been named, !hich is mo#e

than the five membe#s of the Second Division. All these point to the needto name the Cle#4 of Cou#t en bancas complainant, in #ep#esentation pf

the Cou#t, in !hateve# c#iminal case ma" be filed.

As the complainant, the Cle#4 of Cou#t need not pe#sonall" attend the

investi$ation to be conducted b" the NBI. Conside#in$ he# !o#4load, the

Cle#4 of Cou#t ma" dele$ate the tas4 of pe#sonall" appea#in$ the#eat to

the Chief of the Complaints and Investi$ation Division CID' KAtt". Ed!in

And#ada, Atto#ne" I, is the chief of the CID of the ffice of Administ#ative

Se#vices unde# itsplantilla. Pe# the Annual Repo#t of 122AS shall effectivel" be te#minated. f

cou#se, the Cle#4 of Cou#t ma" be #e(ui#ed to testif" du#in$ the t#ial but it

is an impe#ative official function that, unavoidabl", must be pe#fo#med.

%he Cou#t must autho#ie the Cle#4 of Cou#t to #e(uest the NBI to #eopen

the investi$ation, !ith disc#etion as to the p#ope# offense o# offenses to becha#$ed befo#e the ffice of the P#osecuto#. %he NBI ma" pu#sue the $#aft

an$le if, afte# investi$ation, it deems it cove#ed b" Rep. Act No.


18/76

Conside#in$ that the#e a#e indications that the #de# dated 1: Decembe#

8999 of &ud$e Ba" is, li4e!ise, falsified, the possibilit" that C% No. 81


19/76

!lleviate Poverty of "rethren #oundation, Inc$, li4e!ise, !ithin five ='

da"s f#om notice

+' 5on. %eodo#o A. Ba" of the Re$ional %#ial Cou#t of ;ueon Cit",

B#anch :*, to ISSUE a ce#tification as to the authenticit" of the #de#

dated ctobe# 1:, 8999 in /.R.C. No. ;>92>218 entitled Saint ary

Crusade to !lleviate Poverty of "rethren #oundation, Inc$, Applicant and

the status of a case of the same title, if one has been filed befo#e his

cou#t, !ithin five =' da"s f#om notice

=' the Cle#4 of Cou#t en bancto a' EECUTEan affidavit on

!hethe# she issued the /ette# dated Ma#ch 1, 1222 add#essed to the

publishe# of the Sup#eme Cou#t Reco#ds Annotated, the Notice of

Resolution dated Ma#ch 29>SC.pdf

A.M. No. 00$7$0$CA Mrc: 27, 2001

IN RE( DEROATORY NE#S ITEMS CARIN COURT O! APPEALS

ASSOCIATE &USTICE DEMETRIO DEMETRIA #IT INTER!ERENCE

ON BEAL! O! A SUSPECTED DRU 'UEEN(

COURT O! APPEALS ASSOCIATE &USTICE DEMETRIO .DEMETRIA,#espondent.

PER CURIAM(

Men and !omen of the cou#ts must conduct themselves !ith hono#,

p#obit", fai#ness, p#udence and disc#etion. Ma$ist#ates of Hustice must

al!a"s be fai# and impa#tial. %he" should avoid not onl" acts of

imp#op#iet", but all appea#ances of imp#op#iet". %hei# influence in societ"

must be consciousl" and conscientiousl" e)e#cised !ith utmost p#udence

and disc#etion. 3o#, thei#s is the assi$ned #ole of p#ese#vin$ the

independence, impa#tialit" and inte$#it" of the &udicia#".

%he Code of &udicial Conduct mandates a Hud$e to G#ef#ain f#om influencin$

in an" manne# the outcome of liti$ation o# dispute pendin$ befo#e anothe#

cou#t o# administ#ative a$enc".G8%he sli$htest fo#m of inte#fe#ence cannot

be countenanced. nce a Hud$e uses his influence to de#ail o# inte#fe#e in

the #e$ula# cou#se of a le$al o# Hudicial p#oceedin$ fo# the benefit of one o#

an" of the pa#ties the#ein, public confidence in the Hudicial s"stem is

diminished, if not totall" e#oded.

Such is this administ#ative cha#$e t#i$$e#ed b" ne!spape# accounts !hich

appea#ed on the 18 &ul" 1222 issues of 3he anila Standard, 3he anila3imes, alaya, 3he Philippine /aily In4uirerand 3oday. %he national

dailies collectivel" #epo#ted that Cou#t of Appeals Associate &ustice

Demet#io ?. Demet#ia t#ied to inte#cede on behalf of suspected Chinese

d#u$ (ueen u u4 /ai, alias Se u4 /ai, !ho !ent in and out of p#ison to

pla" in a Manila casino.1

%hat same da", 18 &ul" 1222, Chief &ustice 5ila#io ?. Davide, ., issued

a emorandumto &ustice Demet#ia di#ectin$ him to comment on the

de#o$ato#" alle$ations in the ne!s items.


20/76

Demet#ia, and State P#osecuto# SP' Pablo C. 3o#ma#an III, a membe# of

the %as4 3o#ce on Anti>Na#cotics Cases of the Depa#tment of &ustice D&'

p#osecutin$ the case of the suspected Chinese d#u$ (ueen, filed thei#

#espective Commentson the Complianceof &ustice Demet#ia.+

n : Au$ust 1222, the Cou#t &n "anco#de#ed an investi$ation and

desi$nated Mme. &ustice Ca#olina C. ?#io>A(uino as Investi$ato# and

Cou#t Administ#ato# Alf#edo /. Benipa"o as P#osecuto#. An investi$ation

then commenced on 11 Au$ust 1222 and continued until 8* Novembe#1222.

%he P#osecution p#esented fou# +' !itnesses, namel", CSP Juo, SP

3o#ma#an III, A$nes P. %uason, sec#eta#" of SP 3o#ma#an, III, and &ose 5.

Afalla, an emplo"ee f#om the ffice of Asst. CSP ACSP' /eona#do ?ui"ab,

. %he defense on the othe# hand p#esented ten 82' !itnesses

#espondent &ustice Demet#ia, Asst. Chief State P#osecuto# ACSP' Seve#ino

?aa, ., Senio# State P#osecuto# SSP' Romeo Daosos, ?o %en$ 7o4, u

u4 /ai, M%C &ud$e #lando Siapno, Pete# oun$, Att". Reine#io Paas,

la!"e# of ?o %en$ 7o4, Danilo &. MiHa#es, bod"$ua#d of ?o %en$ 7o4, and

/uisito A#tia$a, official of the Philippine Amateu# %#ac4 and 3ieldAssociation PA%A3A'.

%he facts as bo#ne out b" the evidence p#esented b" the p#osecution a#e

(uite clea#. In an Info#mation dated 9 Decembe# 899:, SP 3o#ma#an III

cha#$ed u u4 /ai, to$ethe# !ith he# supposed nephe!, a ce#tain 7enneth

Monceda " S" alias -illiam S", befo#e the R%C of Manila, B#. 8:,=!ith

violation of Sec. 8=, A#t. III, RA *+1=, as amended, fo# Gconspi#in$,

confede#atin$ and mutuall" helpin$ one anothe#, !ith delibe#ate intent and

!ithout autho#it" of la! . . . to' !illfull", unla!full" and feloniousl" sell

and delive# to a poseu#>bu"e# th#ee bailable offense, both u u4 /ai and 7enneth

Monceda !e#e held at the detention cell of the PNP Na#cotics ?#oup in

Camp C#ame, ;ueon Cit". n 1= &une 8999, accused u u4 /ai filed a

Petition fo# Bail on the $#ound that the evidence of he# $uilt !as not

st#on$.

n 82 Novembe# 8999, upon #eceivin$ info#mation that the accused,

especiall" u u4 /ai, had been seen #e$ula#l" pla"in$ in the casinos of

5e#ita$e 5otel and the 5olida" Inn Pavilion, SP 3o#ma#an III filed

an %r2ent &x+Parte otion to 3ransfer the /etention of the !ccused to the

City (ail.0n the same da", &ud$e Pe#fecto A. S. /a$uio, ., $#anted the

motion and o#de#ed the immediate t#ansfe# of the t!o 1' accused to the

Manila Cit" &ail.:

n 8: &anua#" 1222, &ud$e /a$uio, ., concluded that Gthe evidence

standin$ alone and un#ebutted, is st#on$ and sufficient to !a##ant

conviction of the t!o accused fo# the c#ime cha#$edG and denied the

petition fo# bail of accused u u4 /ai fo# lac4 of me#it.9Conse(uentl", both

accused filed a &oint Motion fo# Inhibition a#$uin$ that the t#ial cou#tQs

actuation Gdo not inspi#e the belief that its decision !ould be Hust andimpa#tial.G82n 1: &anua#" 1222, &ud$e /a$uio, ., believin$ that the Hoint

motion !as utte#l" !ithout me#it but conside#in$ the $#avit" of the offense

and fo# the peace of mind of the accused, inhibited himself.88

%he case !as #e>#affled to B#anch =


21/76

Acco#din$l" on 8+ &ul" 1222, SP 3o#ma#an III filed a otion for

Inhibitionp#a"in$ that &ud$e Mu#o inhibit himself Gf#om fu#the# handlin$

this case andFo# f#om #esolvin$ the demu##e# to evidence filed b" the

accused u u4 /ai as !ell as an" othe# pendin$ incidents the#ein.G 80

n 8* &ul" 1222, at a#ound 0


22/76

the 4ind of GhelpG that he #e(uested. 5e ave##ed that it !as pu#el" on the

basis of e##oneous imp#ession and conHectu#e on the pa#t of SP 3o#ma#an

III that he impliedl" as4ed him to !ithd#a! the motion Gbecause that is

!hat M#. ?o %en$ 7o4 !as appealin$ and #e(uestin$.G10Respondent

claimed that the GhelpG he !as #e(uestin$ could !ell be G!ithin le$al

bounds o# line of dut".G

&ustice Demet#ia claimed that if eve# he said an"thin$ else du#in$ the

discussion bet!een ?o %en$ 7o4 and SP 3o#ma#an III, such !as not a fo#mof inte#vention. 5e onl" admonished ?o %en$ 7o4 Gto cool itG !hen the

discussion bet!een the p#osecuto# and ?o %en$ 7o4 became heated. -hile

he as4ed about the status of the case this, he said, demonst#ated his lac4

of 4no!led$e about the case and bolste#ed his claim that he could not

have possibl" inte#ceded fo# u u4 /ai.

Respondent &ustice li4e!ise a#$ued that the bases of his identification b"

CSP Juo as the &ustice e)e#tin$ undue p#essu#e on the D& !e#e all

hea#sa". Respondent submitted that CSP Juo based his identification

f#om a ne!spape# account, f#om the statement of his sec#eta#" that it !as

he &ustice Demet#ia' !ho !as on the othe# end of the telephone and f#omSP 3o#ma#an III !hen the latte# consulted the Chief State P#osecuto#

about the visit of the &ustice and ?o %en$ 7o4 impliedl" as4in$ him to

!ithd#a! the motion.

In defense of #espondent &ustice, Att". Paas stated that it !as actuall" he,

not &ustice Demet#ia, !ho late# called up CSP Juo to in(ui#e about the

latte#Qs decision #e$a#din$ the !ithd#a!al of the motion to inhibit since SP

3o#ma#an III had ea#lie# told ?o %en$ 7o4 that the matte# !ould be ta4en

up !ith his supe#io#s.

In fine, #espondent &ustice Demet#ia maintains that it is inconceivable fo#

him to as4 SP 3o#ma#an III !hom he Hust met fo# the fi#st time to do

somethin$ fo# ?o %en$ 7o4 !hom he claims he Hust li4e!ise met fo# the

fi#st time. Neithe# did he 4no! u u4 /ai, a claim u u4 /ai he#self

co##obo#ated. It !ould be unthin4able fo# him to inte#cede in behalf of

someone he did not 4no!. Indeed #espondent &ustice asse#ted that his

meetin$ ?o %en$ 7o4 on 8: &ul" 1222 at the D& !as pu#el" coincidence,

if not accidental.

So, did #espondent &ustice Demet#ia #eall" inte#cede in behalf of suspected

d#u$ (ueen u u4 /ai

Investi$atin$ &ustice Ca#olina C. ?#io>A(uino believes so. In he# Repo#t

dated = &anua#" 1228, she found #espondent &ustice Demet#ia G$uilt" of

violatin$ Rule 1.2+, Canon 1, Code of &udicial ConductG and #ecommended

that Gapp#op#iate disciplina#" action be ta4en a$ainst him b" this

5ono#able Cou#t.G1:

nl" #i$htl" so. %he evidence is clea#, if not ove#!helmin$, and damnin$.

%hus, even the Senate Committee on &ustice and 5uman Ri$hts, afte# a

hea#in$, found that Gthe#e !as a conspi#ac" to commit the follo!in$offenses on the pa#t of CA Associate &ustice Demet#io Demet#ia and

PA%A3A P#esident ?o %en$ 7o4 and Miss u u4 /ai obst#uction of Hustice

punishable unde# PD No. 8:19 and A#ticle


23/76

ascendanc" ove# CSP Juo, he bein$ a &ustice of the Cou#t of Appeals and

a fo#me# 6nde#sec#eta#" and at one time Actin$ Sec#eta#" of the D&.

Even the #e(uested GhelpG fo# ?o %en$ 7o4, !hom #espondent &ustice

claims he did not 4no! and met onl" that time, could not have meant an"

othe# assistance but the !ithd#a!al of the motion to inhibit &ud$e Mu#o.

%#ue, &ustice Demet#ia neve# cate$o#icall" as4ed SP 3o#ma#an III to

!ithd#a! his Motion. But !hen #espondent &ustice Demet#ia as4ed the

state p#osecuto# at that pa#ticula# time Gto do somethin$ . . . to help M#.?o %en$ 7o4,G the latte# !as pleadin$ fo# the !ithd#a!al of the motion,

and nothin$ else. %hat !as the onl" fo#m of GhelpG that ?o %en$ 7o4

!anted. %he subtle p#essu#e e)e#ted simpl" pointed to one pa#ticula# act.

%hus, subse(uentl" #espondent &ustice called CSP Juo to as4 fo# Hust that

the !ithd#a!al of the motion to inhibit &ud$e Mu#o.

&ustice Demet#ia also claimed that he, to$ethe# !ith Att". Paas, !ent to

the D&, fi#st, to see Sec#eta#" A#temio %u(ue#o and see4 assistance in the

appointment of Att". Paas to the Cou#t of Appeals, and second, to Gvisit old

f#iends,G


24/76

onl" ma4e a moc4e#" of his hi$h office, but also caused incalculable

dama$e to the enti#e &udicia#". %he me#e mention of his name in the

national ne!spape#s, alle$edl" la!"e#in$ fo# a suspected d#u$ (ueen and

inte#fe#in$ !ith he# p#osecution se#iousl" unde#mined the inte$#it" of the

enti#e &udicia#".

Althou$h eve#" office in the $ove#nment se#vice is a public t#ust, no

position e)acts a $#eate# demand on mo#al #i$hteousness and up#i$htness

tha a seat in the &udicia#".+25i$h ethical p#inciples and a sense ofp#op#iet" should be maintained, !ithout !hich the faith of the people in

the &udicia#" so indispensable in o#de#l" societ" cannot be

p#ese#ved.+8%he#e is simpl" no place in the &udicia#" fo# those !ho cannot

meet the e)actin$ standa#ds of Hudicial conduct and inte$#it".+1

-5ERE3RE, !e sustain the findin$s of the Investi$atin$ &ustice and hold

&ustice Demet#io ?. Demet#ia ?6I/% of violatin$ Rule 1.2+ of the Code of

&udicial Conduct. 5e is o#de#ed DISMISSED f#om the se#vice !ith fo#feitu#e

of all benefits and !ith p#eHudice to his appointment o# #eappointment to

an" $ove#nment office, a$enc" o# inst#umentalit", includin$ an"

$ove#nment o!ned o# cont#olled co#po#ation o# institution.

S RDERED.

/avide, (r$, C $( $, "ellosillo, elo, *>:>CA

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ATTY. ROBERTO C. PADILLA,Cove#sus> A.M. No. 2*>++>CA>&

ASSOCIATE &USTICE EL"I &ON S. P#esentASUNCION, COURT O! APPEALS,Re/o+4e+t. P6N, C$($,;6IS6MBIN?,NARES>SAN%IA?,SANDA/>?6%IERREJ,CARPI,A6S%RIA>MAR%INEJ,

CRNA,CARPI>MRA/ESCA//E&, SR.,AJC6NA,%IN?A,C5IC>NAJARI,?ARCIA,E/ASC, &R., andNAC56RA,(($P#omul$ated

Ma#ch 12, 1220

)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>)

DECISION

P& C%I!:

T:e C/e/

Befo#e 6s a#e t!o 1' administ#ative cases a$ainst &ustice Elvi &ohn S.

Asuncion of the Cou#t of Appeals KCAL.

%he fi#st, doc4eted as A.M. No. 2*>*>:>CA, stems f#om an

unsi$ned lette# dated 3eb#ua#" 80, 122*, add#essed to Chief &ustice

A#temio . Pan$aniban, complainin$ that &ustice Elvi &ohn S. Asuncion has


25/76

been sittin$ on motions fo# #econside#ation fo# si) months to mo#e than a

"ea# unless the pa#ties come ac#oss.K8Ln &ul" 8:, 122*, the Cou#t

#esolved to #efe# the complaint to #eti#ed Sup#eme Cou#t &ustice Be#na#do

P. Pa#do fo# investi$ation, #epo#t and #ecommendation !ithin 92 da"s f#om

#eceipt the#eof.

Subse(uentl", on Au$ust 19, 122*, the Cou#t also #efe##ed to

Investi$ato#>desi$nate &ustice Pa#do an unsi$ned lette# dated Au$ust 80,

122*, alle$edl" f#om an Associate &ustice of the Cou#t of Appeals, full"

suppo#tin$ the investi$ation of &ustice Elvi &ohn S. Asuncion, and citin$ one

pa#ticula# case pendin$ in his division that !ill sho! ho! he ope#ates.

K1L%he case mentioned in the lette# is "ank of Commerce v$ >on$ &velyn

Corpus+Cabochan, et al$, CA>?.R. No. 981=:, alle$edl" involvin$ an

i##e$ula#l" issued tempo#a#" #est#ainin$ o#de# K%RL.

%he second administ#ative case, A.M. No. 2*>++>CA>&, is based on

a ve#ified complaint dated Au$ust 11, 122*K?.R. SP No. *2=0


26/76

Please di#ect an immediate Hudicial audit on Cou#t ofAppeals &ustice Elvi Asuncion.%his ma$ist#ate has been sittin$ on motions fo##econside#ation fo# si) months to mo#e than a "ea# unlessthe pa#ties come ac#oss.%his CA &ustice is an unmiti$ated dis$#ace to the

Hudicia#". 5o! he eve# #eached his loft" position is t#ul"disconce#tin$. 5e is a tho#ou$hl" CRR6P% pe#son !hohas no shame usin$ his office to e)to#t mone" f#omliti$ants. 5e is e(uall", if not mo#e, dep#ave than Demet#ioDemet#ia !ho !as dismissed b" the Sup#emeCou#t. Asunciondese#ves not onl" dismissal butDISBARMEN% as !ell. Because the la! p#ofession shouldalso be pu#$ed of CR7S li4e him.I hope "ou can te#minate his se#vice in the Hudicia#" ASAPto save the institution. %han4 "ou.e#" t#ul" "ou#s,

AN A??RIEED PAR%

%o the fo#e$oin$ complaint, #espondent &ustice Asuncion filed his

Comment dated Au$ust A(uino. 5e

admitted, ho!eve#, to some dela"s in the #esolution of some motions fo#

#econside#ation, and cited the follo!in$ Hustifiable #easons 8' %he heav"

caseload initiall" assi$ned to CA Hustices, coupled !ith the ne!l" assi$ned

cases #affled dail" and the #e>#affled cases o#i$inall" handled b" p#omoted

o# #eti#ed Hustices 1' %he #eo#$aniation of the CA and his assi$nment as

Chai#man of the 8:thDivision based in Cebu Cit", !hich c#eated

some confusion in the status of cases assi$ned to him ?.R. SP

No. 981=:, !as still pendin$ in his division and not $e#mane to the on>

$oin$ investi$ation a$ainst him fo# supposed delibe#ate inaction on

pendin$ motions fo# #econside#ation.

In this connection, the Investi$atin$ &ustice #epo#ts that afte#

ma4in$ in(ui#ies, he found that the Cou#t of Appeals had not acted on the

app#oval of the inHunction bond in this case, thus, no !#it of p#elimina#"

inHunction has been issued to date.K0L

Mean!hile, in the Au$ust


27/76

b' Maste# /ist of 5einous C#imes Raffled to &.Asuncion f#om 12 Nov. 122+ to 11 &une 122*, consistin$ of?.R. SP No. *2=0


28/76

n ctobe# :>2:>CA.

T:e !*+4*+=/ o? t:e I+8e/t*=t*+= &5/t*ce

In the fi#st administ#ative case, A.M. No. 2*>*>:>CA, the

Investi$atin$ &ustice submits the follo!in$ findin$s

Afte# meticulous anal"sis of the #eco#d and theevidence submitted, the investi$ation !ould sho! that, as#elated in the unsi$ned lette# of 3eb#ua#" 80, 122*, the#e!e#e indeed seve#al cases assi$ned to #espondent &usticeAsuncion !ith motions fo# #econside#ation still #emainin$

un#esolved !a" be"ond the ninet" da" pe#iod p#esc#ibed inRule =1, Section < of the Rules of Cou#t. Mo#eove#, the#e!e#e also nume#ous motions fo# #econside#ation !hich#espondent &ustice #esolved be"ond the #e$lementa#"pe#iod.

%he maste# lists of cases submitted b" the Cle#4 of

Cou#t, CA, en banc, disclose that, as of Septembe#


29/76

!e#e still un#esolved and pendin$ as of his #eassi$nment tothe CA>Cebu Station.

5o!eve#, the #eco#d !ould sho! that the#e !e#e

motions fo# #econside#ation filed as fa# bac4 as 1222 that!e#e still pendin$ #esolution, as of the sic' &ul" 8:, 122*,!hen the Sup#eme Cou#t too4 co$niance of thecomplaint. ne !as #esolved on Au$ust 0, 122*, the PNBvs. N/RC and Ms. E#linda A#chinas doc4eted as CA>?.R. SP

No. *2=0Jena#osa but #emained !ith, and une)plainedl" decided b"

#espondent &ustice Asuncion, albeit be"ond the#e$lementa#" pe#iod. 5o! such cases supposedl"t#ansfe##ed to &ustice Jena#osa #emained o# #etu#ned to&ustice Asuncion is not e)plained, obviousl" incont#avention of ffice #de# No. 181>2+>C? of theP#esidin$ &ustice, CA Anne) E'. Indeed, #espondent&ustice Asuncion should have acted in such a manne# as toavoid suspicion in o#de# to p#ese#ve faith in theadminist#ation of HusticeK8+L

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )As e)cuses o# Hustification, #espondent &ustice

stated that the dela" in #esolvin$ cases is pa#tl" due to the

heav" initial caseloads of CA Hustices, the continuous#afflin$ of ne! cases and the #e>#afflin$ of old caseshandled b" p#omoted and #eti#ed CA Hustices. -e find thisposition unacceptable. It is necessa#" fo# ne!l">appointedHustices to be assi$ned initial caseloads. No one ise)empted. 3u#the#, in the #afflin$ and #e>#afflin$ ofsubse(uent cases, these a#e mo#e o# less e(uall"dist#ibuted to all Hustices. 5ence, not onl" #espondent&ustice, but all CA &ustices a#e s!amped !ith cases. %his,ho!eve#, is not a #eason to violate the clea# mandate inthe Constitution and the Rules of Cou#t to decide casesp#omptl" and #esolve motions fo# #econside#ation !ithin

thei# #e$lementa#" pe#iod. ) ) )

A$ain, #espondent &ustice att#ibutes his admitteddela" in #esolvin$ pendin$ motions fo# #econside#ation tova#ious administ#ative functions assi$ned to him b" theCou#t o# P#esidin$ &ustice that too4 much of his time andattention. ) ) )

-e a#e not imp#essed o# s!a"ed that these

administ#ative functions $#eatl" bu#dened #espondent&ustice to the e)tent that he failed to discha#$e the basic

dut" of a Hustice !ith dili$ence and efficienc". It is evidentthat such additional tas4s a#e seasonal in natu#e, hence,need not consume too much of his time to the det#iment ofpendin$ cases. ) ) )

Conse(uentl", #espondent &ustice Asuncion must

be #eminded that decision>ma4in$ is the p#imo#dial dut" ofa membe# of the bench. All othe# tas4s must $ive !a"the#eto. -hat is ala#min$ is that #espondent &usticeseemed to have re8e++>CA>&, the findin$s of the

Investi$atin$ &ustice a#e, as follo!s

Complainant Padilla contends that #espondent&ustice Asuncion committed $#oss i$no#ance of the la! inissuin$ the ctobe#


30/76

the#eon !as set aside b" the Sup#eme Cou#t in 899< in thecase of Santia$o v. as(ueK80L.3u#the#, he ave##ed that theEte#nal ?a#dens #ulin$ !as supe#seded b" Rule *=, Section0 of the Rules of Cou#t 8990 Rules of Civil P#ocedu#e'!hich states that the petition Kin the Sup#eme Cou#t o# inthe Cou#t of AppealsL shall not inte##upt the cou#se of thep#incipal case unless a tempo#a#" #est#ainin$ o#de# o# a!#it of p#elimina#" inHunction has been issued a$ainst thepublic #espondent f#om fu#the# p#oceedin$ in the case.

Respondent &ustice Asuncion st#essed that the &ul"1+, 1228 and ctobe#


31/76

0, 122+'.-o#se, he #ecalled the case upon his #etu#n to theCA Manila station. 6nde#sco#in$ supplied.'

-e a$#ee !ith complainant Padilla that the

delibe#ate act of #espondent &ustice Asuncion in e)tendin$indefinitel" the tempo#a#" #est#ainin$ o#de# o# the status4uoo#de# pendin$ #esolution of PNBs motion fo##econside#ation, #el"in$ on the Ete#nal ?a#dens Memo#ialPa#4 case, bet#a"s his culpable $#oss i$no#ance of the

la!. ) ) )) ) ) &ud$es a#e e)pected to e)hibit mo#e than

Hust cu#so#" ac(uaintance !ith statutes and p#ocedu#alla!s. %he" must 4no! the la!s and appl" them p#ope#l" inall $ood faith. &udicial competence #e(ui#es no less.6nfamilia#it" !ith the #ules is a si$n of incompetence. Basic #ules must be at the palm of his hand.) ) ) -hen a Hud$e displa"s utte# lac4 of familia#it" !iththe #ules, he e#odes the confidence of the public in thecou#ts. I$no#ance of the la! is the mainsp#in$ of inHustice.K1+L-o#se, #espondent Hustices i$no#ance of p#ocedu#al la!is e)ace#bated b" his /t!o :1' cases submitted fo# decision !e#e still

undecided, even afte# the lapse of the t!elve>month pe#iod p#esc#ibed b"

the Constitution. 5e had also decided fou# hund#ed nine +29' cases

be"ond the one>"ea# pe#iod.

Notabl", of the sevent">one 08' motions fo# #econside#ation

pendin$ #esolution, fo#t">si) !e#e filed in 122+ o# ea#lie#, !ith one datin$

all the !a" bac4 to 1222. 3ive !e#e filed in 1228, si)teen in 1221, ten in

122


32/76

s"stem. %he e)planation mise#abl" fails to pe#suade because the CA

#eo#$aniation too4 place onl" in 122+, and at that time, the#e !e#e at

least thi#t">t!o #affled f#om amon$ the cases o#i$inall" handled b" p#omoted o# #eti#ed

Hustices, must also fall flat. As aptl" stated b" the Investi$atin$ &ustice,

othe# CA Hustices a#e li4e!ise subHected to such a heav" caseload, and "et,

have not incu##ed such ine)cusable dela". As to #espondents othe#

administ#ative assi$nments, includin$ o#$aniin$ special events, the

#espondent should onl" be #eminded that decision>ma4in$ is the p#imo#dial

and most impo#tant dut" of a membe# of the Hudicia#".K1:L

%he dela" incu##ed b" #espondent &ustice Asuncion in decidin$ o# #esolvin$

the nume#ous cases and matte#s mentioned above is, the#efo#e,

unHustified. Even in the case of P?" v$ ?5C and !rchinas alone, the

#espondents failu#e to #esolve PNBs &une 8


33/76

complete defiance of the afo#esaid Rule. It !as not a !#it of p#elimina#"

inHunction, because #espondent &ustice Asuncion himself disclaims that it

!as such. Besides, in the event of an inHunctive !#it, an inHunction bond is

#e(ui#ed, unless e)empted b" the Cou#t Section +, Rule =:, Rules of

Cou#t'. 3u#the#mo#e, the#e !ould have been no cause to issue such a !#it,

because ea#lie#, on Ma" 1:, 1228, #espondent &ustice Asuncion had al#ead"

dismissed the p#incipal action fo# ce#tio#a#i !ith p#a"e# fo# the issuance of

a !#it of p#elimina#" inHunction.

et, the pu#pose !as clea# the ctobe#


34/76

an" said offenses, me#e e##o# of Hud$ment not bein$ a$#ound fo# disciplina#" p#oceedin$s.K2+>C?'. -o#se, he #ecalled the

case upon his #etu#n to the CA Manila station.

%o the Cou#t, these a#e bad$es of bad faith and manifest undue inte#est

att#ibutable onl" to the #espondent, and not to the othe# t!o Hustices of

the CA Division.Acco#din$l", onl" the #espondent must be made to suffe#

the conse(uences.

Besides, the five>"ea# dela" in the #esolution of the PNB motion fo#

#econside#ation !ould al#ead" constitute se#ious misconduct that !ould

Hustif" dismissal f#om the se#viceK


35/76

In A. M. No. 2*>*>2:>CA, #espondent is cha#$ed !ith undue dela" in

#ende#in$ a decision o# o#de#. 6nde# Rule 8+2 of the Rules of Cou#t,

K+2Lundue dela" in #ende#in$ a decision o# o#de# is classified as a less

se#ious cha#$e !hich ma" be penalied b" 8' suspension f#om office

!ithout sala#" and othe# benefits fo# not less than one no# mo#e than

th#ee months o# 1' a fine of mo#e than P82,222 but not e)ceedin$

P12,222.

n the othe# hand, $#oss i$no#ance of the la!, fo# !hich #espondent is

bein$ faulted in A. M. No. 2*>++>CA>&, is conside#ed a se#ious cha#$e, and

ca##ies the penalt" of 8' dismissal f#om the se#vice, fo#feitu#e of all o#

pa#t of the benefits as the Cou#t ma" dete#mine, and dis(ualification f#om

#einstatement o# appointment to an" public office, includin$ $ove#nment>

o!ned o# cont#olled co#po#ations p#ovided, ho!eve#, that the fo#feitu#e of

benefits shall in no case include acc#ued leave c#edits 1' suspension f#om

office !ithout sala#" and othe# benefits fo# mo#e than th#ee but not

e)ceedin$ si) months o#


36/76

Befo#e us is the disba#ment case a$ainst #eti#ed Sup#eme Cou#t

Associate &ustice Dante . %in$a respondent'filed b" M#. &ovito S. lao

complainant'. %he #espondent is cha#$ed of violatin$ Rule *.21,K8LRule

*.2


37/76

%he second cha#$e involves anothe# pa#cel of land !ithin the

p#oclaimed a#eas belon$in$ to Manuel lao, the complainants

b#othe#. %he complainant alle$ed that the #espondent pe#suaded Mi$uel

lao to di#ect Manuel to conve" his #i$hts ove# the land to &oseph &eff#e"

Rod#i$ue. As a #esult of the #espondents p#omptin$s, the #i$hts to the

land !e#e t#ansfe##ed to &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue.

In addition, the complainant alle$ed that in Ma" 8999, the

#espondent met !ith Manuel fo# the pu#pose of nullif"in$ the conve"ance

of #i$hts ove# the land to &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue. %he complainant

claimed that the #espondent !anted the #i$hts ove# the land t#ansfe##ed to

one Rolando lao, the "aran2ayChai#man of 5a$ono", %a$ui$.%he

#espondent in this #e$a#d e)ecuted an Assu#ance !he#e he stated that he

!as the la!"e# of Ramon /ee and &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue.

1he 1hird Char'e: 2iolation of ule 4.34

%he complainant alle$ed that the #espondent en$a$ed in unla!ful

conduct conside#in$ his 4no!led$e that &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue !as not a

(ualified beneficia#" unde# Memo#andum No. 889. %he complainant

ave##ed that &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue is not a bona fide#esident of the

p#oclaimed a#eas and does not (ualif" fo# an a!a#d. %hus, the app#oval of

his sales application b" the Committee on A!a#ds amounted to a violation

of the obHectives of P#oclamation No. 801 and Memo#andum No. 889.

%he complainant also alle$ed that the #espondent violated Section

0b'1' of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standa#ds fo# Public fficials

and Emplo"ees o# Republic Act $!$' No. *08< since he en$a$ed in the

p#actice of la!, !ithin the one>"ea# p#ohibition pe#iod, !hen he appea#ed

as a la!"e# fo# Ramon /ee and &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue befo#e the

Committee on A!a#ds.

In his Comment,K0Lthe #espondent claimed that the p#esent complaint is

the thi#d malicious cha#$e filed a$ainst him b" the complainant. %he fi#st

one !as submitted befo#e the &udicial and Ba# Council !hen he !as

nominated as an Associate &ustice of the Sup#eme Cou#t the second

complaint is no! pendin$ !ith the ffice of the mbudsman, fo# alle$ed

violation of Section


38/76

emphasied that the DENR decision is no! final and e)ecuto#". It !as

affi#med b" the ffice of the P#esident, b" the Cou#t of Appeals and b" the

Sup#eme Cou#t.

%he #espondent also advanced the follo!in$ defenses

8' 5e denied the complainants alle$ation that Mi$uel lao told

him complainant' that the #espondent had been o#chest#atin$

to $et the subHect land. %he #espondent a#$ued that this

alle$ation !as !ithout co##obo#ation and !as debun4ed b" the

affidavits of Mi$uel lao and 3#ancisca lao, the

complainants siste#.

1' 5e denied the complainants alle$ation that he offe#ed the

complainant P=2,222.22 fo# the subHect land and that he the

#espondent' had e)e#ted undue p#essu#e and influence on

Mi$uel lao to claim the #i$hts ove# the subHect land. %he

#espondent also denied that he had an ino#dinate inte#est in

the subHect land.


39/76

sufficient as it !as lac4in$ in specificit" and co##obo#ation. %he

DENR decision !as clea# that the complainant had no #i$hts

ove# the subHect land.

%he #espondent additionall" denied violatin$ Rule 8.28 of the Code

of P#ofessional Responsibilit". 5e alle$ed that du#in$ his thi#d te#m as

Con$#essman f#om 899= to 8990, the conflictin$ applications of the

complainant, Mi$uel lao and &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue !e#e not included

in the a$enda fo# delibe#ation of the Committee on A!a#ds.Rathe#, thei#

conflictin$ claims and thei# #espective suppo#tin$ documents !e#e befo#e

the ffice of the Re$ional Di#ecto#, NCR of the DENR. %his office #uled ove#

the conflictin$ claims onl" on Au$ust 1, 1222. %his #ulin$ became the basis

of the decision of the Sec#eta#" of the DENR.

Simila#l", the #espondent cannot be held liable unde# Rule *.21 of

the Code of P#ofessional Responsibilit" since the p#ovision applies to

la!"e#s in the $ove#nment se#vice !ho a#e allo!ed b" la! to en$a$e in

p#ivate la! p#actice and to those !ho, thou$h p#ohibited f#om en$a$in$ in

the p#actice of la!, have f#iends, fo#me# associates and #elatives !ho a#e

in the active p#actice of la!.K:LIn this #e$a#d, the #espondent had al#ead"

completed his thi#d te#m in Con$#ess and his stint in the Committee on

A!a#ds !hen he #ep#esented &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue on Ma" 1+, 8999.

/astl", the #espondent claimed that he cannot be held liable unde#

Rule *.2< of the Code of P#ofessional Responsibilit" since he did not

inte#vene in the disposition of the conflictin$ applications of the

complainant and &oseph &eff#e" Rod#i$ue because the applications !e#e

not submitted to the Committee on A!a#ds !hen he !as still a membe#.

T:e Co5rt/ R5


40/76

Canon * of the Code of P#ofessional Responsibilit" hi$hli$hts the

continuin$ standa#d of ethical conduct to be obse#ved b" $ove#nment

la!"e#s in the discha#$e of thei# official tas4s. In addition to the standa#d

of conduct laid do!n unde# R.A. No. *08< fo# $ove#nment emplo"ees, a

la!"e# in the $ove#nment se#vice is obli$ed to obse#ve the standa#d of

conduct unde# the Code of P#ofessional Responsibilit".

Since public office is a public t#ust, the ethical conduct demanded

upon la!"e#s in the $ove#nment se#vice is mo#e e)actin$ than the

standa#ds fo# those in p#ivate p#actice. /a!"e#s in the $ove#nment se#vice

a#e subHect to constant public sc#utin" unde# no#ms of public

accountabilit". %he" also bea# the heav" bu#den of havin$ to put aside

thei# p#ivate inte#est in favo# of the inte#est of the public thei# p#ivate

activities should not inte#fe#e !ith the discha#$e of thei# official functions.K88L

%he fi#st cha#$e involves a violation of Rule *.21 of the Code of

P#ofessional Responsibilit". It imposes the follo!in$ #est#ictions in the

conduct of a $ove#nment la!"e#

A la!"e# in the $ove#nment se#vice shall not use his

Documents

Ethics Falsifying