Santiago III vs Enriquez, Jr.

A.M. No. CA-09-47-J February 13,

2009
Carpio Morales, J:
COMPLAINANT: Genaro Santiago III
RESPONDENT:
Justice
Juan
Q.
Enriquez, Jr.
~ Chairperson, 13th Division,
Court of Appeals
FACTS:
Santiago filed before RTC of QC a
Petition
for
Reconstitution
of
Lost/Destroyed Original Certificate
of Title No. 56, registered in the
name of Pantaleon Santiago and
Blas Fajardo.
RTC granted the petition. Rep. of
the Phils. through OSG appealed the
decision of CA.
The case was raffled to Justice
Gonzales-Sision of the appellate
courts 13th Division of which
respondent was Chairperson.
On July 11, 2007, Justice GonzalesSison submitted her Report which
was used as basis for the Divisions
consultation and deliberation.
On July 18, 2007, by letter
addressed to Justice Gonzales-Sison
and Justice Veloso, respondent
expressed his dissent from the
report.
Justice
Veloso
who
originally
concurred in the report, requested
Justice Gonzales-Sison to take a
second look at the dissenting
opinion as the reasons Justice
Enriquez gave are strong enough to
be ignored by plain technicality.
In view of his dissent, respondent
requested the Raffle Committee of

the CA to designate 2 associate

justices
to
complete
the
composition of Special Division of
five
(5).
Raffle
Committee
designated Justice Cruz and Justice
Bersamin.
Justice Veloso and Justice Cruz
concurred in the dissenting opinion
of Justice Enriquez and Justice
Bersamin concurred with Justice
Gonzales-Sisons Report.
Respondents Dissenting Opinion
thus became the majority opinion of
the Special Division and the Reportopinion of Justice Gonzales-Sison
became the Dissenting Opinion.
The Decision of the Special Division
reversed and set aside the decision
of RTC. Complainant then filed a
motion for reconsideration. And
while said motion is pending,
Santiago filed the present complaint
which
is
a
Motion
for
Disqualification and/or Inhibition
pursuant to Par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule 137.
The appellate court denied the
motion.
HELD:
That Cases cited to support a
Decision are not applicable, and the
appreciation of evidence and facts
is erroneous, do not necessarily
warrant
the
filing
of
an
administrative complaint against a
judge, unless the decision is tainted
with fraud, malice or dishonesty or
with deliberate intent to cause
injustice.
An administrative complaint is not
an appropriate remedy where
judicial recourse is still available
unless the assailed order or

decision is tainted with fraud,

malice, or dishonest.
The failure to interpret the law or to
properly appreciate the evidence
presented does not necessarily
render a judge administratively
liable.
There is no showing that the
decision is tainted with fraud,
malice or dishonesty or was
rendered with deliberate intent to
cause injustice. The Complaint must
be dismissed.
The
Principle
of
JUDICIAL
IMMUNITY
~ insulates judges, and even
Justices of superior courts, from
being
held
to
account
criminally,
civilly
or
administratively
for
an
erroneous decision rendered in
good faith. To hold otherwise
would render judicial office
untenable.
This concept of judicial immunity
rests upon consideration of public
policy, its purpose being to preserve
the integrity and independence of
the judiciary.
This principle is of universal
application and applies to all grades
of judicial officers from the highest
judge of the nation and to the
lowest officer who sits as a court.

3-D Industries, Inc vs. Roxas

A.M. No. CA-10-50-J
October 5,
2010
Carpio-Morales, J.:

COMPLAINANT: 3-D Industires, Inc.

and Smartnet Philippines,
Inc.
RESPONDENT: Justices Vicente Q.
Roxas
and
Juan
Q.
Enriquez, Jr.
FACTS:
Smartnets representative Gilbert is
the son of Francisco and Simny
Guy. The Spouses organized the
Northern Islands Co., Inc (NICI)
which
is
engaged
in
the
manufacture, distribution and sale
of various appliances bearing the
trademark 3D. The spouses Guy
also organized Lincoln Continental
as a holding company of 50% of
the 21, 160 shares of Stock of NICI
in trust for their 3 daughters.
(Geraldine, Gladys, Grace)
Finding that their son Gilbert had
been dissipating the assets of
Lincoln Continental, the spouses
Guy caused the registration of 50%
of the 20, 160 shares of stock of
NICI in the names of their 3
daughters thus enabling the latter
to assume active role in the
management of NICI.
Lincoln
Continental
filed
a
complaint at the RTC of Manila
against NICI and the spouses Guy
and 3 daughters for annulment of
the transfer of 50% NICI shares of
stock to Gilberts sister. Br. 46
restored the management of NICI
to Gilbert and issued a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction.
NICI and the Guy Family thereafter
filed a new petition for certiorari
with
application
for
TRO-

preliminary injunction but CAs 8th

Division
enjoined
the
implementation issued by RTC of
Manila Br. 46.
On Nov. 2, 2004, NICI and the Guy
Family filed with CA-Eight Division
and Urgent Omnibus Motion for the
issuance of Break-Open Order. The
motion was granted and the Guy
Family entered the NICI premises.
Smartnet, one of the occupants of
the NICI premises filed a complaint
for forcible entry against NICI and
the Guy Family.
In the meantime, the CA-Eight
Division directed the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction
prayed for by NICI and the Guy
Family.
By resolution of January 24, 2005,
the appellates court 8th Division
issued the questioned resolution
admitting
the
Supplemental
Petition for Certiorari alleging the
continuing forum shopping of
Gilbert by continuing to use
Smartnet as alter ego and dummy
to institute various case in court to
gain control of the properties of
NICI.
By Resolution of April 26, 2005, 8th
Division admitted the Second
Supplemental Petition for Certiorari
and restrained the additionally
impleaded respondents including
Smartnet from disturbing the writ
of preliminary injunction issued but
the 8th Division.
In
the
present
administrative
complaint, complainants allege
that in issuing the assailed

Resolutions dated January 24,

2005, respondent caused undue
injury to them giving the NICI and
Guy Family in the new petition for
Certiorari unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference through
manifest impartiality, evident bad
faith
or
gross
inexcusable
negligence in the discharge of their
judicial functions in violation of
Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
HELD:
Since the impleading of additional
parties, on motion of any party or
motu propio at any stage of the
action and/or such times as are just
allowed, the Court finds that
respondents participation in the
admission of the supplemental
petitions
impleading
herein
complainants as respondents does
not render them administratively
liable.
While respondents may have based
the assailed Resolutions on mere
allegations, this disregarding what
has
been
established
in
jurisprudence that mere allegation
that a corporation is the alter ego
of the individual stockholders is
insufficient, this does not render
them
administratively
liable
because not every error or mistake
that a judge commits in the
performance of his duties renders
him liable, unless he is shown to
have acted in bad faith or with
deliberate intent to do an injustice,
which is not the case here.