2008 DIGESTS BASCOS VS. RAMIREZ A.M. No. P-08-2418,, January 31, 2008 Facts : Petitioner charges respondent attorney with neglect of duty, arrogance and willful and deliberate violation of circulars of this Court in relation to P.D. 1079, and for several attempts at extortion. The latter failed to raffle judicial and extra-judicial notices and other court processes requiring publication on more than 20 instances, oftentimes showing his partiality to only one publication. The OCA recommended that respondent be fine for P2,000 with a warning. Issue/s: W/N the OCAs recommendation is sufficient. Held/Ratio: NO. Executive judges are required under the P.D. to distribute those notices by raffle for publication to qualified newspapers or periodicals. On the other hand, Resolution No. A.M. 01-01-07-SC dated October 16, 2001 provides for uniform and comprehensive guidelines in the accreditation of newspapers and other periodicals seeking to publish the notices mentioned in P.D. No. 1079 and Circular 5-98 dated January 12, 1998. The distribution of notices for publication by raffle is mandatory and cannot be dispensed with. By failing to include more than twenty foreclosure cases in the raffle, respondent showed a blatant disregard for the procedure enjoined by P.D. No. 1079 and by this Court. Respondents failure to heed the mandate of the law and Supreme Court directives constitutes unjustified and neglectful conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judicial system and the public, and signifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. As a member of the bar, respondent is, moreover, charged with the duty to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. He deserves a penalty higher than that recommended by the OCA. Respondent is GUILTY of dereliction of duty, gross neglect, insubordination and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is ordered to pay a FINE of P20,000 with a WARNING. CONCIO VS. DOJ G.R. No. 175057, January 29, 2008 Facts : In light of the Wowowee Ultra tragedy, the DOJ, acting on a recommendation of the NBI based on complaints, formed an investigating panel of prosecutors to find probable cause to indict petitioners. Petitioners point out that they cannot be compelled to submit their counteraffidavits because the NBI-NCR Report, which they advert to as the complaint-affidavit, was not under oath. These affidavits, petitioners further point out, nonetheless do not qualify as a complaint within the scope of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court as the allegations therein are insufficient to initiate a preliminary investigation, there being no statement of specific and individual acts or omissions constituting reckless imprudence. Issue/s: W/N respondent committed grave abuse of discretion in proceeding with the preliminary investigation given the fatal defects in the supposed complaint. Held/Ratio: NO. A complaint for purposes of conducting a preliminary investigation differs from a complaint for purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution. The former is conducted precisely to elicit further facts or evidence. Being generally inquisitorial, the preliminary investigation stage is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the preparation of a complaint or information.
ESPINA vs CERUJANO, et. al. G.R. No. 149377, March 25, 2008. (This case is in Spanish, couldnt find an English version. So I found this digest instead among those uploaded sa acads yahoogroup) Facts : Jesus Clarito Espina, a Prosecutor of the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Lao-ang, Northern Samar, filed a motion to dismiss a criminal case for robbery in band with multiple homicide on the ground that the Anti-Subversion Law had been repealed. The trial court granted petitioners motion. The decision in the said criminal case had already been final and executory. Miguel Cerujano, et. al. filed an administrative complaint for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against petitioner before the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Secretary of Justice later formally charged petitioner with conduct grossly prejudicial to the [best] interest of the service. Then President Joseph Estrada issued Administrative Order No. 62 dismissing petitioner from the service. The Court of Appeals (CA), upon a petition for review filed by Espina, ruled that Espina was actually found guilty of grave misconduct. Issue/s: WHETHER Espina was guilty of grave misconduct Held/Ratio: NO. Espina is guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
A basic requirement of due process is that a person must be duly informed of the charges against him and that a person can not be convicted of a crime which he was not charged. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in investigations and hearings. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. Espina cannot be held liable for grave misconduct under a charge of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service does not necessarily include the elements of grave misconduct. The word gross connotes something beyond measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful while prejudicial means detrimental or derogatory to a party; naturally, probably or actually bringing about a wrong result. Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service may or may not be characterized by corruption or a willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules. Under the Civil Service law and rules, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute the grave offense of conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, although this Court has considered the following
Tuldague in turn charged Judge Pardo for having disregarded procedures and committed impropriety when he ordered the civil docket clerk of his sala (Branch 31) to get the records of a land registration case directly from the Office of the Clerk of Court without the benefit of raffle. Subsequently, Tuldague wrote a letter to Pardo stating: I hope you will realize that your line of thinking is not to my detriment but to the damage and prejudice of court users. If you want to make the issue big, then you can bring this small matter up to the Supreme Court again and I'm willing and ready to answer. From now on, I will be forwarding to your office all Petitions for Extra-Judicial Foreclosure so you can always be present and conduct the raffle yourself. I'm doing this in the interest of service and so as not to prejudice innocent court users who have nothing to do with the legal controversy and friction between us. Issue/s: WHETHER Tuldague should be held liable for the charges filed against him Held/Ratio: YES. Tuldague is guilty of violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 7-2002 and be should be reprimanded for such violation. Tuldague is additionally guilty of gross discourtesy in the course of official duties under Rule IV, Section 52 (B) (3) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for failure to accord respect for the person and rights of the Judge. The belligerence he showed to Pardo, reflected in his above-quoted letter - a case of res ipsa loquitur - betrays his below-par conduct as a court employee. As held in the case of Amane v. Atty. Mendoza-Arce, 376 Phil. 575 (1999): an employee of the judiciary is expected to accord respect
BONDAGJY VS. ARTADI GR NO. 2170406, August 11, 2008 Facts : February 4, 1988 Petitioner and respondent were married in accordance with Islamic Law March 1996 Respondent filed a complaint for divorce by faskh before the Third Shari'a Circuit Court at Isabela, Basilan, alleging as ground petitioner's neglect or failure to provide support since October 1994. The Sharia Court dismissed respondents complaint as well as her motion for reconsideration, which became final and executory. March 20, 1998 respondent filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, custody and support before the RTC but was dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction over the persons of the parties, they being Muslims at the time of the marriage, and res judicata in view of the dismissal order of the Third Shari'a Circuit Court. February 7, 2005 respondent filed another petition for divorce by faskh before the Second Shari'a Circuit Court at Marawi City on the grounds of neglect and failure of petitioner to provide support and to perform his marital obligations. The court dimissed respondents petition on the ground of res judicata and failure to comply with the rule on forum shopping. On respondents appeal to the Fourth Shari'a Judicial District Court, the latter ruled that res judicata does not apply in the case at bar since respondent may have new evidence to prove that she is indeed entitled to divorce.
Issue/s: W/N the Fourth Sharia District Court erred in reversing the findings of the Second Sharia Circuit Court that a) the case is barred by prior judgement or res judicata, which was decided with finality involving the same parties and issues and b) non-compliance with the rule on certification against forum shopping. Held/Ratio: NO. (a) For res judicata to bar the institution of a subsequent action, the following requisites must concur: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) the judgment or order must be on the merits; (3) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; and (4) there must be, as between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action. The presence of the first three requisites is not disputed. It is with respect to the presence of the fourth requisite - that there is identity of causes of action in SCC Case No. 541 and Civil Case No. 2005-111 - that the decision of the present petition hinges. The Court finds no such identity of causes of action. The test of identity of causes of action lies not in the form of an action but on whether the same evidence would support and establish the former and present causes of action. If the same evidence would sustain both actions, they are considered the same and covered by the rule that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action. The Court finds that the causes of action are based on different periods during which petitioner allegedly neglected or failed to support his family and perform his marital obligations.
MEDIAN CONTAINER CORPORATION VS. METROPOLITAN BANK GR NO. 166904, August 11, 2008 Facts : Respondent filed a complaint for sum of money against petitioner for failure to settle the amount of more than P5,000,000 representing the outstanding balance of loans contracted by MCC. Petitioner questions the certificate of non-forum shopping filed by respodent which was signed by a certain Atty. Alexander P. Mendoza on May 28, 2003. Petitioner claims that Atty. Mendoza was only given authority to execute the certificate only on June 3, 2003. The trial and appellate court denied petitioners motion to dismiss. Issue/s: W/N respondent failed to comply with the proper procedure on the verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Held/Ratio: NO. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement. It is simply intended to secure an assurance that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. That explains why a court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified, if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the rules may be dispensed with in order to serve the ends of justice. As for the required certification against forum shopping, failure to comply therewith is generally not curable by its submission subsequent to the filing of the petition nor by amendment, and is cause for its dismissal. A certification against forum shopping signed by a person on behalf of a corporation which
As for the omission by respondent to include in the certification the dismissal of the annulment case she filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa City, it is not fatal. An omission in the certificate of non-forum shopping about any event that would not constitute res judicata and litis pendencia is not fatal as to merit the dismissal and nullification of the entire proceedings, given that the evils sought to be prevented by the said certification are not present.
Issue/s: W/N respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility for filing a malicious, false and untruthful complaint. Held/Ratio: YES. respondent violated the proscription of the Code of Professional Responsibility against "wittingly or willingly promot[ing] or su[ing] any groundless suit" including baseless administrative complaints against judges and other court officers and employees he violated Canons 10, 11, & 12 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility under his oath of office Respondent ought to be aware that if a court official or employee or a lawyer is to be disciplined, the evidence against him should be substantial, competent and derived from direct knowledge, not on mere allegations, conjectures, suppositions, or on the basis of hearsay. Respondent is fined P5000 with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar questioned act will be dealt with more severely
CERVANTES VS. SABIO A.C. 7828, August 8, 2008 Facts : In another case, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for allegedly accepting bribes from ExtraOrdinary Development Corporation (EDC), a company involved in an edjectment case against respondents clients. The case against petitioner judge was dismissed for lack of merit for being based on unfounded suspicion. Petitioner then filed a disbarment case against respondent.
A.M.
Facts : Petitioner filed an anonymous complaint against respondent judge for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law for issuing a TRO and injunction despite the clear proscription of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1818 and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8975 and this Court's Administrative Circular No. 11-2000 of November 13, 2000 against the issuance of TROs and writs of injunction on government
which may substantiate said allegations; or (3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity. While the copy of the Motion which complainants furnished the OCA was unverified as were their subsequent letters, the OCA correctly treated them as anonymous complaint. The Court has, on several occasions, been entertaining complaints of this nature especially where respondents admitted the material allegations of the complainants as in respondent's case. Anonymous complaints, as a rule, are received with caution. They should not be dismissed outright, however, where their averments may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence. Here, the motion and letters sufficiently averred the specific acts upon which respondent's alleged administrative liability was anchored. And the averments are verifiable from the records of the trial court and the CA's Decision. (2) YES. Respondent's retirement in the interim does not per se warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint. The Court finds that, indeed, respondent is liable for gross misconduct. As the CA explained, respondent failed to heed the mandatory ban imposed by P.D. No. 1818 and R.A. No. 8975 against a government infrastructure project, which the rural electrification project certainly was. He thereby likewise obstinately disregarded this Court's various circulars enjoining courts from issuing TROs and injunctions against government infrastructure projects in line with the proscription under R.A. No. 8975. The questioned acts of respondent also constitute gross
Under the above-quoted Rule, there are three ways by which administrative proceedings against judges may be instituted: (1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court; (2) upon verified complaint with affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents
CAMCAM VS. CA GR NO. 142977, September 30, 2008 Issue/s: W/N an irregular notarization of a deed renders it null and void. Held/Ratio: NO. An irregular notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of a document to that of a private document, which requires proof of its due execution and authenticity to be admissible as evidence. The irregular notarization - or, for that matter, the lack of notarization does not thus necessarily affect the validity of the contract reflected in the document. Tigno v. Aquino enlightens: x x x [F]rom a civil law perspective, the absence of notarization of the Deed of Sale would not necessarily invalidate the transaction evidenced therein. Article 1358 of the Civil Code requires that the form of a contract that transmits or extinguishes real rights over immovable property should be in a public document, yet it is also an accepted rule that the failure to observe the proper form does not render the transaction invalid. Thus, it has been uniformly held that the form required in Article 1358 is not essential to the validity or enforceability of the transaction, but required merely for convenience. We have even affirmed that a sale of real property though not consigned in