2012
2012
2012
In 2012, the Court, sitting En Banc and in division, promulgated the following Decisions, pursuant
to its work of adjudication.
constitutional proscription on double jeopardy, Executive Order (EO) No. 7 issued by President
except on two grounds: (1) grave abuse of discretion Benigno Simeon C. Aquino precluding the grant and
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and/or release of bonuses and allowances to the Board of
(2) where there is a denial of a party’s due process Directors of government-owned and –controlled
rights. corporations (GOCCs) and government financial
institutions and increase of salary rates and new or
GR No. 171701, Republic v v.. Marcos-Manotoc, additional benefits and allowances to GOCC and GFI
February 8, 2012, Second Division employees.
The Supreme Court reinstated the children of the
late President Ferdinand E. Marcos and former First GR No. 151258, Villareal v v.. People; GR No.
Lady Imelda R. Marcos, namely, Ma. Imelda “Imee” 154954, People v
v.. CA; GR No. 155101, Dizon vv..
R. Marcos-Manotoc, Senator Ferdinand “Bongbong” People; GR Nos. 178057 and 178080, Villa v v..
R. Marcos, Jr., and Irene R. Marcos-Araneta, as Escalona, February 1, 2012, Second Division
defendants in the ill-gotten wealth case in connection The Supreme Court modified the offenses of
with the Marcoses’ accumulation of at least P200 several of the accused in the cases involving the
billion and use of the media networks IBC-13, BBC- hazing death of Leonardo “Lenny” Villa in 1991. It
2, and RPN-9 for the family’s personal benefit, among modified the appealed judgment of the Court of
others, now pending before the Sandiganbayan. This Appeals (CA) in GR No. 155101 finding petitioner
even as it found wanting the conduct of the Fidelito Dizon guilty of homicide and that in GR
prosecution of the case by the Presidential No. 154954 finding Antonio Mariano Almeda, Junel
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) and the Anthony Ama, Renato Bantug, Jr., and Vincent
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). Tecson guilty of the crime of slight physical injuries
by instead holding all five guilty beyond reasonable
GR No. 193978, Galicto v v.. Pres. Aquino III, doubt of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
February 28, 2012, En Banc It sentenced each to suffer an indeterminate prison
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed a term of four months and one day of arresto mayor,
petition to nullify and enjoin the implementation of as minimum, to four years and two months of
82 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
4. On the payment of just compensation for (2) Appointments to vacancies resulting from
the homelots to HLI, the Court, by unanimous certain causes (death, resignation, disability or
vote, resolved to amend its July 5, 2011 Decision impeachment) shall only be for the unexpired
and November 22, 2011 Resolution by ordering portion of the term of the predecessor, but such
84 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
Gamboa the privilege of the writ of habeas data. GR No. 183533, In the Matter of the
The Court ruled that Gamboa was unable to Petition for the Writ of Amparo and the
prove through substantial evidence that her Writ of Habeas Data in favor of Francis Saez
inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining v. Arroyo, September 25, 2012, En Banc
private army groups (PAGs) made her and her
supporters susceptible to harassment and to The Court denied with finality the Motion for
increased police surveillance and that the state Reconsideration dated September 26, 2010 filed
interest of dismantling PAGs far outweighs the by petitioner Francis Saez. In denying the MR of
alleged intrusion on the private life of Gamboa, the petitioner, the Court held that the totality of
especially when the collection and forwarding by the evidence presented by the petitioner failed to
the PNP of information against her was pursuant support his claims, therefore, the reliefs prayed
to a lawful mandate. for cannot be granted. The Court added that the
liberality accorded to amparo and habeas data
GR Nos. 177857-58, COCOFED v v.. Republic; GR cases does not mean that a claimant is dispensed
No. 178193, Ursua v
v.. Republic, September 4, 2012, with the onus of proving his case.
En Banc
GR No. 199082, Arroyo v
v.. DOJ; GR No. 199085,
The Court denied with finality the petitioners’ Abalos v
v.. De Lima; GR No. 1991 18: Arroyo v
199118: v..
Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of the COMELEC; September 18, 2012, En Banc
Court dated January 24, 2012. The Court further The Court dismissed the three consolidated
clarified that the 753,848,312 SMC Series 1 preferred petitions and supplemental petitions for Certiorari
shares of the CIIF companies converted from the CIIF and Prohibition assailing the following: (1)
block of SMC shares, with all the dividend earnings Commission on Elections (Comelec) Resolution No.
as well as all increments arising from, but not limited 9266 “In the Matter of the Commission on
to, the exercise of preemptive rights subject of the Elections and Department of Justice Joint
September 17, 2009 Resolution, shall now be the Investigation on the Alleged Election Offenses
subject matter of the January 24, 2012 Decision and Committed during the 2004 and 2007 Elections
shall be declared owned by the Government and be Pursuant to Law” dated August 2, 2011; (2) Joint
used only for the benefit of all coconut farmers and Order No. 001- 2011 (Joint Order) “Creating and
for the development of the coconut industry. Constituting a Joint DOJ-Comelec Preliminary
Investigation Committee [Joint Committee] and
GR No. 196231, Gonzales III v v.. Office of the Fact-Finding Team on the 2004 and 2007 National
President ; GR No. 196232, Barreras-Sulit v v.. Elections Electoral Fraud and Manipulation
Executive Secretary, September 4, 2012, En Banc Cases” dated August 15, 2011; (3) Rules of
Procedure on the Conduct of Preliminary
The Court unanimously ordered the Investigation on the Alleged Election Fraud in the
reinstatement with backwages of Deputy 2004 and 2007 National Elections (Joint
Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Committee Rules of Procedure) dated August 23,
Enforcement Office Emilio A. Gonzales III who was 2011; (4) Initial Report of the Fact-Finding Team
dismissed by the Office of the President for gross dated October 20, 2011; and (5) the validity of the
neglect of duty and grave misconduct relative to the proceedings undertaken pursuant to the aforesaid
case of the dismissed policeman who perpetrated the issuances.
2010 Manila hostage-drama which had left eight
Hong Kong tourists dead. The Court held that petitioners failed to establish
any constitutional or legal impediment to the
GR No. 180050, Navarro v
v.. Executive Secretary creation of the Joint DOJ-COMELEC Preliminary
Ermita, September 11, 2012, (Min. Res.), En Banc
11, Investigation Committee and Fact-Finding Team
The Court declared valid and constitutional RA given that the Joint Committee and Fact-Finding
9355, the law creating the province of Dinagat Team perform functions that COMELEC and DOJ
Islands, the proclamation of the said province, and already perform by virtue of the Constitution, the
upheld the election of the officials thereof. The Court statutes, and the Rules of Court.
had also declared valid the provision in Article 9 (2)
of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local GR No. 176579, Gamboa vv.. Secretary Teves,
Teves
Government Code (LGC) of 1991, which provides, October 9, 2012, En Banc
“The land area requirement shall not apply where The Supreme Court, voting 10-3, has denied
the proposed province is composed of one (1) or with finality the motions for reconsideration of
more islands.” its June 28, 2011 decision that directed the
2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 87
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) actually resides at the time of the commission of
to investigate the Philippine Long Distance the offense, while the last sentence of the second
Telephone Co. (PLDT) for possible violation paragraph of Section 10 holds the corporate
of the constitutional limit on foreign directors, officers, and partners of recruitment and
ownership in utilities. placement agencies jointly and solidarily liable for
money claims and damages that may be adjudged
GR No. 189754, Bautista v v.. Cuneta- against the agencies.
Pangilinan, October 24, 2012, Third Division
GR No. 178789, Lim v. NPC, November 14,
The Court ordered the reinstatement of the
2012, Third Division
portion of the order of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) in Mandaluyong, Branch 212, which The Court unanimously held that both the
dismissed the libel suits filed by singer-actress Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen,
Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan against petitioners Pangasinan (Branch 37) and the Court of Appeals
Lito Bautista and Jimmy Alcantara for the did not gravely abuse their discretion when both
alleged defamatory articles against her published courts ruled against the striking out of the motion
in the tabloid Bandera. for judgment by default filed by private respondent
Roberto and Arabela Arcinue against petitioner
GR No. 192221, Dela Cruz v
v.. COMELEC, Natividad Lim for failure of the Arcinues to submit
November 13, 2012, En Banc the required explanation for resorting to service
by registered mail rather than personal service.
The Court unanimously declared null and
void COMELEC Resolution No. 8844 insofar as
GR No. 183026, Padalhin v. Laviña ,
it orders that the votes cast for candidates listed
November 14, 2012, First Division
therein, who were declared nuisance candidates
and whose certificates of candidacy have been The Court affirmed the award of P700,000.00
either cancelled or set aside, be considered in damages by the Court of Appeals (CA) to the
stray. The Court held that the votes cast for former Philippine Ambassador to Kenya Nelson
Aurelio N. Dela Cruz during the elections of Laviña against former Consul General to Kenya,
May 2012 should have been counted in favor of Nestor Padalhin and his wife, Annie.
Casimira S. Dela Cruz and not considered
stray votes. GR No.178607, Jimenez v. Sorongon ,
December 5, 2012, En Banc
GR No. 152642, Sto. Tomas v. Salac; GR No. The Court denied Dante Jimenez’s appeal in
152710, Sto. Tomas v. Paneda I ; GR No. estafa case as the petitioner, in his capacity as the
167590, Philippines v. PASEI; GR No. 182978- President of Unlad Shipping & Management
79, Becmen Service Exporter and Promotion, Corporation, has no legal personality to assail the
Inc. v. Spouses Cuaresma, & GR No. 184298- dismissal of the criminal case since the main issue
99, Spouses Cuaresma v. White Falcon Services, raised by the petitioner involved the criminal
Inc., November 13, 2012, En Banc aspect of the case and did not appeal to protect
his alleged pecuniary interest as an offended party
The Court upheld certain provisions of RA of the crime, but to cause the reinstatement of the
8042 (Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos criminal action against the respondents which
Act of 1995 ), reversing the ruling of the involves the right to prosecute which pertains
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Manila, which exclusively to the People, as represented by the
declared the same unconstitutional. OSG.
Setting aside the December 8, 2004 decision
of the Manila RTC, the Court declared sections RULE-MAKING
6, 7, and 9 and the last sentence of the second Article VIII, Section 5(5) of the 1987
paragraph of Section 10 of RA 8042 as valid and Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power
constitutional. Section 6 defines the crime of to make rules “concerning the protection and
“illegal recruitment” and enumerates the acts enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
constituting the same, while Section 7 provides practice and procedure in all courts, the admission
the penalties for prohibited acts. Section 9 to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
allowed the filing of criminal actions arising assistance to the underprivileged.”
from “illegal recruitment” before the RTC of the
province or city where the offense was In 2012, the Court continued to exercise its rule
committed or where the offended party making power by promulgating the following:
88 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) of all Appeals for the Justices; and the Court
justices and judges of the judiciary, as follows: Administrator for the judges of various trial
courts) shall preliminarily determine if the
1. All requests shall be filed with the Office of requests are not covered by the limitations and
the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, the prohibitions provided in RA 6713 and its
Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court implementing rules and regulations, and in
Office of the Court Administrator; and for accordance with the aforecited guidelines.
attached agencies, with their respective heads Thereafter, the Clerk of Court shall refer the
of offices. matter pertaining to Justices to the Court En
Banc for final determination.
2. Requests shall cover only copies of the latest
SALN, Personal Data Sheet (PDS) and curriculum 7. AM No. 12-7-1-SC, Re: Decisions/
vitae (CV) of the members, officials, and employees Resolutions for Uploading to the SC
of the judiciary, and may cover only previous records Website , July 10, 2012)
if so specifically requested and considered as This details the procedure by which the
justified, as determined by the officials Court’s decisions and resolutions are to be
mentioned in par. 1 above, under the terms of uploaded to its website.
these guidelines and the Implementing Rules
and Regulations of RA 6713. With regard to signed decisions and signed
resolutions, the procedure set forth in Rule 141
3. In the case of requests for copies of SALN of
the justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of 1
Rule 14. RULE IN HANDLING AND
Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax TION OF DECISIONS AND
DISSEMINATION
DISSEMINA
Appeals, the authority to disclose shall be made RESOLUTIONS
by the Court En Banc.
Section 1.
4. Every request shall explain the requesting PROMULGATION.
party’s specific purpose and their individual – A decision or resolution shall deemed
interests sought to be served; shall state the promulgated on the date it is received and
commitment that the request shall only be for the acknowledged by the Clerk of Court or Division
stated purpose; and shall be submitted in a duly Clerk of Court from the Office of the Chief
accomplished request form secured from the SC Justice or the Division Chairperson.
website. The use of the information secured shall
only be for the stated purpose. Section 2.
REPORT OF PROMULGATION.
5. In the case of requesting individuals other
– Within twenty-four hours from the
than members of the media, their interests should
promulgatio
go beyond pure or mere curiosity.
n of a decision or resolution, the Clerk of Court
or the Division Clerk of Court shall formally
6. In the case of the members of the media, the
inform the Chief Justice or the Division
request shall additionally be supported by of Tax
Chairperson of such promulgation.
Appeals; for the lower courts, with the proof under
oath of their media affiliation and by a similar
Section 3.
certification of the accreditation of their respective
ELECTRONIC DISSEMINATION OF
organizations as legitimate media practitioners.
DECISION OR RESOLUTION.
7. The requesting party, whether as individuals – Upon receipt of the report of promulgation,
or as members of the media, must have no the Chief Justice shall direct the Chief Justice’s
derogatory record of having misused any Staff Head to deliver immediately the magnetic
requested information previously furnished to or electronic copy of the decision or resolution
them. to the Management Information Systems Office
(MISO).
The requesting parties shall complete their
requests in accordance with these guidelines. The Section 4.
custodians of these documents (the respective RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MISO.
Clerks of Court of the Supreme Court, Court of – Upon receipt of a copy of a promulgated
Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax decision or resolution, the MISO shall
2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 91
(a) log the date and time of receipt; that shall be collated and bound on a monthly
basis, and (b) be responsible for the updated
(b) format the decision or resolution in such a publication of the Philippine Reports.
way as to make it readable on the Supreme
Court website; Section 7.
PUBLICATION
(c) scan any handwri
OF DECISIONS AND RESOLUTIONS.
tten notes on the signature page, such as “In
the result,” and include signature page with – A decision and signed resolution of the
the same handwritten notes for posting; Court shall be published in the Philippine
Reports, with the synopsis and syllabus
(d) take note of any typographical error in the
prepared by the Office of the Reporter. Other
magnetic or electronic file of the decision or
decisions and signed resolutions not so
resolution, and immediately br
published may also be published in the
ing it to the attention of the writer of the
Philippine Reports in the form of memoranda
decision or resolution, or the Chief Justice
prepared by the Office of the Reporter. The
in case of a per curiam decision or when the
Public Information (PIO) may choose and
writer has ceased to serve the Court;
submit significant decisions and resolutions
(e) immediately furnish the Library with soft for publication in the Official Gazette of the
copies of all decisions and resolutio Internal Rules of the Supreme Court relative
ns for archival purposes. to the submission, promulgation, release and
Section 5. electronic dissemination of such decisions and
SERVICE AND DISSEMINATION OF resolutions.
DECISIONS AND SIGNED RESOLUTIONS.
8. 12-7-15-SC, Re: Recommendation of
– The Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra,
Court shall see to the service of authenticated Director IV and Acting Chief, Public
copies of the promulgated decision or signed Information Office, to Remove or Modify
resolution upon the parties in accordance with the Decisions Posted in the SC Website
the provisions of the Rules of Court. The Clerk Involving Cases of Violence Against Women
of Court of the Division Clerk of Court shall and Their Children , September 4, 2012)
also immediately provide hard copies of the
same to the Public Information Office, Office In keeping with the states’ policy of affording
of the Court Administrator, Office of the Chief special protection to women and children victims of
Attorney, Philippine Judicial Academy, and the violence and child abuse, the Supreme Court
Library. promulgated these Guidelines which cover the
retroactive application of the provisions of
Section 6. confidentiality under RA 9262 (The Anti-Violence
SAFEKEEPING OF ORIGINAL HARD COPY Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) and
OF DECISION AND DRAFTING OF of other laws in cases involving sexually-related
SYLLABUS OF EACH PROMULGATED crimes uploaded in its website.
DECISION.
– As soon as hard copies of the decision or The Guidelines mandate the modification of
resolution shall have been served on the parties decisions under RA 9262, RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking
and disseminated in accordance with these in Persons Act of 2003), and cases where the
Rules, the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk confidentiality of court proceedings and the identity
of Court shall deliver to the Office of the of the parties involved are mandated by law and by
Reporter (a) the original hard copy of each the rules in order to protect the privacy and the
signed decision or resolution for safekeeping, dignity of the victims and their relatives. The
and (b) a reproduction of such hard copy for modification of covered decisions shall only be made
the preparation of the concise synopsis and in the part of the official website of the Court openly
syllabus of each decision or resolution duly accessible to the public, and shall extend only to
approved by the writer of the decision or by those published in the Supreme Court’s website
the Chief Justice if the writer has retired or is beginning 1996, the year of the earliest Supreme
no longer in the judicial service, prior to Court decisions uploaded and made publicly
publication in the Philippine Reports. The accessible in the Court’s website.
Office of the Reporter shall (a) see to the Under the Guidelines, the modification of the
secured safekeeping of original decisions decisions shall extend to (a) the withholding of the
92 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
names of the women and child victims in covered judgment debt from a case pending against
decisions and the use of fictitious initials instead; him.
and (b) the non-disclosure of their personal
circumstances or any other information tending to In Medina v. Canoy (AM No. RTJ-11-2298,
identify them or disclose their identities, including February 22, 2012), A judge who resolved a
the names and information of their immediate litigant’s Motion to Dismiss after more than a
family and household members, from which data year, and only after the filing of an
the identities of the victims can be inferred. administrative case against him for such
inaction, was fined P30,000, with the Court
DISCIPLINE ruling that the judge’s misdemeanor “is not only
Pursuant to its power of supervision over a blatant transgression of the Constitution but
the Integrated Bar and administrative also of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which
supervision over all courts and court personnel, enshrines the significant duty of magistrates to
the Court, in 2012, continued to ensure that the decide cases promptly.”
Judiciary is rid of court officials and employees
whose conduct and incompetence undermine In Del Rosario v. Pascua (AM No. P-11-2999,
the people’s faith in the judiciary, emphasizing February 27, 2012), the Court imposed a penalty
that “those charged with the dispensation of of suspension for three months without pay on a
justice, from the justices and judges to the court stenographer from Isabela who travelled to
lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with Hong Kong from June 1 to June 6, 2008 without
the heavy burden of responsibility. Not only securing a travel authority from the Supreme
must their conduct at all times be characterized Court and without stating in her leave application
by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it her foreign travel.
must be beyond suspicion.”
In Dela Cruz v. Malunao (AM No. P-11-3019,
In Concerned Citizen v. Abad (AM No. P-11- March 20, 2012), a Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya RTC
2907, January 31, 2012), a court stenographer Clerk III was dismissed after she solicited P35,000
was dismissed from service by the Supreme and received P15,000 in exchange for a favorable
Court En Banc for asserting that she personally decision in a civil case pending before her branch.
took her Civil Service Sub-Professional The Court found that the said clerk had “the
Examination when in fact somebody else took propensity to abuse a position of public service and
the said qualifying examination for her, as is not fit to remain in the civil service” after she
evidenced by the difference between the continued to solicit money from litigants even after
picture on her Personal Data Sheet and that on she had been preventively suspended.
the Picture Seat Plan during the examination
as well of the variance in her signatures on the In Office of the Court Administrator v. Indar
two documents. (AM No. RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012), the High
Court imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal
In Judge Dayaon v. De Leon (AM No. P-11- from service and disbarment on a judge from the
2926, February 1, 2012), a court stenographer Cotabato City and Maguindanao Regional Trial
of the Macabebe, Pampanga Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) for issuing decisions that voided
Court (RTC) was found guilty of habitual marital unions without conducting any judicial
absenteeism and was thus suspended from work proceedings. “Such malfeasance not only makes
for one month after she incurred unauthorized a mockery of marriage and its life-changing
absences for three consecutive months in the consequences but likewise grossly violates the
year 2010. basic norms of truth, justice, and due process,”
stressed the Court.
In Campos v. Campos (AM No. MTJ-10-1761,
February 8, 2012), a former Agusan Del Sur In Judge Santos v. Mangahas (AM No. P-09-
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) judge was found 2720, April 17, 2012), the Court forfeited the
guilty of simple misconduct, which it defined retirement benefits of a court stenographer from
as a transgression of some established rule of Angat, Bulacan Municipal Trial Court (MTC)
action, an unlawful behavior, or negligence who resigned from service after an
committed by a public officer, and fined him in administrative complaint was filed against her.
the amount of P20,000 after he registered under The Court found the stenographer guilty of
his son’s name the land belonging to him, to grave misconduct after she was found to have
shield the said property from a possible shouted at the complainant judge within the
2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 93
court premises, reported the complainant In Comilang v. Judge Arnaldo (AM No. RTJ-
judge to the police after she was reprimanded 10-2216, June 26, 2012), the Court ordered the
for her solicitation, and refused to talk with dismissal from service of a Calamba City
complainant judge during a staff meeting. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge who, in
Court said: “High-strung and belligerent complete disobedience to a writ of preliminary
behavior has no place in government service injunction issued by the Court of Appeals (CA),
where the personnel are enjoined to act with required a state prosecutor to explain his non-
self-restraint and civility at all times even filing of a supersedeas bond, issued subpoenas
when confronted with rudeness and insolence.” to compel his attendance before court hearings
relative to the contempt proceedings, and
In Luarca v. Judge Molato (AM No. MTJ-08- ultimately found the said prosecutor guilty of
1711, April 23, 2012), a judge who agreed to indirect contempt for his non-compliance with
serve as one of the bank signatories of a the issued subpoenas.
corporation of which his wife was the
president, even if he may not have performed In Ramos v. Teves (AM No. P-12-3061, June 27,
such service for the corporation, was 2012), the Court suspended a “discourteous” clerk
reprimanded by the Supreme Court for of court for 30 days after he stubbornly refused
violation of Administrative Circular 5 which to receive a counsel’s motion despite the latter’s
prohibits public officials from performing or explanation, as a lawyer, that a copy of the same
agreeing to perform functions or services did not have to be served on the defendant. The
outside of their official functions for the reason Court held: “Unless specifically provided by the
that the entire time of the officials and rules, clerks of court have no authority to pass
employees of the judiciary shall be devoted to upon the substantive or formal correctness of
their official work to ensure the efficient and pleadings and motions that parties file with the
speedy administration of justice. court.”
In Jallorina v. Taneo-Regner (AM No. P-11- In Katague v. Ledesma (AM No. P-12-3067, July
2948, April 23, 2012), a data entry machine 4, 2012), the Court, emphasizing that the failure
operator from the San Mateo, Rizal RTC was of a sheriff to make periodic reports on the status
found guilty of disgraceful and immoral of a writ of execution warrants administrative
conduct, and was meted the penalty of liability, imposed the penalty of 15-day suspension
suspension from service for six months and one without pay on a Sheriff IV for simple neglect of
day for maintaining an illicit affair with a duty, after the latter failed to submit periodic
married Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. reports and to make a return of the Writ of
Execution in accordance with the Rules of Court.
In OAS-OCA v. Gareza (AM No. P-12-3058,
Leave Division, April 25, 2012), a sheriff from In Lambayong Teachers and Employees
the Victorias City, Negros Occidental Cooperative v. Diaz (AM No. P-06-2246, July 11,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) who 2012), another sheriff was fined in the amount
incurred tardiness for a total of 73 times from equivalent to his salary for three months after he
January 2009 to January 2010 was suspended received P1,500 from a lawyer, and P136.96 from
from service for 30 days. a litigant, for the expenses to be incurred in the
execution of three writs in a case for collection of
In Office of the Court Administrator v. sum of money, without first making an estimate
Kasilag (AM No. P-08-2573, June 19, 2012), the and securing prior approval from the Municipal
Supreme Court found a Manila Regional Trial Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The sheriff also
Court (RTC) sheriff guilty of falsification of failed to render accounting after the execution
official document and dishonesty based on of the said writs.
substantial evidence that the sheriff falsified
his Daily Time Record (DTR) for February In Judge Adlawan v. Capilitan (AM No. P-12-
2004, where the superimpositions on his time 3080 , August 29, 2012), for disgraceful and
entries were apparent. The DTR showed that immoral conduct, a court stenographer was
the original entries had been erased and suspended from service for six months and one
replaced instead with time entries showing day after she got impregnated by a man who was
that the personnel reported for work on the married to another woman.
days he previously took a leave of absence for.
The Court stressed that falsification of a DTR In Uy v. Javellana (AM No. MTJ-07-1666,
by a court personnel is a grave offense. September 5, 2012), a Negros Occidental judge
94 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
who, among others, issued a warrant of arrest or annulled, or those who want to be legally
for the accused in a criminal case even if the separated” – resulted in the dismissal of its
accused did not fail to appear when required; presiding judge for dishonesty, gross ignorance
conducted a preliminary investigation even of the law and procedure, gross misconduct
when it was not required; and denied a Motion and incompetency; the six-months-and-one-
to Dismiss in a case that was not previously day suspension of its clerk of court for
referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa as inefficiency and incompetency; and the
required by the Rules on Summary Procedure imposition of a P5,000 fine, for simple neglect
was dismissed by the High Court. of duties, on its sheriff, four court
stenographers, court interpreter, and utility
In OCA v. Fontanilla (AM No. P-12-3086, worker.
September 18, 2012), a clerk of court who not only
incurred delay in the remittance of court funds In Casar v. Soluren (AM No. RTJ-12-2333,
in her custody but also incurred shortages October 22, 2012), a P10,000 fine was imposed
amounting to P28,000 was fined in the amount of on judge who went to the Aurora Provincial
P40,000, for grave misconduct. Jail to solicit sympathies from prisoners,
especially those who had pending cases in her
In OCA v. Castillo (AM No. P-10-2805, sala , and persuade them to sign a letter
September 18, 2012), another clerk of court whose addressed to then Chief Justice Renato C.
infidelity in the collection of court funds resulted Corona calling for the dismissal of an
in an accountability amounting to P597,155.10 administrative complaint against her.
was found guilty of gross neglect of duty,
In Viscal Development Corporation v. Dela
dishonesty, and grave misconduct, and was given
Cruz-Buendia (AM No. P-12-3097, November 26,
the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service.
2012), three sheriffs from the Manila RTC were
In Magtibay v. Indar (AM No. RTJ-11-2271, suspended for one month and one day for simple
September 24, 2012), the Court imposed a P20,000 neglect of duty after they failed to make a return
fine on a Cotabato City Regional Trial Court of the writ of execution in a case within the
(RTC) judge, who had been previously dismissed prescribed period to submit periodic reports. The
from service, after he retorted “Huwag mo nang sheriffs also failed to furnish the parties to the
ituloy ang sasabihin mo kumukulo ang dugo sa case copies of the return.
inyo lumayas na kayo marami akong problema”
when he denied the request for documents of the In Vizcayno v. Dacanay (AM No. MTJ-10-
parties to a case pending before his branch. 1772, December 5, 2012), a first-level court judge
who conducted an ocular inspection of a real
In Velasco v. Baterbonia (AM No. P-06-2161, property subject of a forcible entry case pending
September 25, 2012), the Court dismissed a cash in his court, in the presence of the plaintiffs but
clerk from the Alabel, Sarangani Regional Trial without notice to the defendant, was found
Court (RTC) who incurred shortages in the guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest
Judiciary Development Fund, the Special of the service and was ordered to pay a fine of
Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, and the P30,000.
Sheriff ’s Special Fund in her custody, in the total
amount of P231,699.03. The Court also said that Reiterating that “the practice of law is
the cash clerk should be criminally prosecuted considered a privilege bestowed by the State on
for estafa through falsification. “Corruption as those who show that they possessed and
an element of grave misconduct consists in the continue to possess the legal qualifications for
act of an official or employee who unlawfully or it,” the Supreme Court also imposed sanctions
wrongfully uses her station or character to on erring members of the Bar for committing
procure some benefit for herself or for another, various administrative violations.
contrary to the rights of others,” it held.
In Isenhardt v. Real (AC No. 8254, February
In OCA v. Castañeda (AM No. RTJ-12-2316, 15, 2012), the Court, apart from revoking his
October 9, 2012), a judicial audit and physical notarial commission, also disqualified a lawyer
inventory of cases in a branch of the Paniqui, from reappointment as notary public for two
Tarlac Regional Trial Court (RTC) – prompted years and suspended him from the practice of
by reports that the said branch was “fast law for one year for violating his oath as a lawyer
becoming a haven for couples who want their and the Code of Professional Responsibility
marriages to be judicially declared null and void when he made it appear that a complainant in
2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES 95
a civil case personally appeared before him and No. 6332, April 17, 2012),, “It has not escaped
subscribed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) the Court’s attention that respondent Peña has
authorizing her brother to mortgage her manifested a troubling history of praying for the
property, causing the same to be later inhibition of several members of this Court or
foreclosed by the Rural Bank of Antipolo City. for the re-raffle of the case to another Division,
on the basis of groundless and unfounded
In Pelaez v. Awid (AC No. 7572, February 8, accusations of partiality,” lamented the Court,
2012), a lawyer was also suspended from the as it disbarred a lawyer who had “predilection”
practice of law for a period of three months for for seeking the inhibition of 11 Supreme Court
unduly delaying a preliminary investigation in Justices from a case he was representing in an
a case for reckless imprudence against him for apparent bid to shop for a sympathetic ear.
falsely representing to the Quezon City
Prosecutor ’s Office that he had prior In Villatuya v. Tabalingcos (AC No. 6622, July
commitments in another case to secure several 10, 2012), a lawyer was found guilty of gross
hearing postponements, in violation of Rules immorality under the Code of Professional
12.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was disbarred by the Supreme
Responsibility. Court for having committed bigamy by entering
into two marriages while his first marriage was
In Lahm III v. Mayor, Jr. (AC No. 7430 , still subsisting.
February 15, 2012), the Court suspended a
Labor Arbiter from the practice of law for a In Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa (AC No. 7360, July
period of six months for gross ignorance of the 24, 2012), a lawyer’s final conviction of the crime
law and violation of the lawyer’s oath and of of bribery for offering a public prosecutor
the Code of Professional Responsibility for P30,000 in connection with a criminal case
issuing a status quo ante order following a paved the way for his disbarment after the
motion for issuance of a temporary restraining Supreme Court ruled that he was “predisposed
order and/or preliminary injunction in a case to flout the exacting standards of morality and
for illegal dismissal when he did not have the decency required of a member of the Bar.”
authority to do so under the 2005 Rules of
Procedure of the National Labor Relations In Virtusio v. Virtusio (AC No. 6753,
Commission. September 5, 2012), the Court imposed the
penalty of suspension from the practice of law
In Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January for one year on a lawyer and revoked any Notarial
11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, Commission she might have and disqualified her
PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman (AM No. 10- from applying for the same for one year, after it
1-13-SC, March 20, 2012), a lawyer who was was found that the said lawyer notarized two
indefinitely suspended by the Court for grave documents after the expiration of her commission
professional misconduct when he misquoted had expired. The Court held: “A lawyer who
Constitutional provisions in a complaint before notarizes a document without a proper
the Office of the Ombudsman against then Chief commission violates his lawyer’s oath to obey the
Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. and Justice Alicia law. He makes it appear that he is commissioned
Austria-Martinez was allowed by the Court to when he is not. He thus indulges in deliberate
resume his practice after the Court ruled that falsehood that the lawyer’s oath forbids.”
his suspension had already impressed upon him
“the need for care and caution in his In Ventura v. Samson (AC No. 9608, November
representations as an officer of this Court.” 27, 2012), a married lawyer was ordered
disbarred by the Supreme Court for engaging in
In Aniñon v. Sabitsana (AC No. 5098, April sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl, a
11, 2012), a lawyer was suspended from the daughter of his former employee. “In this case,
practice of law for one year for representing one respondent’s gross misbehavior and unrepentant
client against another client in the same action, demeanor clearly shows a serious flaw in his
and for a new engagement that entailed him to character, his moral indifference to sexual
contend and oppose the interest of his other exploitation of a minor, and his outright defiance
client in a property in which his legal services of established norms,” held the Court.
had been previously retained.
The Supreme Court defended its fiscal
In In re: Supreme Court Resolution Dated autonomy as in upheld the validity of in-house
28 April 2003, GR Nos. 145817 and 145822 (AC computation made by the Property Division of
96 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
the Court’s Office of Administrative Services (OAS) on the quality of the evidence; and that his basing
in computing the appraisal value that a retired his plain accusations on hunches and speculations
Chief Justice and four retired Associate Justices of would not suffice to held them administratively
the Supreme Court paid to acquire the government liable for rendering the adverse decision.”
properties they used during their tenure.
Apart from disciplining its own ranks, the
The Court En Banc confirmed that the OAS- Supreme Court recognized that unfounded
Property Division’s use of the formula based on administrative charges against members of the
Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy Group (CFAG) Joint bench degrade the judicial office and interfere
Resolution No. 35 dated April 23, 1997, as directed with the due performance of their work. “Judicial
under the Court Resolution dated March 23, 2004, officers do not have to suffer the brunt of
was legal and valid. “(T)he use of the formula unsuccessful or dissatisfied litigants’ baseless and
provided in CFAG Joint Resolution No. 35 is a part false imputations of their violating the
of the Court’s exercise of its discretionary authority Constitution in resolving their cases and of
to determine the manner the granted retirement harboring bias and partiality towards the adverse
privileges and benefits can be availed of,” said the parties. The litigant who baselessly accuses them
Court. “Any kind of interference on how these of such violations is not immune from appropriate
retirement privileges and benefits are exercised and sanctions if he thereby affronts the administration
availed of violates the fiscal autonomy and of justice and manifests a disrespect towards the
independence of the Judiciary, but also encroaches judicial office.”
upon the constitutional duty and privilege of the
Chief Justice and the Supreme Court En Banc to The Court En Banc likewise dismissed for
manage the Judiciary’s own affairs.” (AM No. 11-7- having become moot and academic the
10-SC, Re: COA Opinion on the Computation of the complaint filed by Inter-Petal Recreational
Appraised Value of the Properties Purchased by the Corporation against former Chief Justice
Retired Chief/Associate Justices of the Supreme Renato C. Corona in view of the Senate
Court, July 31, 2012) Impeachment Court’s May 29, 2012 ruling
finding the former guilty of the charge under
In Re: Verified Complaint of Engr. Oscar Ongjoco Article II of the Articles of Impeachment, with
against CA Justices Enriquez Jr., Bato Jr., and the penalty of removal from office and
Macalino (AM OCA IPI No. 11-184-CA-J, January disqualification to hold any public office as
31, 2012), the Court dismissed outright for utter provided in sec. 3(7), Article XI of the
lack of merit an administrative complaint against Constitution. (AM No. 12-6-10-SC, Re:
three justices of the Court of Appeals (CA). The High Complaint Against the Hon. Chief Justice
Court reminded the complainant that to sustain his Renato C. Corona dated September 14, 2011
allegations of misconduct against the respondent filed by Inter-Petal Recreational Corporation,
Justices, his administrative complaint “must rest June 13, 2012)
COURT PERSONNEL
98 2012 ANNUAL REPORT | SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
LAWYERS