Pale FT

[A.C. No. 3405. June 29, 1998]

JULIETA B. NARAG, complainant, vs. ATTY. NARAG, respondent. DECI"I
PER CURIAM#

D !INAD R

!.

N

Good moral character is a continuing qualification required of every member of the bar. Thus, when a lawyer fails to meet the exacting standard of moral integrity, the Supreme Court may withdraw his or her privilege to practice law. On ovember !", !#$#, %rs. &ulieta '. arag filed an administrative complaint (!) for disbarment against her husband, *tty. +ominador %. arag, whom she accused of having violated Canons ! and ,, -ule !..! of the Code of /thics for 0awyers. (1) The complainant narrated2 “The St. 0ouis College of Tuguegarao engaged the services of *tty.

+ominador %. arag in the early seventies as a full3time college instructor in the College of *rts and Sciences and as a professor in the Graduate School. 4n !#$5, %s. Gina /spita, !6 years old and a first year college student, enrolled in sub7ects handled by *tty. arag. /xerting his influence as her teacher, and as a prominent member of the legal profession and then member of the Sangguniang 'ayan of Tuguegarao, *tty. arag courted %s. /spita, gradually lessening her resistance until the student acceded to his wishes. They then maintained an illicit relationship 8nown in various circles in the community, but which they managed to 8eep from me. 4t therefore came as a terrible embar(r)assment to me, with unspea8able grief and pain when my husband abandoned us, his family, to live with %s. /spita, in utterly scandalous circumstances. 4t appears that *tty. arag used his power and influence as a member of the Sangguniang 9anlalawigan of Cagayan to cause the employment of %s. /spita at the +epartment of Trade and 4ndustry Central Office at %a8ati, %etro %anila. Out of gratitude perhaps, for this gesture, %s.

/spita agreed to live with *tty. arag, her sense of right(e)ousness and morals completely corrupted by a member of the 'ar. 4t is now a common 8nowledge in the community that *tty. +ominador %. arag has abandoned us, his family, to live with a 113year3old woman, who was his former student in the tertiary level(.): (")
This Court, in a -esolution dated +ecember !$, !#$#, referred the case to the 4ntegrated 'ar of the 9hilippines ;4'9< for investigation, report and recommendation. (5) On &une 1,, !##., the office of then Chief &ustice %arcelo '. =ernan received from complainant another letter see8ing the dismissal of the administrative complaint. She alleged therein that ;!< she fabricated the allegations in her complaint to humiliate and spite her husband> ;1< all the love letters between the respondent and Gina /spita were forgeries> and ;"< she was suffering from ?emotional confusion arising from extreme 7ealousy.: The truth, she stated, was that her husband had remained a faithful and responsible family man. She further asserted that he had neither entered into an amorous relationship with one Gina /spita nor abandoned his family. (@) Supporting her letter were an *ffidavit of +esistance (,) and a %otion to +ismiss,(6) attached as *nnexes ?*: and ?',: which she filed before the 4'9 commission on bar discipline.($) 4n a +ecision dated October $, !##!, the 4'9 'oard of Governors (#) dismissed the complaint of %rs. arag for failure to prosecute. (!.) The case too8 an unexpected turn when, on ovember 1@, !##!, this Court (!!) received another letter(!1) from the complainant, with her seven children (!") as co3signatories, again appealing for the disbarment of her husband. She explained that she had earlier dropped the case against him because of his continuous threats against her. (!5) 4n his Comment on the complainantAs letter of ovember !!, !##!, filed in compliance with this CourtAs -esolution issued on &uly ,, !##1, (!@) respondent prayed that the decision of the 'oard of Governors be affirmed. +enying that he had threatened, harassed or intimidated his wife, he alleged that she had voluntarily executed her *ffidavit of +esistance (!,) and %otion to +ismiss,(!6) even appearing before the investigating officer, Commissioner -acela, to testify under oath ?that she prepared the %otion to +ismiss and *ffidavit of +esistance on her own free will and affirmed the contents thereof.: 4n addition, he professed his love for his wife and his children and denied abandoning his family to live with his paramour. Bowever, he described his wife as a person emotionally disturbed, viz.: “Chat is pitiable here is the fact that Complainant is an incurably 7ealous

and possessive woman, and every time the strea8 of 7ealousy rears its head, she fires off letters or complaints against her husband in every conceivable forum, all without basis, and purely on impulse, 7ust to satisfy the consuming demands of her DlovingA 7ealousy. Then, as is her nature, a few hours afterwards, when her 7ealousy cools off, she repents and feels sorry for her acts against the -espondent. Thus, when she wrote the

0etter of ovember !!, !##!, she was then in the grips of one of her bouts of 7ealousy.:(!$)
On *ugust 15, !##1, this Court issued another -esolution referring the Comment of respondent to the 4'9.(!#) 4n the hearing before 4'9 Commissioner 9laridel C. &ose, respondent alleged the following2(1.) “1.

Eour -espondent comes from very poor parents who have left him not even a square meter of land, but gave him the best legacy in life2 a purposeful and meaningful education. Complainant comes from what she claims to be very rich parents who value material possession more than education and the higher and nobler aspirations in life. Complainant abhors the poor. ". Eour -espondent has a loving upbringing, nurtured in the gentle ways of love, forgiveness, humility, and concern for the poor. Complainant was reared and raised in an entirely different environment. Ber value system is the very opposite. 5. Eour -espondent loves his family very dearly, and has done all he could in thirty3eight ;"$< years of marriage to protect and preserve his family. Be gave his family sustenance, a comfortable home, love, education, companionship, and most of all, a good and respected name. Be was always gentle and compassionate to his wife and children. /ven in the most trying times, he remained calm and never inflicted violence on them. Bis children are all now full3fledged professionals, mature, and gainfully employed. x x x xxx xxx xxx

Eour -espondent subscribes to the sanctity of marriage as a social institution. On the other hand, consumed by insane and unbearable 7ealousy, Complainant has been systematically and unceasingly destroying the very foundations of their marriage and their family. Their marriage has become a torture chamber in which Eour -espondent has been incessantly '/*T/ , '*TT/-/+, '-FT*04G/+, TO-TF-/+, *'FS/+, and BF%404*T/+, physically, mentally, and emotionally, by the Complainant, in public and at home. Their marriage has become a nightmare. =or thirty3eight years, your -espondent suffered in silence and bore the pain of his misfortune with dignity and with almost infinite patience, if only

to preserve their family and their marriage. 'ut this is not to be. The Complainant never mellowed and never became gentl(e), loving, and understanding. 4n fact, she became more fierce and predatory. Bence, at this point in time, the light at the tunnel for Eour -espondent does not seem in sight. The dar8ness continues to shroud the marital and familial landscape. Eour -espondent has to undergo a catharsis, a liberation from enslavement. 9araphrasing +orfman in D+eath and the %aidenA, can the torturer and the tortured co3exist and live togetherH Bence, faced with an absolutely uncomprehending and uncompromising mind whose only obsession now is to destroy, destroy, and destroy, Eour -espondent, with perpetual regret and with great sorrow, filed a 9etition for *nnulment of %arriage, Spl. 9roc. o. @,,, -TC, 'ranch 444, Tuguegarao, Cagayan. x x x. @. Complainant is a violent husband3beater, vitriolic and unbending. 'ut your -espondent never revealed these destructive qualities to other people. Be preserved the good name and dignity of his wife. This is in compliance with the marital vow to love, honor or obey your spouse, for better or for worse, in sic8ness and in health. . . /ven in this case, Eour -espondent never revealed anything derogatory to his wife. 4t is only now that he is constrained to reveal all these things to defend himself. On the other hand, for no reason at all, except a 7ealous rage, Complainant tells everyone, everywhere, that her husband is worthless, good3for3nothing, evil and immoral. She goes to colleges and universities, professional organiIations, religious societies, and all other sectors of the community to tell them how evil, bad and immoral her husband is. She tells them not to hire him as professor, as Counsel, or any other capacity because her husband is evil, bad, and immoral. 4s this loveH Since when did love become an instrument to destroy a manAs dearest possession in life 3 his good name, reputation and dignityH 'ecause of ComplainantAs virulent disinformation campaign against her husband, employing every unethical and immoral means to attain his ends, Eour -espondent has been irreparably and irreversibly disgraced, shamed, and humiliated. Eour -espondent is not a scandalous man. 4t is he who has been mercilessly scandaliIed and crucified by the

Complainant.:(1!)
To prove the alleged propensity of his wife to file false charges, respondent presented as evidence the following list of the complaints she had filed against him and Gina /spita2 “".! Complaint for 4mmoralityJ eglect of +uty x x x

".1 "." ".5 ".@ "., ".6 ".$ ".#

Complaint for 4mmoralityJ eglect of +uty, +40G, *dm. Case o. 93@3#.. x x x Complaint for Concubinage. 9rovincial 9rosecutorAs Office of Cagayan. 4.S o. $#3!!5. x x x Complaint for *nti3Graft and Corrupt 9ractices and concubinage. O%'F+S%* Case o. !3#13..$". x x x Complaint for Civil Support. -TC, Tuguegarao, Civil Case o. 5.,!. +4S%4SS/+. Complaint for Concubinage. 9rovincial 9rosecutorAs Office of Cagayan. 4.S. o. #13!.#. +4S%4SS/+. ;x x x<. Complainant filed %otion for -econsideration. +/ 4/+. ;x x x<. Complaint for +isbarment ;x x x< with S(upreme) C(ourt). Cithdrawn ;x x x<. +4S%4SS/+ by 4'9 'oard of Governors ;x x x<. -e3instituted ;x x x<. Complaint for +isbarment, again ;x x x<. *dm. Case o. "5.@. 9ending. Complaint for Concubinage, again ;x x x<. Third %CTC, Tumauini, 4sabela. 9ending. x x x:(11)

4n his desperate effort to exculpate himself, he averred2 “4.

That all the alleged love letters and envelopes ;x x x<, picture ;x x x< are inadmissible in evidence as enunciated by the Supreme Court in DCecilia Gulueta vs. Court of *ppeals, et. al.A, G.-. o. !.6"$", =ebruary 1., !##,. ;x x x<.
xxx xxx xxx

44. That respondent is totally innocent of the charges2 Be never courted Gina /spita in the Saint 0ouis College of Tuguegarao. Be never caused the employment of said woman in the +T4. Be never had or is having any illicit relationship with her anywhere, at any time. Be never lived with her as husband and wife anywhere at any time, be it in Centro Tumauini or any of its barangays, or in any other place. Be never begot a child or children with her. =inally, respondent submits that all the other allegations of %rs. arag are false and fabricated, x x x

xxx

xxx

xxx

444. -espondent never abandoned his family(.) %rs. arag and her two sons forcibly drove respondent arag out of the con7ugal home. *fter that, *tty. arag tried to return to the con7ugal home many times with the help of mutual friends to save the marriage and the family from collapse. Be tried several times to reconcile with %rs. arag. 4n fact, in one of the hearings of the disbarment case, he offered to return home and to reconcile with %rs. arag. 'ut %rs. arag refused all these efforts of respondent arag. x x x 4K. Complainant &ulieta '. arag is an unbearably 7ealous, violent, vindictive, scandalous, virulent and merciless wife since the beginning of the marriage, who incessantly beat, battered, brutaliIed, tortured, abuse(d), scandaliIed, and humiliated respondent *tty. arag, physically, mentally, emotionally, and psychologically, x x x. K. Complainant &ulieta aragAs claim in her counter3manifestation dated %arch 1$, !##,, to the effect that the affidavit of +ominador '. arag, &r., dated =ebruary 16, !##, was obtained through force and intimidation, is not true. +ominador, &r., executed his affidavit freely, voluntarily, and absolutely without force or intimidation, as shown by the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of -espondent *tty. arag and Tuguegarao %TC &udge +ominador Garcia during the trial of Criminal Case o. !15"#, 9eople vs. +ominador %. arag, et. al., before the Tuguegarao %TC on %ay ", !##,. x x x.
xxx xxx xxx

K4. -espondent *tty. arag is now an old man 3 a senior citiIen of ," years 3 sic8ly, abandoned, disgraced, wea8ened and debilitated by progressively degenerative gout and arthritis, and hardly able to earn his own 8eep. Bis very physical, medical, psychological, and economic conditions render him unfit and unable to do the things attributed to him by the complainant. 9lease see the attached medical certificates, x x x, among many other similar certificates touching on the same ailments. -espondent is also suffering from hypertension.:(1")
On &uly !$, !##6, the investigating officer submitted his report, (15) recommending the indefinite suspension of *tty. arag from the practice of law. The material portions of said report read as follows2

“Culled from the voluminous documentary and testimonial evidence

submitted by the contending parties, two ;1< issues are relevant for the disposition of the case, namely2 a< Chether there was indeed a commission of alleged abandonment of respondentAs own family and (whether he was) living with his paramour, Gina /spita> b< Chether the denial under oath that his illegitimate children with Gina /spita ;*urelle +ominic and Lyle +ominador< as appearing on paragraph !;g< of respondentAs Comment vis3a3vis his handwritten love letters, the due execution and contents of which, although he ob7ected to their admissibility for being allegedly forgeries, were never denied by him on the witness stand much less presented and offered proof to support otherwise. /xcept for the testimonies of respondentAs witnesses whose testimonies tend to depict the complaining wife, %rs. arag, as an incurably 7ealous wife and possessive woman suffering everytime with strea8s of 7ealousy, respondent did not present himself on the witness stand to testify and be cross3examined on his sworn comment> much less did he present his alleged paramour, Gina /spita, to disprove the adulterous relationship between him and their having begotten their illegitimate children, namely2 *urelle +ominic . /spita and Lyle +ominador . /spita. Corse, respondentAs denial that he is the father of the two is a ground for disciplinary sanction ;%orcayda v. aI, !1@ SC-* 5,6<. Kiewed from all the evidence presented, we find the respondent sub7ect to disciplinary action as a member of the legal profession.: (1@)
4n its -esolution(1,) issued on *ugust 1", !##6, the 4'9 adopted and approved the investigating commissionerAs recommendation for the indefinite suspension of the respondent. (16) Subsequently, the complainant sought the disbarment of her husband in a %anifestationJComment she filed on October 1., !##6. The 4'9 granted this stiffer penalty and, in its -esolution dated ovember "., !##6, denied respondentAs %otion for -econsideration. *fter a careful scrutiny of the records of the proceedings and the evidence presented by the parties, we find that the conduct of respondent warrants the imposition of the penalty of disbarment. The Code of 9rofessional -esponsibility provides2

“-ule !..!33 * lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral

or deceitful conduct.:
”C* O

633 * lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and support the activities of the 4ntegrated 'ar.

-ule 6.."33 * lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession.:
Thus, good moral character is not only a condition precedent (1$) to the practice of law, but a continuing qualification for all members of the bar. Bence, when a lawyer is found guilty of gross immoral conduct, he may be suspended or disbarred. (1#) 4mmoral conduct has been defined as that conduct which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community.(".) =urthermore, such conduct must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. That is, it must be so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree ("!) or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the common sense of decency. ("1) Ce explained in Barrientos vs. Daarol("") that, ?as officers of the court, lawyers must not only in fact be of good moral character but must also be seen to be of good moral character and leading lives in accordance with the highest moral standards of the community. %ore specifically, a member of the 'ar and officer of the court is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships or the 8eeping of mistresses but must also so behave himself as to avoid scandaliIing the public by creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.: -espondent arag is accused of gross immorality for abandoning his family in order to live with Gina /spita. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if she establishes her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence.("5) 9resented by complainant as witnesses, aside from herself, ("@) were2 Charlie /spita, (",) %agdalena 'autista,("6) 'ienvenido /ugenio,("$) *lice Carag,("#) +r. &ervis '. arag, (5.) +ominador arag, &r.,(5!) and ieves =. -eyes.(51) Charlie /spita, brother of the alleged paramour Gina /spita, corroborated complainantAs charge against respondent in these categorical statements he gave to the investigating officer2 “Q
! Mr. Witness, do you kno !tty. "arag# $es, $our %onor, he is the live&in partner of my sister, 'ina (spita.

Q !

)f !tty. "arag is here, can you point *to+ him# $es, sir. ,Witness pointed to the respondent, !tty. Dominador "arag-

Q

Why do you kno !tty. "arag#

!..$. "!/!': !lready ans ered. %e said ) am the live&in partner. 01".)"2!.)1" 13 .%( D)/(0. ! Because he is the live&in partner of my sister and that they are no living together as husband and ife and that they already have t o children, !urelle Dominic and 4yle Dominador.

xxx

xxx

x x x: (5")

+uring cross3examination conducted by the respondent himself, Charlie /spita repeated his account that his sister Gina was living with the respondent, with whom she had two children2 “Q
! Q ! Mr. (spita, you claim that !tty. "arag is no claim that# $es, sir. Why do you say that# Because at present you are living together as husband and ife and you have already t o children and ) kno that that is really an immoral act hich you cannot 5ust allo me to follo since my moral values don6t allo me that my sister is living ith a married man like you. %o do you kno that !tty. "arag is living ith your sister# Did you see them in the house# living ith your sister as husband and ife. $ou

Q !

$es, si*r+.

xxx
Q ! Q !

xxx

xxx

$ou said also that !tty. "arag and your sister have t o children, !urelle Dominic and 4yle Dominador, is it not# $es, sir. %o do you kno that they are the children of !tty. "arag#

Because you are staying together in that house and you have left your family.7(55)

4n addition, Charlie /spita admitted ;!< that it was he who handed to %rs. arag the love letters respondent had sent to his sister, and ;1< that *tty. arag tried to dissuade him from appearing at the disbarment proceedings.(5@) Citness 'ienvenido /ugenio strengthened the testimony of Charlie /spita in this wise2 “Q
! Q ! Mr. Witness, do you kno the respondent in this case# ) kno him very ell, sir. 0ould you please tell us hy do you kno him# Because he as al ays going to the house of my son&in&la by the name of 0harlie (spita.

xxx
Q ! Q ! Q ! Mr. (ugenio, do you kno

xxx
the residence of !tty. Dominador M. "arag#

xxx

!t that time, he * as+ residing in the house of /eynaldo !ngubong, sir. !nd this is located here# 0entro .amauini, )sabela, sir. !nd you specifically, categorically state under oath that this is the residence of !tty. "arag# $es, sir.

xxx
Q ! !nd under oath this is ife, is it not# $es, sir.7(5,)

xxx

xxx

here !tty. "arag and 'ina (spita are allegedly living as husband and

Citness ieves -eyes, a neighbor and friend of the estranged couple, testified that she learned from the arag children 33 -andy, 'ong and -owena 33 that their father left his family, that she and her husband prodded the complainant to accept the respondent bac8, that the arag couple again separated when the respondent ?went bac8 to his woman,: and that *tty. arag had maltreated his wife.(56) On the strength of the testimony of her witnesses, the complainant was able to establish that respondent abandoned his family and lived with another woman. *bsent any evidence showing that these witnesses had an ill motive to testify falsely against the respondent, their testimonies are deemed worthy of belief. =urther, the complainant presented as evidence the love letters that respondent had sent to Gina. 4n these letters, respondent clearly manifested his love for Gina and her two children, whom he ac8nowledged as his own. 4n addition, complainant also submitted as

evidence the cards that she herself had received from him. Guided by the rule that handwriting may be proved through a comparison of one set of writings with those admitted or treated by the respondent as genuine, we affirm that the two sets of evidence were written by one and the same person. (5$) 'esides, respondent did not present any evidence to prove that the love letters were not really written by him> he merely denied that he wrote them. Chile the burden of proof is upon the complainant, respondent has the duty not only to himself but also to the court to show that he is morally fit to remain a member of the bar. %ere denial does not suffice. Thus, when his moral character is assailed, such that his right to continue practicing his cherished profession is imperiled, he must meet the charges squarely and present evidence, to the satisfaction of the investigating body and this Court, that he is morally fit to have his name in the -oll of *ttorneys. (5#) This he failed to do. -espondent adamantly denies abandoning his family to live with Gina /spita. *t the same time, he depicts his wife as a ?violent husband3beater, vitriolic and unbending,: and as an ?insanely and pathologically 7ealous woman,: whose only obsession was to ?destroy, destroy and destroy: him as shown by her filing of a series of allegedly unfounded charges against him ;and Gina /spita<. To prove his allegation, he presented ninety3eight ;#$< pieces of documentary evidence(@.) and ten ;!.< witnesses.(@!) Ce note, however, that the testimonies of the witnesses of respondent did not establish the fact that he maintained that moral integrity required by the profession that would render him fit to continue practicing law. either did their testimonies destroy the fact, as proven by the complainant, that he had abandoned his family and lived with Gina /spita, with whom he had two children. Some of them testified on matters which they had no actual 8nowledge of, but merely relied on information from either respondent himself or other people, while others were presented to impeach the good character of his wife. -espondent may have provided well for his family 33 they en7oyed a comfortable life and his children finished their education. Be may have also established himself as a successful lawyer and a seasoned politician. 'ut these accomplishments are not sufficient to show his moral fitness to continue being a member of the noble profession of law. Ce remind respondent that parents have not only rights but also duties M e.g., to support, educate and instruct their children according to right precepts and good example> and to give them love, companionship and understanding, as well as moral and spiritual guidance. (@1) *s a husband, he is also obliged to live with his wife> to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity> and to render help and support.(@") -espondent himself admitted that his wor8 required him to be often away from home. 'ut the evidence shows that he was away not only because of his wor8> instead, he abandoned his family to live with his paramour, who bore him two children. 4t would appear, then, that he was hardly in a position to be a good husband or a good father. Bis children, who grew up mostly under the care of their mother, must have scarcely felt the warmth of their fatherAs love. -espondentAs son, &ervis '. frailties in his testimony2 arag, showed his resentment towards his fatherAs moral

“Q
!

My 8uestion is this, is there any sin so grievous that it cannot be forgiven, is there a fault that is so serious that it is incapable of forgiveness# .hat depends upon the sin or fault, sir, but if the sin or fault is ith the emotional part of myself, ) suppose ) cannot forgive a person although ) am a 'od&fearing person, but ) h*av+e to give the person a lesson in order for him or her to at least realize his mistakes, sir.

xxx
01M/. 91:(:

xxx

xxx

) think it sounds like this. !ssuming for the sake of argument that your father is the orst, hardened criminal on earth, ould you send him to 5ail and have him disbarred# .hat is the 8uestion. 01".)"2!.)1". ! With the reputation that he had removed from us, ) suppose he has to be given a lesson. !t this point in time, ) might 5ust forgive him if he ill have to e;perience all the pains that e have also suffered for 8uite sometime. Dr. "arag, your father gave you life, his blood runs in your veins, his flesh is your flesh, his bones are your bones and you no diso n him because he is the orst man on earth, is that hat you are saying. :ort of, sir. $ou are no telling that as far *as+ you are concerned because your father has sinned, you have no more father, am ) correct# <ong before, sir, ) did not feel much from my father even hen ) as still a kid because my father is not al ays staying ith us at home. :o, ho can you say that# $es, he gave me life, hy not# But for sure, sir, you did not give me love.7(@5)

Q

! Q !

*nother son, +ominador he went through2
Q !

arag, &r., narrated before the investigating officer the trauma

)n connection ith that affidavit, Mr. Witness, hich contains the fact that your father is maintaining a paramour, could you please tell this %onorable 0ommission the effect on you# .his has a very strong effect on me and this includes my brothers and sisters, especially my married life, sir. !nd it also affected my children so much, that ) and my ife ha*ve+ parted ays. )t hurts to say that ) and my ife parted ays. .his is one reason that affected us. Will you please tell us specifically hy you and your ife parted ays#

Q !

Because my ife a*s+ ashamed of hat happened to my family and that she could not face the people, our community, especially because my ife belongs to a ell&kno n family in our community. %o about the effect on your brothers and sisters# =lease tell us hat are those.

Q

!

Well, sir, this has also affected the health of my elder sister because she kno s so my mother suffered so much and she kept on thinking about my mother.

ell that

xxx
Q ! Q ! Q ! Why did your ife leave you#

xxx

xxx

.he truth is because of the things that had happened in our family, $our %onor. )n your ife6s family#

)n our family, sir. !nd hat do you mean by that#

What ) meant by that is my father had an illicit relationship and that my father ent to the e;tent of scolding my ife and calling my ife a >puta7 in provincial government, hich my mother&in&la hated him so much for this, hich really affected us. !nd then my ife kne for a fact that my father has an illicit relationship ith 'ina (spita, hom he bore t o children by the name of !urelle Dominic and 4yle Dominador, hich ) could prove and ) stand firm to this, $our %onor.7(@@)

*lthough respondent piously claims adherence to the sanctity of marriage, his acts prove otherwise. * husband is not merely a man who has contracted marriage. -ather, he is a partner who has solemnly sworn to love and respect his wife and remain faithful to her until death. Ce reiterate our ruling in 0ordova vs. 0ordova(@,) “The moral delinquency that affects the fitness of a member of the bar to continue as such includes conduct that outrages the generally accepted moral standards of the community, conduct for instance, which ma8es a moc8ery of the inviolable social institution of marriage.: 4n .oledo vs. .oledo,(@6) the respondent was disbarred from the practice of law, when he abandoned his lawful wife and cohabited with another woman who had borne him a child. 0i8ewise, in 1busan vs. 1busan,(@$) the respondent was disbarred after the complainant proved that he had abandoned her and maintained an adulterous relationship with a married woman. This Court declared that respondent failed to maintain the highest degree of morality expected and required of a member of the bar. 4n the present case, the complainant was able to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent had breached the high and exacting moral standards set for members of the law profession. *s held in Maligsa vs. 0abanting,(@#) “a lawyer may be disbarred for any misconduct, whether in his professional or private capacity, which shows him to be wanting in moral character, in honesty, probity and good demeanor or unworthy to continue as an officer of the court.: $%ERE& RE, +ominador %. arag is hereby D):B!//(D and his name is 1/D(/(D :./)04(" from the -oll of *ttorneys. 0et copies of this +ecision be in the personal record of

-espondent arag> and furnished to all courts of the land, the 4ntegrated 'ar of the 9hilippines, and the Office of the 'ar Confidant. " RDERED.

"arvasa, 0.9., /egalado, Davide, 9r., /omero, Bellosillo, Melo, =uno, ?itug, 4apunan, Mendoza, =anganiban, Martinez, Quisumbing, and =urisima, 99., concur.

[1] :ee records, Kol. 4, pp. !31. *ttached therein are photocopies of the marriage contract of the couple and of two ?love letters: written by the respondent to his paramour.

[2] Code of Professional Responsibility. [3] Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-2. [ ] Records, Vol. I, p. 11. [!] Records, Vol. II, pp. 13-1 . ["] Records, Vol. II, pp. 1!-1". [#] Records, Vol. II, pp. 1#-1$. [$] %&e Co'rt noted t&e letter in its Resol'tion, dated ('ly 3), 1**), and referred t&e sa+e to t&e I,P. -ee records, Vol. II, p. 1*. [*] -i.natories t&erein are /'+eriano 0. %anopo, (r., president1 2rnesto -. -al'nat, (ose 3.'ila 0rapilon, ,eda 0. 4a5ardo, ,aldo+ero C. 2sten6o, Rene C. Villa and %eodoro 7. /ano, (r., .o8ernors of /ort&ern 9'6on Re.ion, -o't&ern 9'6on Re.ion, ,icolandia Re.ion, 2astern Visayas Re.ion, :estern Visayas Re.ion and 2astern ;indanao Re.ion, respecti8ely1 ;er8yn 0. 2ncanto, e<ec'ti8e 8ice president1 and Ro+eo %. Cap'lon. and 7ida.en P. 7ilan.alen, .o8ernors of Central 9'6on Re.ion and :estern ;indanao Re.ion, respecti8ely. [1)] Records, Vol. III, pp. 3 -3#. [11] %&ro'.& t&e office of t&en C&ief ('stice 4ernan. [12] 7ated /o8e+ber 11, 1**1. [13] %&e c&ildren are 0ene8ie8e /ara. ,a'tista, 7o+inador ,. /ara. (r., Randolp& ,. /ara., (er8is ,. /ara., Ro=ena /ara. 3dd'n, C&eryl Rita ,. /ara. and C&ristiana ,. /ara..

[1 ] Records, Vol. III, p. 23. %&e letter =as for=arded to t&e >ffice of t&e ,ar Confidant on 7ece+ber 2, 1**1. [1!] Records, Vol. III, pp. )- 2. [1"] Records, Vol. II, pp. 1!-1". [1#] Ibid., pp. 1#-1$. [1$] Ibid., pp. )- 1. [1*] Records, Vol. III, p. . [2)] Co+piled 3ns=er?Co++ent and Co'nter-3ffida8its, records, Vol. II, pp. 1-11. [21] Ibid., pp. 1-3. [22] Ibid., pp. $-*. [23] ;e+orand'+ for t&e Respondent, pp. 1-"1 records, Vol. IV, pp. 2**-3) . [2 ] Records, Vol. I, pp. 1#-!*. [2!] Report by Co++. Plaridel C. (ose, pp. 2- 31 records, Vol I, pp. !$-!*. [2"] Ibid., pp. 1!-1". [2#] /otice of Resol'tion fro+ t&e I,P Co++ission on ,ar 7iscipline, ,oard of 0o8ernors, Pasi. City, si.ned by /ational -ecretary Roland ,. Intin.. 3 copy of said notice =as recei8ed by t&e >ffice of t&e ,ar Confidant on -epte+ber 1", 1**#. Records, Vol. I, pp. 1!-1". [2$] @2, R'le 13$ of t&e R'les of Co'rt pro8idesA “28ery applicant for ad+ission as a +e+ber of t&e bar +'st be < < < of .ood +oral c&aracter1 and +'st prod'ce before t&e -'pre+e Co'rt satisfactory e8idence of .ood +oral c&aracter, and t&at no c&ar.es a.ainst &i+, in8ol8in. +oral t'rpit'de, &a8e been filed or are pendin. in any co'rt in t&e P&ilippines.” BCnderscorin. s'ppliedD [2*] @2#, R'le 13$ of t&e R'les of Co'rt. [3)] # C.(.-., @1 , p. $2"1 Black’s Law Dictionary, "t& ed., p. #!1 citin. In re Monaghan, 12" V%, !3+ 222 3.2d ""!, "# 1 and Philippine Law Dictionary, 3rd ed., p. #, citin. 3rci.a vs. ;ani=an., 1)" -CR3 !* , !* , 3'.'st 1 , 1*$1.

[31] Reyes vs. :on., "3 -CR3 ""#, "#3, (an'ary 2*, 1*#!. [32] Royon. vs. >blena, # -CR3 $!*, $"*-$#), 3pril 3), 1*"3. [33] 21$ -CR3 3), ), (an'ary 2*, 1**3, per curiam, citin. %olosa vs. Car.o, 1#1 -CR3 21, 2", ;arc& $, 1*$*, per 4eliciano, . [3 ] /orie.a vs. -ison, 12! -CR3 2*3, 2*#-2*$, >ctober 2#, 1*$31 -antos vs. 7ic&oso, $ -CR3 "22, "2#, 3'.'st 22, 1*$*1 3darne vs. 3ldaba, $3 -CR3 #3 , #3*, ('ne 2#, 1*#$1 3rboleda vs. 0atc&alian, !$ -CR3 " , "#, ('ly 23, 1*# 1 and 0o vs. Candoy, 21 -CR3 3*, 2, >ctober 23, 1*"#. [3!] %-/, -epte+ber 22, 1**3, pp. 1!- ". [3"] Ibid., pp. 2$-13 . [3#] %-/, /o8e+ber 3, 1**3, pp. 1"- 1. [3$] Ibid., pp. 2-!!. [3*] Ibid., pp. !$-#1. [ )] %-/, /o8e+ber , 1**3, pp. !-3 . [ 1] Ibid., pp. 3!-" . [ 2] %-/, (an'ary 1#, 1** , pp. 3-1 . [ 3] %-/, -epte+ber 22, 1**3, pp. 31-32. [ ] Ibid., pp. $!-$*. [ !] Ibid., pp. 3* and #!. [ "] %-/, /o8e+ber 3, 1**3, pp. 3, #- $ and !1

[ #] %-/, (an'ary 1#, 1** , pp. "-$ and 11. [ $] -ection 22, R'le 132 of t&e R'les of Co'rt. [ *] 7elos Reyes vs. 36nar, 1#* -CR3 "!3, "!$, /o8e+ber 2$, 1*$*.

[!)] -ee Records, Vol. III, pp. 1-23 . [!1] ('de -ales B%-/, 3pril 1*, 1** , pp. 3-"D1 3tty. Vir.ilio 3. -e8andal B%-/, 3pril 1*, 1** , pp. "-1"D1 ('anito E. Co+ia B%-/, 3pril 1*, 1** , pp. 1#-2 D1 3lfonso %'+a+ao B%-/, 3pril 1*, 1** , pp. 2!-!1D1 >felio Pablo B%-/, 3pril 2), 1** , pp. 23"D1 ('d.e Rolando 9. -alac'p B%-/, ;ay 1", 1** , pp. 2-3#D1 Ro+eo CalabaF'ib B%-/, ;ay 1#, 1** , pp. 2-21D1 Re+i.io ;a.'ndayao B%-/, ('ne #, 1** , pp. 2-"D1 4r. ,en5a+in %. 9asan B%-/, ('ne #, 1** , pp. #-1*D1 and 3lfonso C. 0orospe B%-/, ('ne #, 1** , pp. 1*-2#D. [!2] 3rt. 22), 4a+ily Code. !ee also 3rt. 3!" of t&e Ci8il Code and 3rt. 3 of t&e C&ild and Go't& :elfare Code Bor P7 ")3D. [!3] 3rt. "$, 4a+ily Code. [! ] %-/, /o8e+ber , 1**3, pp. 2$-3). [!!] %-/, /o8e+ber , 1**3, pp. 3$-3* and !- ". [!"] 1#* -CR3 "$), "$3, /o8e+ber 2*, 1*$*, [!#] # -CR3 #!#, 3pril 2#, 1*"3. [!$] 12$ -CR3 $!, 3pril 2, 1*$ . [!*] 3C /o. !3*, ;ay 1 , 1**#, pp. !-", per curiam.

=4-ST +4K4S4O

[A.!. No. RTJ'9('13(3.

)*o+e, 12, 1998]

T !A" CABULI"AN, complainant, -AGALILAUAN, respondent. DECI"I
BELL "ILL , J.#

vs.

JUDGE

ADRIAN

N.

N

* certain Tomas Cabulisan filed an administrative complaint dated 5 *pril !##@ against respondent &udge *drian . 9agalilauan, -TC3'r. !1, SancheI %ira, Cagayan, for grave misconduct committed as follows2 ;!< peeping into the bathroom where %arilyn C. +umayas, a public health nurse of the SancheI %ira School of *rts and Trade, and daughter of the owner of the house where he was boarding, was then ta8ing a bath> ;1< having a mistress in the neighboring town of 9amplona where he would pass the night now and then> and ;"< allowing local practitioners to write decisions for him. 4n the =irst 4ndorsement of then +eputy Court *dministrator &uanito *, 'ernad, the complaint was referred to the ational 'ureau of 4nvestigation ; '4< which procured statements from %arilyn C. +umayas, alleged victim of the peeping incident, and Gemma C. Cabading, Court 4nterpreter, -TC3'r. !1, SancheI %ira, Cagayan. 4n her sworn statement executed on ! *ugust !##@ before '4 *gent orman *. ToloIa at the *dministration 'uilding of the S%S*T, 'arangay Santor, SancheI %ira, %arilyn C. +umayas, married to Orlando T. +umayas a process server in the sala of respondent, narrated that one morning in =ebruary !##@ ;specific day was not mentioned< while she was ta8ing a bath in the bathroom she noticed someone enter the ad7acent comfort room. *fter she finished and was about to ta8e her towel, she saw the face of respondent &udge *drian . 9agalilauan over the concrete dividing wall with his eyes loo8ing at her na8ed body so she hurriedly wrapped herself with her towel and went out of the bathroom immediately. (!) One morning a wee8 after, a similar incident happened again. Chile she was ta8ing a bath in a squatting position in the same bathroom, and sensing that respondent would peep again, she instinctively glanced at the mirror in the bathroom and saw respondent from his chest up staring at her. *gain, she immediately wrapped herself up with her robe and screamed as she fled from the bathroom. (1) * few days after the second incident, respondent voluntarily left her place and transferred to a neighborAs house. (") Gemma C. Cabading, in her sworn statement dated !! *ugust !##@, stated that she had no 8nowledge that respondent was maintaining a 8uerida.(5) 'ut she recalled that a certain +ivina Calaycay frequented the sala of respondent but explained that +ivina was the widow of &udge 4nfante S. Calaycay, a friend of respondent and his predecessor in office. (@) Cabading denied having any 8nowledge of practicing lawyers preparing decisions for respondent. (,) 4n his undated letter3comment, respondent denied the charges but admitted that while presiding 7udge of the -egional Trial Court of SancheI %ira, Cagayan, he boarded in the house of 4sabelo 9. Castillo, father of %arilyn C. +umayas and his former sheriff. -espondent explained that since he was not accustomed to sitting on the toilet bowl in the comfort room, he would squat on the bowl with his feet and not his buttoc8s resting on it. -espondent claimed that under that circumstance, he had to balance himself by placing one hand on the divider while mounting the bowl and dismounting from it. One morning in =ebruary !##@, while using the toilet bowl, he had to hold the top of the divider with his left hand to balance himself. Bis left hand almost dislodged the clothes of %arilyn which were draped on the divider. Be held on to them to prevent them from falling on the floor. Be concluded that %arilyn who was at the ad7acent bathroom must have interpreted the movement of her hanging clothes as a deliberate and malicious act on his part thus giving rise to her suspicion that he was actually peeping at her.

Cith regard to the charge that he had a mistress, respondent surmised that the woman alluded to was +ivina Calaycay, widow of 4nfante S. Calaycay, his predecessor in the -egional Trial Court. Be insisted that he and +ivina Calaycay were merely friends, as he and her late husband were former classmates. There were even instances after the death of &udge Calaycay when she would visit him to as8 help in connection with her husbandAs death benefits from the /mployees Compensation Commission considering that he was formerly /xecutive 0abor *rbiter of the ational 0abor -elations Commission before becoming a 7udge. On the accusation that respondent allowed local practitioners to write decisions for him, respondent maintained that it was baseless and merely fabricated. 4n the resolution of 1 October !##, the Court noted the complaint as well as respondentAs comment and referred the case to *ssociate &ustice Bilarion 0. *quino of the Court of *ppeals for investigation, report and recommendation. &ustice *quino however filed a motion to be relieved as investigator on the ground that respondent was a friend and townmate and in fact consulted him once regarding this case. On !@ &anuary !##6 the Court granted the motion of &ustice *quino and designated &ustice 9ortia *liNo3Bormachuelos of the Court of *ppeals to replace him. 4n her -eport and -ecommendation dated !$ %arch !##6 &ustice *liNo3Bormachuelos recommended the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the identity of the complainant could not be verified. Summons issued to complainant Tomas Cabulisan was returned with the notation ?-TS3un8nown.: *ccording to the OfficerAs -eturn of Service, there was no Tomas Cabulisan 8nown to be residing in the address on record. =urthermore, in the report of '4 *gent orman TaloIa it was mentioned that complainant Tomas Cabulisan was a non3existing person. 4n the resolution of !6 September !##6 the case was referred bac8 to &ustice 9ortia *liNo3 Bormachuelos for a more thorough investigation on the ground that the alleged non3existence of the complainant was insufficient basis for dismissal since witnesses mentioned in the complaint could still be subpoenaed and required to testify. *s a result, %arilyn C. +umayas appeared in the formal investigation. She testified that respondent was a boarder in her familyAs house where she was also staying in !##@. (6) Their house had only one bathroom which ad7oined the comfort room.($) The two rooms were separated by a concrete divider about 13!J1 meters in height which did not go all the way to the ceiling, such that there was an open space between the ceiling and the top of the divider. (#) This time however she claimed that she did not exactly see respondent loo8ing at her> that she only saw his forehead and that she ?simply suspected: that he peeped at her. She also declared that she did not remember if the peeping incident really happened twice. (!.) There appears to be a conflict between +umayasA sworn statement executed ! *ugust !##@ and her testimony before the investigating 7ustice on 6 ovember !##6. *s a rule, affidavits are generally considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court. (!!)Bowever, in the instant administrative case, the sworn statement of %arilyn C. +umayas contains a detailed account of the two peeping incidents which is so persuasive as to convince us that it was what actually transpired, and not the version of respondent which is practically a mere denial. %arilyn previously stated3

O *

Cill you please state what &udge 9agalilauan did something wrong to youH Sometime in the month of =ebruary this year while 4 was ta8ing a bath in the morning inside our bathroom 4 noticed someone entered the ad7acent comfort room and after 4 finished ta8ing a bath and 4 was about to ta8e my towel 4 saw the face of &udge 9agalilauan over the dividing wall with his eyes loo8ing towards my na8ed body and 4 hurriedly wrapped myself with my towel and went out immediately and banged the door.

xxx
O * O * O *

xxx

xxx

+id &udge 9agalilauan do the same wrong again to youH Ees, sir. Chen was that second incident happenedH * wee8 after, sir. Bow did it happenH One morning a wee8 after when 4 too8 a bath in the bathroom in a squatting position and being aware that the &udge might do it again 4 happened to glance at the mirror inside the bathroom and 4 saw at the mirror a part of his body from chest to head loo8ing at me so 4 again immediately wrapped myself with my bathrobe and hurriedly left the place screaming2 ?'astos 8a nga la8la8ayan, maysa 8a nga &udge ngem awan ti sursurom, pumanaw 8a ditoy balay, dia8 8ayat nga agian 8a ditoy, addada 7udge nga 8as 8en8a nga naggigian ditoy balay ngem saan da nga bastos nga 8as 8en8a: ;Eou foolish old man, you are a &udge but you have no manners, leave the house and 4 donAt want you to stay longer here, there were other &udges who stayed here but they were not as foolish as you< as 4 went upstairs.:(!1)

%arilyn apparently has ?forgotten: what she had once narrated specially in this case where the testimony before the investigating 7ustice was given more than two ;1< years after the incident. The fact that she has recounted the facts differently now may show a ?failure of memory,: or could it be that she was swayed by the fact that her husband was a process server of respondentAs while her father was respondentAs former sheriffH Ber sworn statement was replete with details which ma8es it more convincing and should be given more weight than her testimony simply denying that she saw respondent staring at her. %erely because she testified that what she had declared was false and that what she now says is true is not sufficient ground for concluding that her previous statements were false. -espondent, in his comment, clearly admits his presence in the ad7oining toilet> his defense which consists mainly of the denial that he stared at %arilyn cannot prevail over the latterPs positive assertion that she saw respondent loo8ing at her na8ed body, specially in this case where she identified respondent in two separate peeping incidents as the culprit. Ce cannot accept his explanation that he had to hold the top of the divider with his hand to balance himself because he was not accustomed to sitting on the toilet bowl. 4t is a feeble excuse considering his stature and educational bac8ground. 4t was improbable for him to move the clothes of %arilyn and cause them to almost fall off the partition unless he was nervously committing something mischievous. Bis act of peeping at the married daughter of his landlord while she was ta8ing a bath reflect respondentPs obvious ungratefulness and

moral depravity. %oreover, he callously abused the confidence of his landlord who had welcomed him into his home. 4n this administrative case, we are principally concerned with the moral fiber of respondent. Ce have repeatedly held that while every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the 7udiciary. (!") 9eople who run the 7udiciary, particularly 7ustices and 7udges, must not only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest degree of integrity and probity and an unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives.(!5) 'y committing the prurient acts in question, respondent violated the trust reposed in him and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and rigid standards of morality required in the 7udicial profession.(!@) Ce absolve respondent however of the charge that he was 8eeping a mistress. =rom the evidence, the woman alluded to was +ivina Calaycay who happened to be the widow of &udge 4nfante S. Calaycay, respondentPs predecessor in office. Gemma Cabading, a court interpreter, testified that &udge Calaycay was a close friend of respondent who frequented his office see8ing his help in obtaining the death benefits of her husband from the /mployees Compensation Commission.(!,) o evidence was produced to prove that there was more than friendship between the two and that +ivina was his mistress. *s to the charge that respondent allowed practicing lawyers to write decisions for him, court interpreter Gemma Cabading disclaimed any 8nowledge thereof. She said that the lawyers came to the court office only when their cases were scheduled in court. (!6) There was no proof that respondent allowed practitioners to prepare decisions for him. $%ERE& RE, for his disgraceful acts of voyeurism committed against %arilyn C. +umayas, respondent &udge *drian . 9agalilauan, -TC3'r. !1, SancheI %ira, Cagayan, is fined 9!.,...... with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. " RDERED.

Davide, 9r. ,0hairman-, =anganiban, and Quisumbing, 99., concur. ?itug, 9., see dissenting opinion.

(!)

Sworn Statement of %arilyn C. +umayas dated ! *ugust !##@, p. !> /ollo, p. !".

[2] Id., p. 21 "ollo, p. 1 . [3] Ibid. [ ] -=orn -tate+ent of 0e++a C. Cabadin. dated 11 3'.'st 1**!, p. 11 "ollo, p. 1". [!] Id., pp. 1 and 21 Id., pp. 1" and 1#. ["] Id., p. 21 Id., p. 1#. [#] %-/, # /o8e+ber 1**#, p. 1*. [$] %-/, Id., p. 2$.

[*] %-/, Id., pp. 2*-3), 3 . [1)] %-/, Id., pp. "3-"!, #). [11] People v. Conde, 0.R. /o. 112)3 , 31 (an'ary 1**", 2!2 -CR3 "$11 People v. Co, 0.R. /o. 112) ", 11 ('ly 1**!. [12] -ee /ote 1. [13] 9e.aspi v. 0arrete, 3.;. /o. ;%(-*2-#13, 2# ;arc& 1**!, 2 2 -CR3 "#*. [1 ] %alens-7abon v. 3rceo, 3.;. /o. R%(-*"-133", 2! ('ly 1**", 2!* -CR3 3! . [1!] 3badilla v. %abiliran, (r., 3.;. /o. ;%(-*2-#1", 2! >ctober 1**!, 2 * -CR3 #. [1"] %-/, # /o8e+ber 1**#, p. 1)*. [1#] Id., pp. *2, *$. S/CO + +4K4S4O

[G.R. No. 123(98. Au.u/* 5, 1998]

ETERNAL GARDEN" !E! RIAL -AR0 C R- RATI N, petitioner, vs. C URT & A--EAL" 1n2 "-". LILIA "E3ILLA 1n2 J "E "EELIN, respondents. DECI"I
!ARTINE4, A.!., J.#

N

This is the second time petitioner /ternal Gardens %emorial 9ar8 Corporation has come to this Court assailing the execution of the 7udgment dated *ugust 15, !#$#, rendered by the -egional Trial Court of Caloocan City in Civil Case o. C3#1#6. *pparently, hope springs eternal for petitioner, considering that the issues raised in this second petition for review are but mere reiterations of previously settled issues which have already attained finality. Ce now write finis to this controversy which has dragged on for seventeen ;!6< years, for as we ruled in GomeI vs. 9residing &udge, -TC, 'r. !@, OIamis City2 (!)

“x x x litigations must end and terminate sometime and somewhere, it being

essential to the effective administration of 7ustice that once a 7udgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Bence, courts must guard themselves against any scheme to bring about that result, for constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, they should frown upon any attempt to prolong it. 9ublic policy and sound practice demand that at the ris8 of occasional errors, 7udgments of courts should become final and irrevocable at some definite date fixed by law. )nteres rei publicae ut finis sit litium.: The facts2 The case started on %ay !$, !#$! when private respondent3spouses &ose Seelin and 0ilia Sevilla Seelin filed a complaint against Central +yeing Q =inishing Corporation ;Central +yeing for brevity< for quieting of title and for declaration of nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title ;TCT o. 1.@#51< issued in the name of said corporation, doc8eted as Civil Case o. C3#1#6, before the -egional Trial Court of Caloocan City.
On *ugust 15, !#$#, the trial court rendered 7udgment, (1) the dispositive portion of which reads2

RCB/-/=O-/, 7udgment is hereby rendered2 +eclaring the defendantPs Certificate of Title o. 1.@#51 null and void. +ismissing counterclaim of defendant without pronouncement as to costs.R
The aforesaid decision was affirmed(") by respondent Court of *ppeals in C*3G.-. CK o. 1@#$# on &une 1@, !##! and eventually upheld by this Court in G.-. o. 03!.!$!# on ovember 1@, !##!. Said dismissal became final on %arch @, !##1.(5) The -TC decision, having become final and executory, private respondents moved for execution which was granted by the lower court. *ccordingly, a writ of execution of the decision was issued. Subsequently, private respondents filed an Frgent %anifestation and %otion for an 4mmediate Crit of 9ossessionJ'rea8 Open Order. The motion was opposed by herein petitioner /ternal Gardens %emorial 9ar8 Corporation contending that it is not submitting to the 7urisdiction of the trial court> that it is completely unaware of the suit between private respondents and Central +yeing> that it is the true and registered owner of the lot having bought the same from Central +yeing> and that it was a buyer in good faith. On &uly !, !##1, the trial court granted private respondentsA motion. *nother Order was issued on *ugust !$, !##1 by the trial court holding that the 7udgment was binding on petitioner, being the successor3in3interest of defendant Central +yeing pursuant to -ule "#, Section 5$;b< of the -evised -ules of Court.

9etitioner went to the Court of *ppeals in a petition for certiorari. On September "., !##1 the Court of *ppeals rendered 7udgment dismissing the petition, excerpts of which read2 “Ce reviewed carefully the assailed orders and find no compelling reason to

disturb the same. 4ndeed, since petitioner admits that it bought the property from Central +yeing and =inishing Corporation, defendant in Civil Case o. C3#1#6, petitioner is bound by the decision rendered therein by respondent &udge.
Fnder Section 1., -ule ", -evised -ules of Court, a transferee pendente lite does not have to be included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the 7udgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against the original party or the transferor and still be binding on the transferee:(@) The motion for reconsideration was also denied by the Court of *ppeals on =ebruary !$, !##".(,) On further appeal to this Court, petitionerAs petition for review on certiorari, doc8eted as G. -. o. !.#.6,, was denied in a resolution dated *ugust 1, !##". (6) Fpon finality of said resolution, this Court issued /ntry of &udgment dated October 1!, !##". ($) Thereafter, private respondents filed another motion for the issuance of a second writ of execution before the trial court which was granted in the Order of &uly 1., !##5. ot willing to give up, petitioner sought a reconsideration. 9etitionerAs motion was initially granted(#) on *ugust 1#, !##5 by the trial court thru &udge *rturo -omero. Bowever, upon motion of private respondents, the said order was reconsidered on +ecember !#, !##5 (!.) by &udge /milio 0. 0eachon, &r., who succeeded &udge -omero. =orthwith, alias writs of execution were issued. +esperately needing a favorable 7udgment, petitioner, for the second time, filed a petition for certiorari(!!) with respondent Court of *ppeals ;doc8eted as C*3G.-. S9 o. ",@#!<, arguing inter alia2 that the 7udgment cannot be executed against it because it was not a party to Civil Case o. C3#1#6> that the decision of the trial court in said case never mandated Central +yeing to deliver possession of the property to the private respondents> that certain facts and circumstances which occurred after the finality of the 7udgment will render the execution highly un7ust, illegal and inequitable> that the issuance of the assailed writ of execution violates the lot buyersA freedom of religion and worship> and that private respondentsA title is being questioned in another case. On September 1#, !##@, the respondent court rendered 7udgment (!1) dismissing the petition for certiorari on the ground that the lower courtPs decision in Civil Case o. #1#6 had long become final and executory. 4t ruled, thus2

RThis Court needs ;sic< not belabor the fact that the respondent CourtPs decision in Civil Case o. #1#6 had long become final and executory. The respondent courtPs writs of execution and possession could have been implemented a long time ago if not for the series of legal maneuvers of petitioner /ternal Gardens. x

x x x Petitioner Eternal Gardens cannot anymore stop the execution o a inal !ud"ment #y raisin" issues $hich actually have #een ruled upon #y this Court in its earlier case $ith Us in CA%G.R. &P 'o. ()*+*. To Our mind, the instant petition is a mere continuation of petitionerPs dilatory tactics so that plaintiffs, although prevailing party, will not benefit at all from a final 7udgment in their favor. Thus, the instant petition is obviously, frivolous and dilatory warranting the assessment of double costs of this suit against petitioner Sec. ", -ule !51 of the -evised -ules of Court<. Moreover, as mani ested #y the plainti s, herein private respondents, the instant petition has already #ecome moot and academic as the property in ,uestion $as already turned over #y the -eputy &heri to the plainti s, and the $rits o execution and possession ully satis ied. .hus, hope ully, puttin" the le"al #attle o this case to rest.R ;/mphasis ours.<
The motion for reconsideration was li8ewise denied on &anuary "., !##,. (!") 9etitioner once again see8s this CourtPs intervention reiterating in essence the same line of arguments espoused in their petition before the respondent Court of *ppeals. The petition must fail. 4t is a settled rule that once a court renders a final 7udgment, all the issues between or among the parties before it are deemed resolved and its 7udicial functions with respect to any matter related to the controversy litigated come to an end. 9etitionerAs argument that the trial court cannot order it and the one hundred ;!..< memorial lot owners to surrender andJor deliver possession of the property in dispute on the ground that they were never parties to the case between private respondents and Central +yeing, has long been resolved by respondent Court of *ppeals in C*3G.-. S9 o. 1$6#6 when it ruled2 “4ndeed, since petitioner admits that it bought the property from Central +yeing

and =inishing Corporation, defendant in Civil Case o. C3#1#6, petitioner is bound by the decision rendered therein by respondent &udge.
“Fnder Section 1., -ule ", -evised -ules of Court, a transferee pendente lite does not have to be included or impleaded by name in order to be bound by the 7udgment because the action or suit may be continued for or against the original party or the transferor and still be binding on the transferee.:(!5) The aforesaid decision was affirmed by this Court in G.-. o. !.#.6, and attained finality on October 1!, !##". There is, therefore, no need for us to belabor the same issue here. =urther, petitionerAs contention that a determination of the issue of possession should first be resolved before the issuance of a writ of possession is untenable.

9lacing private respondents in possession of the land in question is the necessary and logical effect or consequence of the decision in Civil Case o. C3#1#6 declaring them as the rightful owners of the property. *s correctly argued by the private respondents, they do not have to institute another action for the purpose of ta8ing possession of the sub7ect realty. 9etitioner li8ewise asserts that certain facts and circumstances transpired after the finality of 7udgment in Civil Case o. C3#1#6 which will render the execution of the said 7udgment un7ust and illegal. 4t points to the pendency of Civil Case o. C3!!""6 before the -egional Trial Court of Caloocan City filed by the -epublic of the 9hilippines against private respondents for nullification of 11 titles which include the title to the sub7ect property. 9etitioner argues that the pendency of the said case provides a reasonable 7ustification why execution of the aforesaid 7udgment and delivery of possession of the sub7ect property should be permanently stayed or at least held in abeyance until after the final resolution of the case. Ce do not agree. The pendency of Civil Case o. C3!!""6 for annulment of titles filed by the -epublic against private respondents will not 7ustify the suspension of the execution of the 7udgment in Civil Case o. C3#1#6. This is so because the petitionerAs title which originated from Central +yeing ;TCT o. 1.@#51< was already annulled in the 7udgment sought to be executed, and which 7udgment had long been affirmed by the Court of *ppeals and by this Court. Thus, even if, in the remote possibility, the trial court will nullify the said private respondentsA title in Civil Case o. C3!!""6, as argued by petitioner, the supposed adverse decision cannot validate TCT o. 1.@#51 and ma8e petitioner the rightful owner of the sub7ect land. Clearly, the present petition was instituted merely to delay the execution of the 7udgment. =inally, petitionerAs fear that the grave lots will be disturbed, desecrated and destroyed once the execution of the 7udgment proceeds is more imagined than real. * perusal of the Orders of the trial court with regard to the execution of the 7udgment reveals that the interests of said burial lot owners have been ta8en into account by the trial court when it too8 steps and made suggestions as to how their rights could be amply protected. 4n its Order dated =ebruary !", !##@, the trial court, through &udge /milio 0. 0eachon, &r., stated2

RThe defendant3petitioner are ;sic< however not completely without recourse or remedy because they can still go after the original party3defendant or transferor of the property in question which is Central +yeing and =inishing Corporation pursuant to Section 1., -ule " of the -ules of Court. *nd should it be difficult or nay impossible for plaintiff3respondents to be placed in possession of the sub7ect property, due to defendant3petitionersP arguments that the same have already been sold to burial lot buyers, then it should be incumbent for the defendant3 petitioners to negotiate with the plaintiff3respondents for payment in cash of the property sub7ect of their complaint to avoid demolition or desecration since they benefited from the sale of the burial lots.R (!@)
4n another order dated %ay 5, !##@, the following directive was given, to wit2 RThe court directs and orders the defendant to give access to the plaintiffs and as proposed by the plaintiffs, they are given authority to destroy a small portion of the fence so that they

can have access to the property. 'ut as to the demolition of the burial lots, negotiation could be made by the defendant with the former owner so that cash payment or cash settlement be made.R(!,) /ven the former 9residing &udge *rturo *. -omero, in his Order dated &uly 1., !##5, imposed the following limitation on the writ of execution, as follows2 R%oreover, considering the manifestation that large areas within the /ternal Gardens have been sold to so many persons who now have buried their beloved ones in the grave lots ad7oining the lot in question, it is therefore, in the interest of 7ustice and equity, that the enforcement of the writ of possession and brea8 open order should be applied only to the gate of /ternal Gardens %emorial 9ar8 at the eastern side nearest to the parcel of land in question where the factory of the defendant is located, in order to avoid disturbing the peace of the resting souls over the graves spread over the parcels of land within the said memorial par8.R(!6) =rom the above3mentioned orders, it can be seen that the issue as to the status of the burial lot owners has been properly addressed. 'e that as it may, the petition has been rendered moot and academic in view of the fact that the questioned *lias Crit of 9ossession dated +ecember 16, !##5 and the *lias Crit of /xecution dated +ecember 16, !##5 have already been implemented by the Sheriff as shown by the ?SheriffAs -eturn,:(!$) dated %arch "!, !##@, with the attached ?Turn Over 9remises:(!#) indicating therein that private respondents too8 possession of the sub7ect property. * note of caution. This case has again delayed the execution of a final 7udgment for seventeen ;!6< years to the pre7udice of the private respondents. 4n the meantime that petitioner has thwarted execution, interment on the disputed lot has long been going on, so that by the time this case is finally terminated, the whole lot shall have already been filled with tombstones, leaving nothing for private respondents, the real owners of the property. This is a moc8ery of 7ustice. Ce note that while lawyers owe entire devotion to the interest of their clients and Ieal in the defense of their clientPs right, they should not forget that they are officers of the court, bound to exert every effort to assist in the /5ee26 1n2 e778)8en* 1298n8/*,1*8on o7 :u/*8)e . They should not, therefore, misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of 7ustice or unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a 7udgment or misuse court processes. (1.) 4n /ano"an et. al. vs. Cerna, et. al.,(1!) we ruled2

R*s officers of the court, lawyers have a responsibility to assist in the proper administration of 7ustice. They do not discharge this duty by filing pointless petitions that only add to the wor8load of the 7udiciary, especially this Court, which is burdened enough as it is. * 7udicious study of the facts and the law should advise them when a case such as this, should not be permitted to be filed to merely clutter the already congested 7udicial doc8ets. They do not advance the cause of law or their clients by commencing litigations that for sheer lac8 of merit do not deserve the attention of the courts.R

CB/-/=O-/, the petition is hereby +/ 4/+. " RDERED.

/egalado ;Chairman<, Melo, =uno and Mendoza, 99.,concur.

(!) 15# SC-* 5"$35"# > October 15, !##@.

[2] Re.ional %rial Co'rt 7ecision in Ci8il Case /o. C-*2*#1 Rollo, pp. 23$-2 1. [3] Co'rt of 3ppeals 7ecision in C3-0.R. CV /o. 2!*$*1 Rollo, pp.2 2-2 $. [ ] 2ntry of ('d.+ent1 Rollo, p. 1)). [!] C3 7ecision penned by ('stice 3n.elina -. 0'tierre6 and conc'rred in by ('stice /at&anael P. 7e Pano, (r. and ('stice (es's ;. 2lbinias1 Rollo, pp. 2 *-2!". ["] C3 Resol'tion1 Rollo, pp. 2!#-2!*. [#] -'pre+e Co'rt Resol'tionA
“G.-. o. !.#.6, ;/ternal Gardens %emorial 9ar8 Corporation vs. Court of *ppeals, et. al.<.3Considering the
allegations, issues and arguments adduced in the petition for review on certiorari as well as the comment thereon of the private respondents and the reply thereto of the petitioner, the Court -/SO0K/+ to +/ E the petition for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of *ppeals had committed reversible error in the questioned 7udgment.:

[$] -ee 7ecision of t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals in C3-0R -P /o. 3"!*11 Rollo, p. 131. [*] "ollo, pp. !*-"3. [1)] R%C >rder1 portions of =&ic& are &ereto F'otedA
“*fter going over the above3cited pleadings, the Court is prone to reconsider its order of *ugust 1#, !##5 for all
matters and issues raised therein have already been passed upon and aptly discussed by the honorable Court of *ppeals and the Bonorable Supreme Court. The Court believes there is no change or intervening facts changing the situation of the parties that would warrant an amendment or modification of the sub7ect 7udgment. This Court should not and cannot in effect render null and nugatory the final and executory 7udgment of the Bonorable Supreme Court for that would be contemptuous and anomalous and may sub7ect the presiding 7udge of the trial court to the severest penalty for being disobedient and disrespectful to the 7udgment or decision of the Bonorable Supreme Court.:

[11] Rollo, pp. 2$-!#. [12] Penned by ('stice 9o'rdes H. %ayao-(a.'ros and conc'rred in by ('stice 0loria C. Paras and ('stice 3lfredo 9. ,enipayo1 "ollo, pp. 131-13 . [13] C3 Resol'tion1 Rollo, p. 13*. [1 ] Rollo, p. 2! . [1!] R%C >rder, Rollo, pp. 1)1-1)2. [1"] Rollo, p. 1!*. [1#] Ibid., p. "). [1$] Rollo, pp. 1!3-1! . [1*] Ibid., p.1!!. [2)] 0o+e6 8s. Presidin. ('d.e, 2 * -CR3 32- 33, >ctober 2 , 1**!. [21] 1! -CR3 !*3, cited in C&'a E'at, et. al. 8s. Co'rt of 3ppeals, et. al., 1** -CR3

1!, ('ly *, 1**1.
"YLLABI;"YN -"I"

4IR-% 7IVI-I>/

[G.R. No. 119712. January 29, 1999]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF T E P !L!PP!NE" an# A""ET PR!VAT!$AT!ON TR%"T, petitioners, vs. &O%RT OF APPEAL" an# &ONT!NENTAL &EMENT &ORPORAT!ON, respondents. DE&!"!ON
MART!NE$, J.'

%&is petition for re8ie= on certiorari assails t&e decision[1] rendered by t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals dated ;arc& 2$, 1**! in C3-0.R. CV /o. 2!*" affir+in. t&e decision of t&e Re.ional %rial Co'rt-,ranc& * of ;alolos, ,'lacan dated >ctober *, 1**2 and adoptin. in toto t&e orders rendered by t&e sa+e trial co'rt dated 3'.'st 2! and 7ece+ber 1 , 1**2. >n /o8e+ber 1$, 1*$!, t&e 7e8elop+ent ,anI of t&e P&ilippines B7,PD, a .o8ern+ent o=ned and controlled corporation, filed =it& t&e >ffice of t&e -&eriff of ;alolos an application for e<tra5'dicial foreclos're of real and personal properties sit'ated at -an (ose del ;onte and /or6a.aray, ,'lacan in8ol8in. se8eral real and?or c&attel +ort.a.es e<ec'ted by Continental Ce+ent Corporation BCCCD, a corporation or.ani6ed and e<istin. 'nder P&ilipine la=s, en.a.ed +ainly in t&e +an'fact're of ce+ent, in fa8or of 7,P on 3'.'st 2), 1*"$1 -epte+ber , 1*"$1 ;ay #, 1*"*1 -epte+ber 1*, 1*"*1 >ctober 2 , 1*"* and /o8e+ber 13, 1*"*. >n 7ece+ber 11, 1*$!, Continental Ce+ent filed a co+plaint =it& t&e Re.ional %rial Co'rt of ;alolos, ,'lacan. %&e s'it principally so'.&t to en5oin t&e t&en defendants 7,P and t&e -&eriff of ;alolos, ,'lacan fro+ co++encin. t&e foreclos're proceedin.s on CCCJs +ort.a.es =&ic& =ere e<ec'ted in fa8or of 7,P to sec're 8ario's loans obtained by CCC. In addition, CCC also prayed t&at a ne= ter+ for its loan obli.ation be establis&ed, and t&at t&e co'rt declare t&e interest escalation cla'se contained in 7,PJs pro+issory notes as n'll and 8oid. 3 te+porary restrainin. order B%R>D =as iss'ed and s'bseF'ently a :rit of Preli+inary In5'nction =as liIe=ise iss'ed on (an'ary 1#, 1*$", despite opposition t&ereto by 7,P. -o+eti+e in 7ece+ber 1*$", Procla+ation /o. !)[2] =as pro+'l.ated by t&en President Cora6on C. 3F'ino p'rs'ant to 3d+inistrati8e >rder /o. 1 . %&e procla+ation establis&ed t&e pri8ati6ation pro.ra+ of t&e /ational 0o8ern+ent and created t&e Co++ittee on Pri8ati6ation and &erein petitioner 3--2% PRIV3%IK3%I>/ %RC-% B3P%D as t&e pri8ati6ation ar+ for t&e .o8ern+ent.

-e8eral non-perfor+in. assets of t&e .o8ern+ent financial instit'tions, incl'din. 7,P, =ere transferred to t&e /ational 0o8ern+ent. %&e transfer =as i+ple+ented t&ro'.& a 7eed of %ransfer e<ec'ted on 4ebr'ary 2#, 1*$# bet=een 7,P and t&e /ational 0o8ern+ent, =&ic& in t'rn, desi.nated petitioner 3P% to act as its tr'stee o8er t&e assets. 3+on. t&e non-perfor+in. assets identified and transferred to t&e 3P% =as t&e acco'nt of CCC. 3 %r'st 3.ree+ent =as t&ereafter e<ec'ted bet=een t&e /ational 0o8ern+ent and 3P%, =&erein t&e latter =as to taIe title to and possession of liabilities and non-perfor+in. assets. >n -epte+ber 1$, 1*$#, 7,P filed a +otion to dis+iss contendin. B1D t&at t&e case &as beco+e +oot and acade+ic beca'se CCC co'ld no lon.er sec're reliefs fro+ 7,P as a res'lt of t&e transfer of 7,PJs clai+ a.ainst CCC to 3P%1 and B2D t&at t&e co'rt lost 5'risdiction o8er t&e s'b5ect +atter considerin. t&at -ection 31 of Proc. /o. !) pro&ibits t&e iss'ance of any restrainin. order or in5'nction a.ainst 3P% in connection =it& t&e acF'isition, sale, or disposition of assets transferred to it. Eo=e8er, t&e +otion of 7,P =as denied by t&e trial co'rt on (an'ary 2#, 1*$$, and 3P% =as e8ent'ally allo=ed to 5oin t&e defendant 7,P p'rs'ant to Procla+ation /o. !), as a+ended. In ('ly 1*$*, t&e acco'ntin. fir+ of (. C. 9aya [3] =as desi.nated by t&e lo=er co'rt as Co++issioner to resol8e t&e +ain iss'e in t&e case, t&at is, t&e deter+ination of t&e act'al arreara.es of respondent CCC to petitioner 3P% and 7,P arisin. fro+ loan acco++odations obtained by CCC fro+ 7,P. %o aid t&e Co++issioner and to e<pedite &is tasI of deter+inin. t&e act'al indebtedness of CCC, bot& CCC and 7,P pro8ided t&e representati8es of t&e Co++issioner =it& t&e pertinent data and doc'+ents =&ic& =ere =it&in t&eir c'stody and possession. 3+on. t&e doc'+ents pro8ided =as a copy of t&e ;e+orand'+ of 3.ree+ent[ ] e<ec'ted bet=een CCC and 7,P =&ic& pe..ed CCCJs total indebtedness to 7,P at P133,#1#,2$".*! as of 3'.'st 31, 1*#*. %&e Co++issioner =as 'nable to acco+plis& &is assi.ned tasI =it&in t&e period set by t&e co'rt. Ee =as initially .i8en an e<tension of si<ty B")D days. %&is pro8ed to be ins'fficient t&'s &e =as .ranted anot&er forty-fi8e B !D days fro+ 7ece+ber 1$, 1*$*. 7espite se8eral e<tensions .i8en to t&e Co++issioner to co+plete &is report, &e failed to do so. %&is pro+pted t&e trial co'rt to iss'e an >rder dated 3pril 23, 1**) directin. 3tty. (ose 9eynes[!] to e<plain =&y &e s&o'ld not be cited for conte+pt for &is 'ne<plained o+ission to perfor+ and acco+plis& &is d'ties as t&e co'rt appointed Co++issioner. %&is =as follo=ed by anot&er >rder dated ('ly 2, 1**) citin. 3tty. 9eynes in conte+pt of co'rt and ordered &is i+prison+ent for &is nonco+pliance =it& t&e 3pril 23, 1**) order. %o a8oid t&e conseF'ences of t&e conte+pt order, 3tty. 9eynes s'b+itted a draft report on ('ly 11, 1**) entitled “-'++ary of Initial 4indin.s.” %&e conte+pt order =as s'bseF'ently lifted by t&e trial co'rt on 3'.'st 2), 1**). 3fter se8eral +ont&s of =orI &ad passed, t&e Co++issioner, t&is ti+e Ino=n as “9aya ;anabat -al.ado L Co.,” s'b+itted to t&e lo=er co'rt its report entitled “Co++issionerJs Report on 9oan Proceeds and Pay+ents” dated (an'ary 11, 1**1. %&e findin.s of t&e Co++issioner as cited by t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals in its decision =ere as follo=sA “!( )*ar+ *,-.a+/+ (.a( (.* r*-or( /+ 0on1/n*# (o a #*(*r,/na(/on o1 &&&2+

/n#*)(*#n*++ (o DBP /n r*3a(/on on3y (o 1our 456 +(ra/7.( -*+o 3oan+, na+ely, a 12M

ten-year loan of P3,$"#,2*1 si.ned on 3'.'st 2), 1*"$1 a 1)M ten-year loan of P#,#$ ,))) si.ned on -epte+ber 1*, 1*"*1 a 1)M ten-year loan si.ned on >ctober 23, 1*"*1 and a P!.!. ;illion loan not co8ered by any pro+issory note b't released to t&e e<tent of P1.) ;illion in ;arc& 1*#2, and t=o B2D .'aranteed forei.n e<c&an.e loans consistin. of C-N2,))),))) contracted on -epte+ber , 1*"$ by CCC b't .'aranteed by 7,P in fa8or of -o+e< 9td. and 7;11,233,11! B0er+an 7e'tsc&e ;arIsD in fa8or of consorti'+ of :est 0er+an ;an'fact'rers &eaded by HlocInerE'+boldt-7e't6, 3.0. dated ;ay *, 1*"* BReport, p. 3D. T.* R*-or( *803u#*+ (.* /,-3/0a(/on+ o1, 1/r+(3y, an /n#u+(r/a3 1un# 3oan *8(*n#*# )y DBP 1or &&&2+ a09u/+/(/on o1 0oa3 0on:*r+/on *9u/-,*n( a--*ar/n7 /n DBP2+ )oo;+ o1 a00oun(+ a+ %"< 2,==>,?57 an#, +*0on#3y, DBP2+ a#:an0*+ 1or /n+uran0*, ,ana7*,*n( 1**+ an# ,/+0*33an*ou+ 0.ar7*+ /n (.* (o(a3 a,oun( o1 P5,5?@,>A7 4R*-or(, --. >B9, -ar+. 5.>, 5.96. 8 8 8C["]
3s a res'lt of t&e report, t&e parties filed t&eir respecti8e co++ents and ob5ections t&ereto. 7'rin. t&e trial, for+er Central ,anI 0o8ernor (ai+e C. 9aya and a representati8e of t&e Co++issioner =ere called 'pon to testify. %&e parties also &ad t&e opport'nity to cross-e<a+ine t&e =itnesses on +atters to'c&ed 'pon in t&e report as =ell as t&ose disre.arded by t&e Co++issioner in its report. 3fter &a8in. cross-e<a+ined t&e representati8e of t&e Co++issioner, t&e parties =ere t&en allo=ed to s'b+it t&eir respecti8e Position Papers. Contained in t&eir respecti8e position papers =as t&eir o=n co+p'tation of t&e o'tstandin. liabilities of CCC. CCCJs co+p'tation of its e<act indebtedness to 7,P as of 7ece+ber 1**), co8erin. t&e strai.&t peso loans and forei.n .'arantees stood at P 3,")1,1*2.#3. %&e Co++issioner reported t&at t&e indebtedness a+o'nted to P"1,"*$,$ *.)) =&ile 7,P and 3P% co+p'ted CCCJs total indebtedness in t&e s'+ of P2,"!",!#3,#1".11.[#] >n ('ly 23, 1**2, a &earin. =as sc&ed'led for t&e sole p'rpose of e<a+inin. t&ree B3D of CCCJs =itnesses, na+ely, 0re.orio 9i+, Crbano Cr'6 and (essica 3lon6o. %&e cross-e<a+ination =as to be cond'cted by 3P% as 7,P &ad pre8io'sly cond'cted its o=n cross-e<a+ination. %&e co'nsel for CCC failed to appear as &e =as alle.edly ill. >n t&at sa+e date, t&e co'rt iss'ed an order resettin. t&e crosse<a+ination for CCCJs =itnesses on 3'.'st 2 , 2! and 2", 1**2. 3.ain, t&e co'nsel for 3P% =as not able to attend d'e to an alle.ed serio's illness B7en.'e Ee+orr&a.ic 4e8erD. 3lso absent d'rin. t&e &earin. =as 7,PJs co'nsel and 7,P?3P%Js lone =itness, ;r. (ai+e V. Cr'6. >n 3'.'st 2!, 1**2, t&e trial co'rt iss'ed an order =&ic& considered t&e case s'b+itted for decision. %&e final para.rap& of t&e order reads as follo=sA “In t&e li.&t of t&e fore.oin. de8elop+ents, and confor+ably =it& t&e a.ree+ent

entered into +'c& earlier by t&e contendin. parties to t&e effect t&at after t&e affiants to t&e position papers s&all &a8e been cross-e<a+ined, t&e parties s&all dispense =it& t&e presentation of f'rt&er e8idence, t&e case at bar is considered &encefort& s'b+itted for ad5'dication on t&e +erits.”[$]

It is clai+ed by petitioner 3P% t&at =&en t&e abo8e-+entioned order =as iss'ed, 3P% did not yet &a8e t&e opport'nity to cross-e<a+ine t&e affiants of respondent CCC1 nor did it &a8e t&e c&ance to present any of t&eir affiants to s'pport t&eir alle.ations as contained in t&eir (oint Position Papers. >n -epte+ber 1$, 1**2, 3P% filed a “;otion for Reconsideration.” In an order dated >ctober 13, 1**2, t&e trial co'rt declared t&at s'c& +otion beca+e +oot and acade+ic by reason of t&e decision rendered on >ctober !, 1**2. >n t&at earlier date, t&e lo=er co'rt rendered t&e assailed decision, t&e dispositi8e portion of =&ic& is as follo=sA “:E2R24>R2, pre+ises considered, 5'd.+ent is &ereby renderedA
1. fi<in. t&e total indebtedness of plaintiff Continental Ce+ent Corporation in fa8or of defendant 7e8elop+ent ,anI of t&e P&ilippines on t&e strai.&t peso loans and forei.n .'arantees at P"1, *$,$ *.)) as of 7ece+ber 31, 1**)1 2. fi<in. t&e indebtedness of plaintiff Continental Ce+ent Corporation in fa8or of defendant 7e8elop+ent ,anI of t&e P&ilippines on t&e coal con8ersion loan at C-N*##,))).)), or P#,3 #,$*).)) =&ic& is its eF'i8alent in pesos at t&e official rate of e<c&an.e pre8ailin. in 3'.'st 1*#*1 3. orderin. t&e plaintiff to pay 'nto eit&er of t&e defendants 7,P or 3P%, =it&in si< B"D +ont&s fro+ t&e finality of t&is 5'd.+ent, t&e afore+entioned a+o'nt of P"1, *$,$ *.)) =it& interest t&ereon at 1)M per ann'+ fro+ (an'ary 1, 1**1 'ntil t&e sa+e s&all &a8e been f'lly paid and t&e afore+entioned a+o'nt of C-N**#,))).))?P#,3 #,$*).)) =it&o't interest t&ereon1 . declarin. pre+at're and =it&o't le.al basis t&e application for e<tra5'dicial foreclos're B3nne< 3 of t&e Co+plaintD filed on /o8e+ber 1$, 1*$! by defendant 7e8elop+ent ,anI of t&e P&ilippines =it& t&e office of t&e defendant -&eriff of ;alolos, ,'lacan1 !. +aIin. per+anent t&e =rit of preli+inary in5'nction iss'ed by t&is Co'rt on (an'ary 1#, 1*$" in t&e case at bar en5oinin. proceedin.s on t&e afore+entioned application for e<tra5'dicial foreclos're, =it&o't pre5'dice to s'c& ri.&ts Bincl'din. t&e instit'tion of e8ent'al foreclos're proceedin.sD as t&e defendants +ay opt to p'rs'e a.ainst t&e plaintiff in t&e e8ent t&at t&e directi8e specified in t&e precedin. para.rap& &ereof s&all not &a8e been co+plied =it&1 and ". dis+issin. t&e plaintiffJs clai+ for 'nspecified attorneyJs fees and e<penses of liti.ation.

/o prono'nce+ent as to costs. -> >R72R27.”[*]
3fter &a8in. learned of t&e decision of t&e trial co'rt, 3P% and 7,P filed t&eir respecti8e >+nib's ;otions. 3P%, in its >+nib's ;otion dated >ctober 2#, 1**2, prayed for t&e iss'ance of t&e follo=in. orders by t&e trial co'rtA
1D 8acatin. and n'llifyin. its 7ecision dated >ctober !, 1**21 2D .rantin. 3P% an opport'nity to cross-e<a+ine plaintiffJs =itness1

3D allo=in. 7,P and 3P% to present t&eir =itnesses and e8idence1 D after trial, reF'irin. t&e parties to s'b+it t&eir respecti8e ;e+oranda. [1)]

%&e trial co'rt, on 7ece+ber 1 , 1**2, iss'ed an >rder denyin. t&e separate >+nib's ;otions of 3P% and 7,P. ,ot& 3P% and 7,P appealed t&e trial co'rtJs decision dated >ctober !, 1**2 and orders dated 3'.'st 2!, 1**2 and 7ece+ber 1 , 1**2. >n ('ne #, 1**3, 3P% and 7,P filed =it& t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals a petition for certiorari and pro&ibition =it& prayer for an e#$parte iss'ance of a restrainin. order and a =rit of preli+inary in5'nction docIeted as C3-0.R. -P /o. 32$!3. Eo=e8er, on (an'ary 31, 1** , t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals dis+issed t&e petition for lacI of +erit. %&'s, on ;arc& 2$, 1**!, t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals, in C3-0.R. CV /o. 2!*" rendered t&e assailed decision, t&e dispositi8e portion of =&ic& reads as follo=sA “:E2R24>R2, pre+ises considered, 5'd.+ent is &ereby rendered 344IR;I/0 t&e

7ecision dated >ctober !, 1**2 and t&e orders dated 3'.'st 2! and 7ece+ber 1 , 1**2 in toto. %&e order dated (an'ary 22, 1**3 is &ereby ann'lled and set aside insofar as it directs t&e partial release of collaterals by defendants-appellants 7,P and 3P%.”[11]
In t&e instant Petition for Re8ie=, 3P% assi.ns t&e follo=in. errors co++itted by t&e appellate co'rtA “!

%E2 C>CR% >4 3PP239- I/ 344IR;I/0 %E2 9>:2R C>CR%J- 72CI-I>/, 7I-R203R727 %E2 PRI/CIP92- 2;,>7I27 I/ %E2 7C2 PR>C2-- C93C-2 >4 %E2 C>/-%I%C%I>/, %EC-A
A

%E2 C>CR% >4 3PP239- 2RR27 I/ 4I/7I/0 %E3% P2%I%I>/2R E3:3IV27 I%- RI0E% %> CR>---2O3;I/2 R2-P>/72/%J- :I%/2-!!

%E2 C>CR% >4 3PP239- 2RR27 :E2/ I% 344IR;27 %E2 %RI39 C>CR%J72CI-I>/ 37>P%I/0 I/ %>%> %E2 R2P>R% >4 %E2 C>;;I--I>/2R
A

%E2 C>CR% >4 3PP239- 2RR27 I/ 344IR;I/0 %E2 %RI39 C>CR%J72CI-I>/ %E3% %E2 ;2;>R3/7C; >4 30R22;2/% I- C/2/4>RC23,92
B

%E2 C>CR% >4 3PP239- 2RR27 I/ 344IR;I/0 %E2 %RI39 C>CR%J72CI-I>/ 9I;I%I/0 %E2 9I3,I9I%G >4 R2-P>/72/% I/ %E2 3;>C/% >4 P"1, *$,$ *.)) 3- >4 72C2;,2R 31, 1**) I/-%237 >4 P2,"!",!#3,#1".11

!!!

%E2 C>CR% >4 3PP239- 2RR27 I/ 344IR;I/0 %E2 %RI39 C>CR%JI--C3/C2 >4 3 %2;P>R3RG R2-%R3I/I/0 >R72R 3/7 :RI%- >4 PR29I;I/3RG 3/7 P2R;3/2/% I/(C/C%I>/.
3nent t&e first assi.ned error, petitioner 3P% insists t&at t&e lo=er co'rt as =ell as t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals disre.arded t&e principles of t&e d'e process cla'se e+bodied in t&e Constit'tion =&en it fo'nd 3P% to &a8e =ai8ed its ri.&t to cross-e<a+ine respondentJs =itnesses. >n t&e ot&er &and, respondent CCC co'nters t&at t&e findin.s of t&e lo=er co'rt +ay be attrib'ted to t&e fa'lt of 3P%Js co'nsel. CCC alle.es t&at t&e co'nsel for 3P% often absented &i+self on sc&ed'led &earin. dates, res'ltin. in t&e fail're to cross-e<a+ine t&e =itnesses of respondent CCC. %&e insistence of t&e petitioner is =it&o't basis. 9on. in.rained in o'r 5'rispr'dence is t&e principle t&at t&ere can be no denial of d'e process =&ere a party &ad t&e opport'nity to participate in t&e proceedin.s b't did not do so.[12] 3s s&o=n fro+ t&e records, t&e co'nsel for 3P% =as absent on se8eral occasions, specifically on 3pril #, ;ay !, ('ne 2, ('ne 1", 3'.'st 2 and 2!, 1**2. -e8eral reasons =ere raised by 3P%Js co'nsel to 5'stify &is absence, s'c& as =it&dra=al of pre8io's co'nsel, 'nreadiness to cond'ct t&e cross-e<a+inations, and serio's illness. %&ese fli+sy e<c'ses do not =arrant consideration fro+ t&is Co'rt. %&e =it&dra=al of 3P%Js pre8io's co'nsel in t&e t&icI of t&e proceedin.s =o'ld be a reasonable .ro'nd to seeI postpone+ent of t&e &earin.. Eo=e8er, s'c& reason necessitates a d'ty, nay an obli.ation, on t&e part of t&e ne= co'nsel to prepare &i+self for t&e ne<t sc&ed'led &earin.. %&e e<c'se t&at it =as d'e to t&e for+er co'nselJs fail're to t'rn o8er t&e records of t&e case to 3P%, s&o=s t&e ne.li.ence of t&e ne= co'nsel to acti8ely reco8er t&e records of t&e case. ;ere de+ands are not s'fficient. Co'nsel s&o'ld &a8e taIen adeF'ate steps to f'lly protect t&e interest of &is client, rat&er t&an pass t&e bla+e on t&e pre8io's co'nsel. 3 +otion to postpone trial on t&e .ro'nd t&at co'nsel is 'nprepared for trial de+onstrates indifference and disre.ard of a clientJs interest. 3 ne= co'nsel =&o appears in a case in +idstrea+ is pres'+ed and obli.ed to acF'aint &i+self =it& all t&e antecedent processes and proceedin.s t&at &a8e transpired prior to &is taIeo8er.[13] 3s re.ards t&e serio's illness s'ffered by co'nsel d'rin. t&e trial dates of 3'.'st 2 and 2!, 1**2, =e taIe note t&at 7en.'e Ee+orr&a.ic 4e8er, if not treated at its early sta.e, co'ld ca'se serio's illness, so+eti+es e8en deat&. %&is Co'rt is not 'n+indf'l of t&e fact t&at co'nselJs absence =as d'e to t&is deadly disease. :&at baffles t&is Co'rt is t&e reason offered by co'nsel t&at “alt&o'.& t=o ot&er 3P% la=yers =ere +entioned in t&e pleadin.s, only one =as acti8ely in8ol8ed in t&e &andlin. of t&e case.”[1 ] Co'nsel f'rt&er adds t&at &e co'ld not &a8e possibly appraised t&e t=o ot&er la=yers to appear d'rin. t&e
sc&ed'led &earin. in &is absence.

:e cannot 'nderstand =&y it =o'ld be diffic'lt for co'nsel to appraise &is t=o ot&er collaboratin. co'nsels. Co'nsel &i+self readily ad+its t&at of t&e t=o, only one is acti8ely &andlin. t&e case. It =o'ld taIe a +ere p&one call to infor+ &is co-co'nsels t&an &e =o'ld be 'nable to attend rat&er t&an be declared absent d'rin. trial. Get, co'nsel failed to do so.

In 8ie= of t&e fore.oin., =e find t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals did not co++it error, =&en it declared t&at petitioner =ai8ed its ri.&t to cross-e<a+ine t&e respondentJs =itnesses. %&e d'e process reF'ire+ent is satisfied =&ere t&e parties are .i8en t&e opport'nity to s'b+it position papers, [1!] as in t&is case. ,ot& parties, CCC and 7,P?3P%, =ere .i8en opport'nity to s'b+it t&eir respecti8e position papers after t&e Co++issioner rendered &is report. Contained in t&eir position papers =ere t&eir respecti8e co++ents and ob5ections to t&e said report. 4'rt&er+ore, t&e parties =ere also .i8en t&e c&ance to cross-e<a+ine t&e Co++issioner and &is representati8e. %&ey =ere liIe=ise .ranted opport'nity to cross-e<a+ine t&e =itnesses of t&e ot&er party, &o=e8er, liIe in 3P%Js case, t&ey =ere dee+ed to &a8e =ai8ed t&eir ri.&t, as pre8io'sly disc'ssed. %&e essence of d'e process is t&at a party be afforded a reasonable opport'nity to be &eard and to s'pport any e8idence &e +ay &a8e in s'pport of &is defense. [1"] :&at t&e la= pro&ibits is absol'te absence of t&e opport'nity to be &eard, &ence, a party cannot fei.n denial of d'e process =&en &e &ad been afforded t&e opport'nity to present &is side.[1#] 3s to t&e second assi.ned error, petitioner a8ers t&at t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals erred =&en it affir+ed t&e trial co'rtJs decision adoptin. in toto t&e report of t&e Co++issioner and t&e decision of t&e trial co'rt declarin. t&e ;e+orand'+ of 3.ree+ent as 'nenforceable. %&e abo8e-+entioned iss'es in8ol8e +atters =&ic& are fact'al in nat're. 3s a .eneral r'le, findin.s of fact of t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals are bindin. and concl'si8e 'pon t&is Co'rt, and =e =ill not nor+ally dist'rb s'c& fact'al findin.s 'nless t&e findin.s of t&e co'rt are palpably 'ns'pported by t&e e8idence on record or 'nless t&e 5'd.+ent itself is based on a +isappre&ension of facts.[1$] In t&e case at bar, =e find no s'c& error t&at =o'ld =arrant a re8ersal of t&e assailed decision. 3s to t&e +atter of t&e +e+orand'+ of a.ree+ent, =e conc'r =it& t&e decision of t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals. %&e ;e+orand'+ of 3.ree+ent itself stated t&at “fail're of Continental to +eet t&is deadline s&all be constr'ed as its ob5ection to t&is ne= restr'ct'rin. sc&e+e.” [1*] ;oreo8er, CCC did not e<ec'te nor s'b+it all t&e doc'+ents needed to +aIe said a.ree+ent effecti8e. %&e fact t&at CCC did not co+ply =it& t&e reF'ire+ents of t&e ;e+orand'+ of 3.ree+ent at t&e e<piration of t&e period set by 7,P, only s&o=s CCCJs non-confor+ity to t&e a.ree+ent. -ince CCC did not e<press its confor+ity to t&e a.ree+ent, it =as only proper for t&e Co++issioner to consider t&e a+o'nt of indebtedness of CCC based on act'al loan releases. %&e Co++issioner did consider t&e ;e+orand'+ of 3.ree+ent as a so'rce doc'+ent, &o=e8er, no one =as able to satisfactorily e<plain &o= t&e fi.'re =as arri8ed at. It +'st be e+p&asi6ed t&at t&e Co++issionerJs report =as li+ited in relation to fo'r B D strai.&t peso loans and t=o B2D .'aranteed forei.n e<c&an.e loans. It is, t&erefore, erroneo's for 3P% and 7,P to concl'de t&at CCCJs entire o'tstandin. obli.ations stood at P2,"!",!#3,#1".11. 3s re.ards t&e deter+ination of t&e Co++issioner as to t&e act'al indebtedness of CCC, =e 'p&old t&e r'lin. of t&e respondent co'rt. %&e 8ery reason =&y t&e Co++issioner =as appointed as s'c& =as d'e to t&e co+ple< nat're of t&e iss'es in8ol8ed in t&e case =&ic& reF'ired t&e tec&nical Ino=-&o= and e<pertise possessed by t&e Co++issioner. %&e records also bear t&e fact t&at said Co++issioner =as c&osen by bot& parties. 3s =e &a8e pre8io'sly r'led in Quebral vs. CA[2)] t&at fact'al findin.s of t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals nor+ally are not re8ie=able by t&is Co'rt 'nder R'le ! of t&e R'les of Co'rt, e<cept =&en t&e

findin.s of t&e appellate co'rt are at 8ariance =it& t&ose of t&e trial co'rt. -ince t&e trial co'rt and t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals =ere in 'nison =it& t&e findin.s of t&e Co++issioner, t&is Co'rt is of t&e opinion t&at it finds no co+pellin. reason to re8erse t&e sa+e. 9astly, petitioner 3P% ar.'es t&at t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals erred in affir+in. t&e trial co'rtJs iss'ance of a te+porary restrainin. order and a =rit of preli+inary and per+anent in5'nction a.ainst it B3P%D, despite t&e e<press pro8isions of Procla+ation /o. !). >n t&e ot&er &and, CCC asse8erates t&at since 3P% =as a +ere transferee pendente lite, it =as bo'nd by t&e preli+inary in5'nction pre8io'sly iss'ed a.ainst 7,P. :e find +erit in t&e assi.ned error of petitioner 3P%. It +'st be recalled t&at t&e trial co'rt did in fact iss'e a :rit of Preli+inary In5'nction a.ainst petitioner 3P%. %&e partic'lar section =&ic& contains t&e “non-in5'nction r'le” is F'oted &ere'nderA “Co'rts +ay not s'bstit'te t&eir 5'd.+ent for t&at of 3P%, nor blocI, by an in5'nction

t&e disc&ar.e of its f'nction and t&e i+ple+entation of its decision in connection =it& t&e acF'isition, sale, or disposition of assets transferred to it.”[21]
4'rt&er+ore, =e reiterate t&e r'lin. &eld in t&at case t&at Procla+ation /o. !) does not infrin.e any pro8ision of t&e Constit'tion. %&'s P “%&e President, in t&e e<ercise of &is le.islati8e po=er 'nder t&e 4reedo+ Constit'tion,

iss'ed Procla+ation /o. !)-3 pro&ibitin. t&e co'rts fro+ iss'in. restrainin. orders and =rit of in5'nction a.ainst t&e 3P% and t&e p'rc&asers of any asset sold by it, to pre8ent co'rts fro+ interferin. in t&e disc&ar.e, by t&is instr'+entality of t&e e<ec'ti8e branc& of t&e 0o8ern+ent, of its tasI of carryin. o't Qt&e e<peditio's disposition and pri8ati6ation of certain .o8ern+ent corporations and?or t&e assets t&ereofJ BProc. /o. !)D, absent any .ra8e ab'se of discretion a+o'ntin. to e<cess or lacI of 5'risdiction on its part. %&is procla+ation, not bein. inconsistent =it& t&e Constit'tion and not &a8in. been repealed or re8oIed by Con.ress, &as re+ained operati8e B-ection 3, 3rt. OVIII, 1*$# Constit'tionD.”[22]
%&e records of t&e case at bar does not disclose any .ra8e ab'se of discretion co++itted by petitioner 3P% a+o'ntin. to e<cess or lacI of 5'risdiction in its effort to taIe possession of t&e assets transferred to it by 7,P. :e are of t&e opinion t&at petitioners si+ply a8ailed of 5'dicial processes to reco8er t&e transferred assets for+erly o=ned by 7,P. :e &old respondent Co'rt of 3ppeals liable of co++ittin. t&e assi.ned error. In s'+, petitioner 3P% =as not denied its ri.&t to d'e process =&en it failed to cross-e<a+ine respondentJs =itnesses as t&is =as d'e to its o=n co'nselRs fail're and ne.li.ence. 3 party cannot fei.n denial of d'e process =&en &e &ad t&e opport'nity to present &is side. [23] 3 caref'l re8ie= of t&e records re8eal t&at 7,P &ad t&e opport'nity to e<&a'sti8ely cross-e<a+ine respondentJs =itnesses. 4'rt&er+ore, as transferee pendente lite, 3P% +erely stepped into t&e s&oes of 7,P. 3s re.ards t&e indebtedness of CCC, petitioners 3P%?7,P +'st be re+inded t&at all is not lost =&en t&e Co++issioner r'led t&at t&e o'tstandin. loans a+o'nted to P"1, *$,$ *.)) only. 3s

+anifested by t&e Co++issioner, t&e report li+ited itself to fo'r B D strai.&t peso loans and t=o B2D .'aranteed forei.n e<c&an.e loans. %&is =as d'e to t&e ins'fficiency of s'pportin. doc'+ents s'b+itted by bot& parties. :e =is& to state t&at t&e affir+ation by t&is Co'rt of t&e r'lin.s of t&e Co'rt of 3ppeals as to t&e indebtedness of CCC, does not in any =ay pre5'dice 3P%?7,PJs ri.&t to reco8er fro+ CCC, pro8ided t&ey are f'lly able to s'bstantiate t&eir clai+. D EREFORE, t&e petition is &ereby 72/I27 and t&e assailed decision is &ereby 344IR;27 b't =it& +odification as follo=sA %&e =rit of preli+inary in5'nction iss'ed on (an'ary 1#, 1*$", and t&e =rit of per+anent in5'nction iss'ed on >ctober !, 1**2 are &ereby declared /C99 3/7 V>I7 p'rs'ant to -ection 31, Procla+ation /o. !). "O ORDERED. Davide, r., %. . &%hairman', Melo, (apunan, and Pardo, ., conc'r.

[1] Penned by 3ssociate ('stice Corona Ibay--o+era, =it& 3ssociate ('stice ('sto P. %orres, (r. and 3ssociate ('stice Conrado ;. VasF'e6, (r., conc'rrin.. B-pecial %&irteent& 7i8isionD

[2] PR>C93I;I/0 3/7 93C/CEI/0 3 PR>0R3; 4>R %E2 2OP27I%I>C7I-P>-I%I>/ 3/7 PRIV3%IK3%I>/ >4 C2R%3I/ 0>V2R/;2/% C>RP>R3%I>/- 3/7?>R %E2 3--2%- %E2R2>4 3/7 CR23%I/0 %E2 C>;;I%%22 >/ PRIV3%IK3%I>/ 3/7 %E2 3--2% PRIV3%IK3%I>/ %RC-%. BVital le.al doc'+ents in t&e /e= PeopleJs 0o8ern+ent, Vol. 1) , p. 1D [3] 4or+er Central ,anI 0o8ernor and for+er -ecretary, 7epart+ent of 2d'cation. [ ] %&e ;>3 =as e<ec'ted on ('ly 1), 1*$1. %&e pri+ary p'rpose of t&e ;>3 =as to restr'ct're t&e o'tstandin. balance of CCC as of 3'.'st 31, 1*#*. 3+on. ot&er t&in.s, t&e ;>3Js refinancin. sc&e+e pro8ided t&atA
B3D CCCJs o'tstandin. obli.ations in t&e a+o'nt of P3!.) +illion =as con8erted into preferred s&ares in order to enable CCC to +eet 7,PJs reF'ired #!?2! debt?eF'ity ratio and t&e o8er all ei.&ty percent B$)MD collateral ratio. B,D %&e re+ainin. portion of t&e obli.ation in t&e a+o'nt of P*$,$!1,)) .) s&all be con8erted into a forei.n c'rrency obli.ation, to be dra=n fro+ =&ate8er s&all be a8ailable o't of 7,PJs o'tstandin. direct forei.n c'rrency borro=in.s, t&e sa+e to be +ade payable to 7,P in +ont&ly install+ents o8er fifteen B1!D years =it& interest at t=el8e percent B12MD per ann'+, t&e first install+ent to beco+e d'e =it&in t&e first ten B1)D days of -epte+ber 1*#*. %&e +ont&ly install+ents d'e s&all be t&e peso eF'i8alent t&ereof, based on t&e pre8ailin. rate of e<c&an.e on t&e day act'al pay+ents are +ade to 7,P, or on t&e date 7,P paid for t&e install+ents, =&ic&e8er is &i.&er.

[!] 3't&ori6ed Representati8e of t&e Co++issioner. ["] ;e+orand'+ for Petitioner, "ollo, p. 1#". [#] Petition, "ollo, p. 1!.

[$] Petition, "ollo, p. 12. [*] 7ecision of R%C-,ranc& *, ;alolos, ,'lacan, >ctober !, 1**2, "ollo, pp. 13-1 . [1)] Petition, "ollo, p. 1!. [11] Co'rt of 3ppeals decision, "ollo, p. #!. [12] 9oon. vs. Co++ission on 2lections, 2#! -CR3 1 [13] Villasis vs. Co'rt of 3ppeals, ") -CR3 12) [1 ] ;e+orand'+ of Petitioner1 "ollo, p. 1*). [1!] -alon.a vs. /9RC, 2! -CR3 111. [1"] ;idas %o'c& 4ood Corporation vs. /9RC, 2!* -CR3 "!2. [1#] 0arcia vs. /9RC, 2" -CR3 2"1. [1$] Valen6'ela vs. Co'rt of 3ppeals, 2!3 -CR3 3)3. [1*] Para.rap& 2BcD, ;>31 Co'rt of 3ppeals 7ecision1 "ollo, p. "#. [2)] 2!2 -CR3 3!3. [21] -ection 31, Proc. /o. !). [22] Ibid. [23] People vs. 3col, 232 -CR3 )".
S

S/CO + +4K4S4O

[A.C. No. 4282. Au.u/* 24, 2000]

TE DUL& B. BA"A", complainant, vs. ATTY. !IGUEL I. ICA$AT, respondent. RE"
<UI"U!BING, J.#

LUTI

N

4n a letter3complaint dated &une 1@, !##5, complainant Teodulfo '. 'asas alleged negligence on the part of respondent lawyer %iguel 4. 4cawat in the handling of 0-C3 CCases o. ..3.#[email protected]"3#., ..3!!3.,5!.3#1, and ..3.,3.",613#" involving complainant and several of his co3wor8ers. Complainant was one of several wor8ers who filed three separate complaints before the 0-C against their employer, =%C /ngineering and Construction, in !##1 and !##". -espondent was their lawyer. 4n those cases, the wor8ers alleged that they were illegally dismissed and demanded payment of termination pay, accrued leave benefits, !"th month pay, and moral damages. On %arch 1!, !##5, labor arbiter Kalentin C. Guanio rendered a decision in favor of =%C, after finding that the wor8ers were pro7ect wor8ers whose services were validly terminated upon completion of the pro7ects for which they were hired. Bowever, =%C was ordered to pay the wor8erP claims for wage differentials, !"th month pay, service incentive leave pay, and attorneyPs fees. *ggrieved, the wor8ers informed respondent that they wanted to appeal the decision. On %ay 1", !##5, respondent filed a notice of appeal. Bowever, respondent did not file a memorandum of appeal as required under the -ules of 9rocedure of the 0-C. Sensing that respondent had no intention to file a memorandum, complainant and his co3wor8ers as8ed respondent to 7ust withdraw from the case. 4nstead of withdrawing, however, respondent threatened to sue their group and the new lawyer they would hire, said the complainant. Complainant also claims that he and his co3wor8ers gave respondent 91$.... for filing fee but respondent made a receipt for only 9!$..... 4n his comment, respondent asserts that he filed a notice of appeal at the behest of =lutarco Sueno, complainant in one of the labor cases. -espondent claims that herein complainant, along with the other wor8ers, did not wish to file an appeal since they had no money to spend. -espondent alleges that complainant and the other wor8ers instead as8ed him to withdraw from the case, which respondent refused to do since he did not have a basis therefor and he had already filed a notice of appeal. -espondent argues that despite his having filed a notice of appeal, he had not received any notice from the 0-C directing him to file an appeal brief.

On October 15, !##5, we referred, this matter to the 4'9 for investigation, report, and recommendation. 4n its report dated &une !@, !###, the 4'9 Commission on 'ar +iscipline found respondent liable for negligence and unprofessional conduct for his failure to file the required memorandum of appeal before the 0-C, and to account for all the money he received from his clients. 'oth are clear violations of the Code of 9rofessional -esponsibility. The 4'9 'oard of Governors adopted and approved the report of the Commission, with an amendment that the fine to be imposed against respondent be reduced to 9@..... from 9!,....... Ce are in full accord with the findings and recommendation of the 4'9. -ule K4, Section ";a< of the 0-C -ules of 9rocedure requires that2

RThe appeal shall be filed within the reglementary period as provided in Section ! of this -ule> shall be under oath with proof of payment of the required appeal fee and the posting of a cash or surety bond as provided in Section @ of this -ule> shall be accompanied by a memorandum of appeal which shall state the grounds relied upon and the arguments in support thereof> the relief prayed for> and a statement of the date when the appellant received the appealed decision, order or award and proof of service on the other party of such appeal. * mere notice of appeal without complying with the other requisites aforestated shall not stop the running of the period for perfecting an appeal.: ;Fnderscoring supplied.<
-espondentPs failure to file the memorandum of appeal required by the 0-C -ules of 9rocedure reveals his poor grasp of labor law. -espondent practically admitted that he did not file the memorandum, when he claimed that Rdespite follow ups made (he had) not yet received an order wherein which ;sic< to file *99/*0 '-4/= with the ational 0abor -elations Commission.R(!) Bis failure to file the memorandum clearly pre7udiced the interests of his clients. -espondent manifestly fell short of the diligence required of his profession, in violation of Canon !$ of the Code of 9rofessional -esponsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall serve his client with competence and diligence. -ule !$.." provides2

R* lawyer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.R
*s we reiterated in !romin, et al. v. Boncavil, !. 0. "o. @AB@, :eptember CC, ADDD: (1)

ROnce he agrees to ta8e up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. Be must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latterPs cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. /lsewise stated, he owes entire devotion to the interest of the client, warm Ieal in the maintenance and defense of his clientPs rights, and the exertion of his utmost

learning and ability to the end that nothing be ta8en or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law, legally applied. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authoriIed by the law of the land he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. 4f much is demanded from an attorney, it is because the entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it the correlative duties not only to the client but also to the court, to the bar, and to the public. * lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor not only protects the interest of his client> he also serves the ends of 7ustice, does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession.R
=or his failure to issue the proper receipt for the 91$.... he received from his clients 3 which he later on claimed to be insufficient for an Rold experienced lawyerR, whether the amount be 9!$.... or 91$.... 3 respondent also violated -ule !,..! of the Code of 9rofessional -esponsibility2

R* lawyer shall account for all money or property collected or received for or from the client.R
$%ERE& RE, the Court resolves to =4 / *tty. %iguel 4. 4cawat in the amount of 9@....., with a warning that a repetition of the same offense or a similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely. " RDERED.

Bellosillo, ,0hairman-, Mendoza, Buena, and De <eon, 9r., 99., concur.

[1]

"ollo, p. !*.

[2] Citin. -antia.o v. 4o5as, 2 $ -CR3 "$, #3-# B1**!D.