EN BANC

[A.C. No. 7474. September 9, 2014.]

PRESIDING JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,

BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY , complainant, vs . ATTY. JUAN S.
DEALCA , respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN , J : p

Complainant Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court has had enough of the
respondent, a law practitioner, who had engaged in the unethical practice of ling frivolous
administrative cases against judges and personnel of the courts because the latter led a
motion to inhibit the complainant from hearing a pending case. Hence, the complainant
has initiated this complaint for the disbarment of respondent on the ground of gross
misconduct and gross violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Antecedents
On February 7, 2007, Atty. Juan S. Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal Case
No. 2006-6795, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Philip William Arsenault " then pending
in Branch 51 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Sorsogon City, presided by complainant
Judge Jose L. Madrid. 1 Atty. Dealca sought to replace Atty. Vicente Judar who had led a
motion to withdraw as counsel for the accused. But aside from entering his appearance as
counsel for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved that Criminal Case No. 2006-6795 be re-
ra ed to another Branch of the RTC " [c]onsidering the adverse incidents between the
incumbent Presiding Judge and the undersigned," where "he does not appear before the
incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also hear cases handled by the
undersigned." 2
Judge Madrid denied Atty. Dealca's motion to re-ra e through an order issued on
February 14, 2007, 3 viz.:
xxx xxx xxx

This Court will not allow that a case be removed from it just because of the
personal sentiments of counsel who was not even the original counsel of the
litigant.

Moreover, the motion of Atty. Dealca is an affront to the integrity of this

Court and the other Courts in this province as he would like it to appear that
jurisdiction over a Family Court case is based on his whimsical dictates.
This was so because Atty. Dealca had led Administrative as well as
criminal cases against this Presiding Judge which were all dismissed by the Hon.
Supreme Court for utter lack of merit. This is why he should not have accepted
this particular case so as not to derail the smooth proceedings in this Court with
his baseless motions for inhibition. It is the lawyer's duty to appear on behalf of a
client in a case but not to appear for a client to remove a case from the Court.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 This is unethical practice in the first order.

WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, the Motion of Atty. Juan S. Dealca is

hereby DENIED.

Relative to the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for the Accused led by

Atty. Vicente C. Judar dated January 29, 2007, the same is hereby DENIED for
being violative of the provisions of Section 26 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
So also, the Appearance of Atty. Juan S. Dealca as new counsel for
accused Philip William Arsenault is likewise DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

Consequently, Judge Madrid led a letter complaint 4 in the O ce of the Bar

Con dant citing Atty. Dealca's unethical practice of entering his appearance and then
moving for the inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext of previous adverse
incidents between them.
On April 10, 2007, we treated the complaint as a regular administrative complaint,
and required Atty. Dealca to submit his comment. 5
In his comment-complaint, 6 Atty. Dealca asserted that Judge Madrid's issuance of
the February 14, 2007 order unconstitutionally and unlawfully deprived the accused of the
right to counsel, to due process, and to a fair and impartial trial; that Judge Madrid
exhibited bias in failing to act on the motion to lift and set aside the warrant of arrest
issued against the accused; and that it should be Judge Madrid himself who should be
disbarred and accordingly dismissed from the Judiciary for gross ignorance of the law. cDCaTS

On July 17, 2007, the Court referred the matter to the IBP for appropriate
investigation, report and recommendation. 7 Several months thereafter, the Court also
indorsed pertinent documents in connection with A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ, entitled
"Joseph Yap III v. Judge Jose L. Madrid and Court Stenographer Merlyn D. Dominguez,
both of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 51, Sorsogon City" (Yap v. Judge Madrid). 8
On June 6, 2007, the Court in Yap v. Judge Madrid dismissed for its lack of merit the
administrative complaint against Judge Madrid for allegedly falsifying the transcript of
stenographic notes of the hearing on March 4, 2005 in Civil Case No. 2001-6842 entitled
Joseph D. Yap V, et al. v. Joseph H. Yap III , but referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report and recommendation the propensity of Atty.
Dealca to le administrative or criminal complaints against judges and court personnel
whenever decisions, orders or processes were issued adversely to him and his clients. 9
In compliance with the referral, the IBP-Sorsogon Chapter submitted its report with
the following findings and recommendation: 10
xxx xxx xxx

The documentary evidence offered by complainants show that respondent

Atty. Juan S. Dealca led by himself (1) Bar Matter No. 1197 and acting as
counsel for the complainants (2) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-2113-RTJ; (3) OMB-
L-C-05-0478-E; (4) Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ and (5) Adm. Matter
OCA IPI No. 05-2191-RTJ. These ve (5) cases are factual evidence of the cases
that respondent had led by himself and as counsel for the complainants against
court o cers, judges and personnel as a consequence of the IBP Election and
incidents in cases that respondent had handled as counsel for the parties in the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 said cases.

It will be noted that in Bar Matter No. 1197, the respondents were judges
(Judge Jose L. Madrid & Judge Honesto A. Villamor) and lawyers in IBP Sorsogon
Chapters, who are no doubt officers of the court, and the case aroused (sic) out of
the unfavorable consensus of the IBP chapter members that was adverse to the
position of the respondent. The other four (4) cases aroused [sic] out of the cases
handled by respondent for the complainants who failed to secure a favorable
action from the court.

Speci cally, Adm. Matter OCA IPI No. 04-2113-RTJ was a result of the case
before the sala of Judge Jose L. Madrid (RTC 51) entitled " Alita P. Gomez vs.
Rodrigo Jarabo, et al.," for: Accion Publiciana and Damages, that was handled by
respondent for the complainant Alita Gomez.

OMB-L-C-0478-E was an offshoot of Civil Case No. 2001-6842 entitled

"Marilyn D. Yap, Joseph D. Yap V, et al., vs. Joseph H. Yap III " for: Support
pending before the sala of complainant Judge Jose L. Madrid (RTC 51).
Respondent, after an unfavorable decision against defendant Joseph H. Yap III,
entered his appearance and pleaded for the latter. As a result of an adverse order,
this ombudsman case arose.

Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2191-RTJ was also a result of the
Civil Case No. 5403 entitled "Salve Dealca Latosa vs. Atty. Henry Amado Roxas ,
with Our Lady's Village Foundation and Most Reverend Arnulfo Arcilla, DD as third
party defendant that was heard, tried, decided and pending execution before the
sala of Judge Honesto A. Villamor (RTC 52).

Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ was also a consequence of

Civil Case No. 2001-6842 entitled "Marilyn D. Yap, Joseph D. Yap V, et al., vs.
Joseph H. Yap III" for Support pending before the sala of complainant Judge Jose
L. Madrid (RTC 51).
All these four (4) cases are precipitated by the adverse ruling rendered by
the court against the clients of the respondent that instead of resorting to the
remedies available under the Rules of Procedure, respondent assisted his clients
in ling administrative and criminal case against the judges and personnel of the
court. HDAECI

The other documentary evidence of the complainants such as the (a)

VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated March 7, 2003 in Civil Service Case entitled "EDNA
GOROSPE-DEALCA vs. JULIANA ENCINAS-CARINO, et al. ; (b) NOTICE OF
RESOLUTION on October 22, 2005 in Adm. Case No. 6334 entitled "SOFIA JAO vs.
ATTY. EPIFANIA RUBY VELACRUZ-OIDA" passed by the Board of Governors of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines which Resolution No. XVII-2005-92 provides:
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE the Report and Recommendation of the
Investigating Commissioner dismissing the case for lacks (sic) merit; (c)
RESOLUTION of the Third Division of the Supreme Court dated February 1, 2006
in Administrative Case No. 6334 (So a Jao vs. Epifania Ruby Velacruz-Oida ) —
The notice of resolution dated October 22, 2005 of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP) dismissing the case for lack of merit; (d) VERIFIED COMPLAINT
in Adm. Case No. 6334 dated February 17, 2004 entitled "So a Jao vs. Atty.
Epifania Ruby Velacruz-Oida" for: Malpractice (Forum Shopping), and (e) ORDER
dated January 18, 2007 by Acting Presiding Judge RAUL E. DE LEON in Criminal
Cases Nos. 2451 to 2454 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Cynthia Marcial, et
al. For: Falsi cation of Medical Records" which provides for the dismissal of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 cases against all the accused, do not show participation on the part of the
respondent that he signed the pleadings, although the veri ed complaint is one
executed by the wife of the respondent. Moreover, these cases are pertaining to
persons other than judges and personnel of the court that are not squarely
covered by the present investigation against respondent, although, it is an
undeniable fact that respondent had appeared for and in behalf of his wife, the
rest of the complainants in the Civil Service Case and So a Jao against Land
Bank of the Philippines, the latter case resulted in the administrative case of Atty.
Epifania Ruby Velacruz-Oida, respondent's sister member of the Bar. All these
documentary evidence from (a) to (e) are helpful in determining the
"PROPENSITY" of the respondent as a member of the bar in resorting to
harassment cases instead of going through the procedures provided for by the
Rules of Court in the event of adverse ruling, order or decision of the court.

xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE , it is most respectfully recommended that in view of the
above-foregoings [sic], a penalty of SUSPENSION in the practice of law for a
period of six (6) months from nality of the decision be ordered against
respondent Atty. Juan S. Dealca.

Findings and Recommendation of the IBP

IBP Commissioner Salvador B. Hababag ultimately submitted his Report and
Recommendation 11 nding Atty. Dealca guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code
of Professional Responsibility by ling frivolous administrative and criminal complaints;
and recommending that Atty. Dealca be suspended from the practice of law for one year
because his motion to inhibit Judge Madrid was devoid of factual or legal basis, and was
grounded on purely personal whims.
In Resolution No. XVIII-2008-41, 12 the IBP Board of Governors modi ed the
recommendation and dismissed the administrative complaint for its lack of merit, thus:
RESOLVED to AMEND, as it is hereby AMENDED, the Recommendation of
the Investigating Commissioner, and APPROVE the DISMISSAL of the above-
entitled case for lack of merit.

Judge Madrid led a petition, 13 which the IBP Board of Governors treated as a
motion for reconsideration, and soon denied through its Resolution No. XX-2012-545. 14
Issues
(1) Did Atty. Dealca le frivolous administrative and criminal complaints
against judges and court personnel in violation of the Lawyer's Oath
and the Code of Professional Responsibility?
(2) Was Atty. Dealca guilty of unethical practice in seeking the inhibition of
Judge Madrid in Criminal Case No. 2006-6795?
Ruling of the Court
We REVERSE Resolution No. XX-2012-545.
I
Atty. Dealca must guard against
his own impulse of initiating unfounded suits
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Atty. Dealca insists on the propriety of the administrative and criminal cases he led
against judges and court personnel, including Judge Madrid. He argues that as a vigilant
lawyer, he was duty bound to bring and prosecute cases against unscrupulous and corrupt
judges and court personnel. 15
We see no merit in Atty. Dealca's arguments. DEIHAa

Although the Court always admires members of the Bar who are imbued with a high
sense of vigilance to weed out from the Judiciary the undesirable judges and ine cient or
undeserving court personnel, any acts taken in that direction should be unsullied by any
taint of insincerity or self-interest. The noble cause of cleansing the ranks of the Judiciary
is not advanced otherwise. It is for that reason that Atty. Dealca's complaint against Judge
Madrid has failed our judicious scrutiny, for the Court cannot nd any trace of idealism or
altruism in the motivations for initiating it. Instead, Atty. Dealca exhibited his proclivity for
vindictiveness and penchant for harassment, considering that, as IBP Commissioner
Hababag pointed out, 16 his bringing of charges against judges, court personnel and even
his colleagues in the Law Profession had all stemmed from decisions or rulings being
adverse to his clients or his side. He well knew, therefore, that he was thereby crossing the
line of propriety, because neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for
resorting to the appropriate legal remedies. He should now be reminded that the aim of
every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass
them. 17
The Lawyer's Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any
violation thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension, or other
disciplinary action. 18 The oath exhorts upon the members of the Bar not to "wittingly or
willingly promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit." These are not mere facile
words, drift and hollow, but a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable. 19
As a lawyer, therefore, Atty. Dealca was aware of his duty under his Lawyer's Oath
not to initiate groundless, false or unlawful suits. The duty has also been expressly
embodied in Rule 1.03, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility thuswise:
Rule 1.03 — A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest,
encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any man's cause.

His being an o cer of the court should have impelled him to see to it that the
orderly administration of justice must not be unduly impeded. Indeed, as he must resist
the whims and caprices of his clients and temper his clients' propensities to litigate, 20 so
must he equally guard himself against his own impulses of initiating unfounded suits.
While it is the Court's duty to investigate and uncover the truth behind charges against
judges and lawyers, it is equally its duty to shield them from unfounded suits that are
intended to vex and harass them, among other things. 21
Moreover, Atty. Dealca must be mindful of his mission to assist the courts in the
proper administration of justice. He disregarded his mission because his ling of the
unfounded complaints, including this one against Judge Madrid, increased the workload of
the Judiciary. Although no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to
litigate, the right must nonetheless be exercised in good faith. 22 Atty. Dealca's bringing of
the numerous administrative and criminal complaints against judges, court personnel and
his fellow lawyers did not evince any good faith on his part, considering that he made
allegations against them therein that he could not substantially prove, and are rightfully
deemed frivolous and unworthy of the Court's precious time and serious consideration.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Repeatedly denying any wrongdoing in ling the various complaints, Atty. Dealca had
the temerity to confront even the Court with the following arrogant tirade, to wit:
With due respect, what could be WRONG was the summary dismissal of
cases led against erring judges and court personnel 'for lack of merit', i.e.
without even discussing the facts and the law of the case. 23

Atty. Dealca was apparently referring to the minute resolutions the Court could have
promulgated in frequently dismissing his unmeritorious petitions. His arrogant posturing
would not advance his cause now. He thereby demonstrated his plain ignorance of the
rules of procedure applicable to the Court. The minute resolutions have been issued for the
prompt dispatch of the actions by the Court. 24 Whenever the Court then dismisses a
petition for review for its lack of merit through a minute resolution, it is understood that
the challenged decision or order, together with all its ndings of fact and law, is deemed
sustained or upheld, 25 and the minute resolution then constitutes the actual adjudication
on the merits of the case. The dismissal of the petition, or its denial of due course
indicates the Court's agreement with and its adoption of the ndings and conclusions of
the court a quo. 26

The requirement for stating the facts and the law does not apply to the minute
resolutions that the Court issues in disposing of a case. The Court explained why in
Borromeo v. Court of Appeals: 27
The [Supreme] Court . . . disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute
resolutions and decrees them as nal and executory, as where a case is patently
without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision
appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the
facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that
the petition is led merely to forestall the early execution of judgment and for
non-compliance with the rules. The resolution denying due course or dismissing
the petition always gives the legal basis.
cTEICD

xxx xxx xxx

The Court is not 'duty bound' to render signed Decisions all the time. It has
ample discretion to formulate Decisions and/or Minute Resolutions, provided a
legal basis is given, depending on its evaluation of a case.
The constitutionality of the minute resolutions was the issue raised in Komatsu
Industries (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals . 28 The petitioner contended that the minute
resolutions violated Section 14, 29 Article VIII of the Constitution. The Court, through
Justice Regalado, declared that resolutions were not decisions within the constitutional
contemplation, for the former "merely hold that the petition for review should not be
entertained and even ordinary lawyers have all this time so understood it; and the petition
to review the decision of the Court of Appeals is not a matter of right but of sound judicial
discretion, hence there is no need to fully explain the Court's denial since, for one thing, the
facts and the law are already mentioned in the Court of Appeal's decision." It pointed out
that the constitutional mandate was applicable only in cases submitted for decision, i.e.,
given due course to and after the ling of briefs or memoranda and/or other pleadings, but
not where the petition was being refused due course, with the resolutions for that purpose
stating the legal basis of the refusal. Thus, when the Court, after deliberating on the
petition and the subsequent pleadings, decided to deny due course to the petition and
stated that the questions raised were factual, or there was no reversible error in the lower
court's decision, there was a sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement. 30
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 II
Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and Rule 11.04
of the C ode of Professional Respon sibility
Atty. Dealca maintains that Judge Madrid should have "in good grace inhibited
himself" upon his motion to inhibit in order to preserve "confidence in the impartiality of the
judiciary." 31 However, IBP Commissioner Hababag has recommended that Atty. Dealca be
sanctioned for ling the motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being purely based
on his personal whims, was bereft of factual and legal bases. 32
The recommendation of IBP Commissioner Hababag is warranted.
Lawyers are licensed o cers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and
defend the legal causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities
and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Verily, their membership in the Bar imposes
certain obligations upon them. 33
In this regard, Canon 11 and Rule 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
pertinently state:
Canon 11 — A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the
courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 11.04 — A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not supported
by the record or have no materiality to the case.

In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are bound to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts, and to promote con dence in the fair administration of justice. It is
the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the judicial institution; elsewise,
the institution would be resting on a very shaky foundation. 34
The motion to inhibit filed by Atty. Dealca contained the following averment, to wit:
Considering the adverse incidents between the incumbent
Presiding Judge and the undersigned , he does not appear before the
incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also hear cases handled
by the undersigned . . . . 35 (Bold emphasis supplied)

Atty. Dealca's averment that Judge Madrid did not hear cases being handled by him
directly insinuated that judges could choose the cases they heard, and could refuse to hear
the cases in which hostility existed between the judges and the litigants or their counsel.
Such averment, if true at all, should have been assiduously substantiated by him because it
put in bad light not only Judge Madrid but all judges in general. Yet, he did not even include
any particulars that could have validated the averment. Nor did he attach any document to
support it. HcACTE

Worth stressing, too, is that the right of a party to seek the inhibition or
disquali cation of a judge who does not appear to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial
and independent in handling the case must be balanced with the latter's sacred duty to
decide cases without fear of repression. Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to
establish by clear and convincing evidence the ground of bias and prejudice in order to
disqualify Judge Madrid from participating in a particular trial in which Atty. Dealca was
participating as a counsel. 36 The latter's bare allegations of Judge Madrid's partiality or
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 hostility did not su ce, 37 because the presumption that Judge Madrid would undertake
his noble role to dispense justice according to law and the evidence and without fear or
favor should only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 38 As
such, Atty. Dealca clearly contravened his duties as a lawyer as expressly stated in Canon
11 and Rule 11.04, supra.
On a nal note, it cannot escape our attention that this is not the rst administrative
complaint to be ever brought against Atty. Dealca. In Montano v. Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, 39 we reprimanded him for violating Canon 22 and Rule 20.4, Canon 20 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility, and warned him that a repetition of the same offense
would be dealt with more severely. Accordingly, based on the penalties the Court imposed
on erring lawyers found violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03, 40 and Canon 11, Rule 11.04 41 of the
Code, we deem appropriate to suspend Atty. Dealca from the practice of law for a period
one year. aSTAIH

ACCORDINGLY , the Court FINDS and DE CLARE S respondent ATTY. JUAN S.

DEALCA GUILTY of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.03 and Canon 11, Rule 11.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility; and SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for one year
effective from notice of this decision, with a STERN WARNING that any similar infraction
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Let copies of this decision be furnished to the O ce of the Bar Con dant to be
appended to Atty. Dealca's personal record as an attorney; to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines; and to all courts in the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio,** Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr.,
Perez, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
Sereno,* C.J. and Mendoza, J., on leave.

Footnotes
* On Wellness Leave.
** Acting Chief Justice in lieu of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno, who is on Wellness
Leave, per Special Order No. 1770.
1. Rollo, p. 26.
2. Id. at 26.
3. Id. at 4-5.

4. Id. at 2.
5. Id. at 7.
6. Id. at 10-17.
7. Id. at 92.

8. Id. at 95, 99-120. The following were endorsed: (a) Motion for Reconsideration and Request
for Inhibition dated February 22, 2007 of Atty. Dealca; (b) Comment of Judge Madrid;
and (c) Rejoinder of Atty. Dealca.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 9. Id. at 144.
10. Id. at 146-155.
11. Id. at 287-292.

12. Id. at 286.

13. Id. at 295-298.
14. Id. at 408.
15. Id. at 384.
16. Id. at 291, where IBP Commissioner Hababag observed in his report that:

There were other administrative/criminal cases lodged by the respondent against fellow
lawyer[s], court personnel, government employees. Most of all cases were dismissed for
utter lack of merit. All acts intensifies [sic] the conclusion that respondent instead of
going through the procedures provided for by the Rules in the event of adverse ruling,
order or decision of the court, have resorted to harassment cases.
17. Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July 1, 2003, 405 SCRA 212, 218.
18. Vitriolo v. Dasig, A.C. No. 4984, April 1, 2003, 400 SCRA 172, 179.
19. Sebastian v. Calis, A.C. No. 5118, September 9, 1999, 314 SCRA 1, 7.
20. Aguilar v. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No. 157911, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA
354, 381.
21. Cervantes v. Sabio, A.C. No. 7828, August 11, 2008, 561 SCRA 497, 501; Dayag v. Gonzales,
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1903, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 51, 61-62.
22. Arnado v. Suarin, A.M. No. P-05-2059, August 19, 2005, 467 SCRA 402, 408.

23. Rollo, p. 384.

24. Separate Opinion of J. Melo in Yale Land Development Corporation v. Caragao, G.R. No.
135244. April 15, 1999, 306 SCRA 1, 12.

25. PEPSICO, Inc. v. Lacanilao, G.R. No. 146007. June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 615, 623; Complaint
of Mr. Aurelio Indencia Arrienda Against SC Justices Puno, Kapunan, Pardo, Ynares-
Santiago, et al., A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC, June 9, 2005, 460 SCRA 1, 14; Tan v. Judge
Nitafan, G.R. No. 76965, March 11, 1994, 231 SCRA 129, 136.
26. Agoy v. Araneta Center, Inc., G.R. No. 196358, March 21, 2012, 668 SCRA 883, 889; Smith
Bell and Company (Phils.), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 56294, May 20, 1991, 197
SCRA 201, 207-208.

27. G.R. No. 82273, June 1, 1990, 186 SCRA 1, 5.

28. G.R. No. 127682, April 24, 1998, 289 SCRA 604, 608; citing Novino v. Court of Appeals, No.
L-21098, May 31, 1963, 8 SCRA 279, 280.
29. Section 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based . No petition for
review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due
course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 30. Komatsu Industries Phils., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, supra note 28 citing Que v. People, Nos.
L-75217-18, September 21, 1987, 154 SCRA 160, 165; Nunal v. Commission on Audit,
G.R. No. 78648, January 24, 1989, 169 SCRA 356, 362-363; and Cadiente v. Narisma,
A.M. No. MTJ-91-576, En Banc Resolution, March 11, 1993.
31. Rollo, p. 368.
32. Id. at 292.

33. Re: Suspension of Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, Former Senior State Prosecutor, Adm. Case.
No. 7006, October 9, 2007, 535 SCRA 200, 214; Reyes v. Chiong, Jr., A.C. No. 5148, July
1, 2003, 405 SCRA 212, 217.
34. Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr., G.R. No. 152072, July 12, 2007, 527 SCRA 446, 463-464.
35. Rollo, p. 26.

36. People v. Ong, G.R. Nos. 162130-39, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 679, 688; Webb v. People, G.R.
No. 127262, July 24, 1997, 276 SCRA 243, 253.

37. Deutsche Bank Manila v. Sps. Chua Yok See, G.R. No. 165606, February 6, 2006, 481 SCRA
672, 695.

38. Dumo v. Espinas, G.R. No. 141962, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 53, 67.
39. A.C. No. 4215, May 21, 2001, 358 SCRA 1.
40. Saa v. Integrated Bar of the Philippines, G.R. No. 132826, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 6.
41. Baculi v. Battung, A.C. No. 8920, September 28, 2011, 658 SCRA 209.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2019 cdasiaonline.com