1 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

G.R. No. 134625 August 31, 1999 Quiason, Sri Skandarajah, Noel Teodoro, and especially Dr. Medina, to discuss the nor tried to obtain the latter's signature on the
Isagani Medina, the last included as the dean's amendments suggested by the panel members revision approval form. She likewise expressed
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES representative. during the oral defense. The meeting was held at her disappointment over the CSSP administration
BOARD OF REGENTS vs. HON. COURT OF the dean's office with Dean Paz, private and charged Drs. Diokno and Medina with
APPEALS After going over private respondent's respondent, and a majority of the defense panel maliciously working for the disapproval of her
dissertation, Dr. Medina informed CSSP Dean present.6 During the meeting, Dean Paz remarked dissertation, and further warned Dean Paz against
MENDOZA, J.: Consuelo Joaquin-Paz that there was a portion in that a majority vote of the panel members was encouraging perfidious acts against her.
private respondent's dissertation that was lifted, sufficient for a student to pass, notwithstanding
For review before the Court is the decision of the without proper acknowledgment, from Balfour's the failure to obtain the consent of the Dean's On April 17, 1993, the University Council met to
Court of Appeals1 in CA-G.R. SP No. 42788, Cyclopaedia of India and Eastern and Southern representative. approve the list of candidates for graduation for
dated December 16, 1997, which granted private Asia (1967), volume I, pp. 392-401 (3 v., Edward the second semester of school year 1992-1993.
respondent's application for a writ of mandatory Balfour 1885 reprint) and from John Edye's On March 24, 1993, the CSSP College Faculty The list, which was endorsed to the Board of
injunction, and its resolution, dated July 13, article entitled "Description of the Various Assembly approved private respondent's Regents for final approval, included private
1998, denying petitioners' motion for Classes of Vessels Constructed and Employed by graduation pending submission of final copies of respondent's name.
reconsideration. the Natives of the Coasts of Coromandel, her dissertation.
Malabar, and the Island of Ceylon for their On April 21, 1993, Dean Paz sent a letter to Dr.
The antecedent facts are as follows: Coasting Navigation" in the Royal Asiatic In April 1993, private respondent submitted Milagros Ibe, Vice Chancellor for Academic
Society of Great Britain and Ireland Journal, copies of her supposedly revised dissertation to Affairs, requesting the exclusion of private
Private respondent Arokiaswamy William Drs. Manuel, Skandarajah, and Quiason, who respondent's name from the list of candidates for
volume I, pp. 1-14 (1833).
Margaret Celine is a citizen of India and holder expressed their assent to the dissertation. graduation, pending clarification of the problems
of a Philippine visitor's visa. Sometime in April Nonetheless, private respondent was allowed to Petitioners maintain, however, that private regarding her dissertation. Her letter reads: 8
1988, she enrolled in the doctoral program in defend her dissertation on February 5, 1993. Four respondent did not incorporate the revisions
Anthropology of the University of the (4) out of the five (5) panelists gave private suggested by the panel members in the final Abril 21, 1993
Philippines College of Social Sciences and respondent a passing mark for her oral defense copies of her dissertation.
Philosophy (CSSP) in Diliman, Quezon City. by affixing their signatures on the approval form. Dr. Milagros Ibe
These were Drs. Manuel, Quiason, Skandarajah, Private respondent left a copy of her dissertation Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
After completing the units of course work in Dr. Teodoro's office April 15, 1993 and Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
and Teodoro. Dr. Quiason added the following
required in her doctoral program, private proceeded to submit her dissertation to the CSSP Quezon Hall, Diliman, Q.C.
qualification to his signature:
respondent went on a two-year leave of absence without the approvals of Dr. Medina and Dr.
to work as Tamil Programme Producer of the Ms. Arokiaswamy must incorporate the Teodoro, relying on Dean Paz's March 5, 1993 Mahal na Dr. Ibe,
Vatican Radio in the Vatican and as General suggestions I made during the successful defense statement.
Office Assistant at the International Right to Life of her P.D. thesis. Mahigpit ko pong hinihiling na huwag munang
Federation in Rome. She returned to the Dr. Teodoro later indicated his disapproval, while isama ang pangalan ni Ms. Arokiaswam[y]
Philippines in July 1991 to work on her Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form but Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form.7 William Margaret Celine sa listahan ng mga
dissertation entitled, "Tamil Influences in added the following comment: bibigyan ng degri na Ph.D. (Anthropology)
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines." Dean Paz then accepted private respondent's ngayon[g] semester, dahil sa mga malubhang
Pipirmahan ko ang pagsang-ayon/di pagsang- dissertation in partial fulfillment of the course bintang nya sa ilang myembro ng panel para sa
On December 22, 1992, Dr. Realidad S. Rolda, ayon kapag nakita ko na ang mga revisions ng requirements for the doctorate degree in oral defense ng disertasyon nya at sa mga
chairperson of the U.P. Department of dissertation. Anthropology. akusasyon ng ilan sa mga ito sa kanya.
Anthropology, wrote a letter to Dr. Maria Serena
Diokno, CSSP Associate Dean and Graduate Dr. Teodoro added the following note to his In a letter to Dean Paz, dated April 17, 1993, Naniniwala po kami na dapat mailinaw muna ang
Program Director, certifying that private signature: private respondent expressed concern over ilang bagay bago makonfer ang degri kay Ms.
respondent had finished her dissertation and was matters related to her dissertation. She sought to Arokiaswam[y]. Kelangan po ito para
ready for her oral defense. Dr. Rolda suggested Kailangang isagawa ang mga mahahalagang explain why the signature of Dr. Medina was not mapangalagaan ang istandard ng pinakamataas
that the oral defense be held on January 6, 1993 pagbabago at ipakita sa panel and bound copies.5 affixed to the revision approval form. Private na degree ng Unibersidad.
but, in a letter, dated February 2, 1993, Dr. respondent said that since she already had the
Serena Diokno rescheduled it on February 5, In a letter, dated March 5, 1993 and addressed to approval of a majority of the panel members, she (Sgd.)
1993. Named as members of the dissertation her thesis adviser, Dr. Manuel, private respondent no longer showed her dissertation to Dr. Medina
panel were Drs. E. Arsenio Manuel, Serafin requested a meeting with the panel members,
2 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

CONSUELO JOAQUIN-PAZ, Ph.D. respondent's thesis which were lifted from Meanwhile, the U.P. Office of Legal Services U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct
Dekano sources without proper or due acknowledgment. justified the position of the University Council in and Discipline, her letter-response to Chancellor
its report to the Board of Regents. The Board of Roman, dated September 25, 1993, as well as all
Apparently, however, Dean Paz's letter did not On July 28, 1993, the CSSP College Assembly Regents, in its February 1, 1994 and March 24, her other communications.
reach the Board of Regents on time, because the unanimously approved the recommendation to 1994 meetings, further deferred action thereon.
next day, April 22, 1993, the Board approved the withdraw private respondent's doctorate degree On September 19, 1994, Chancellor Posadas
University Council's recommendation for the and forwarded its recommendation to the On July 11, 1994, private respondent sent a letter obtained the Zafaralla Committee's report, signed
graduation of qualified students, including University Council. The University Council, in to the Board of Regents requesting a re- by its chairman, recommending the withdrawal
private respondent. Two days later, April 24, turn, approved and endorsed the same investigation of her case. She stressed that under of private respondent's doctorate degree. The
1993, private respondent graduated with the recommendation to the Board of Regents on the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct report stated:
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology. August 16, 1993. and Discipline, it was the student disciplinary
tribunal which had jurisdiction to decide cases of After going through all the pertinent documents
On the other hand, Dean Paz also wrote a letter On September 6, 1993, the Board of Regents dishonesty and that the withdrawal of a degree of the case and interviewing Ms. Arokiaswamy
to private respondent, dated April 21, 1993, that deferred action on the recommendation to study already conferred was not one of the authorized William, the following facts were established:
she would not be granted an academic clearance the legal implications of its approval. penalties which the student disciplinary tribunal
unless she substantiated the accusations could impose. 1. There is overwhelming evidence of massive
contained in her letter dated April 17, 1993. Meanwhile, in a letter, dated September 23, lifting from a published source word for word
1993, U.P. Diliman Chancellor Emerlinda Roman On July 28, 1994, the Board of Regents decided and, at times, paragraph by paragraph without
In her letter, dated April 27, 1993, private summoned private respondent to a meeting on to release private respondent's transcript of any acknowledgment of the source, even by a
respondent claimed that Dr. Medina's the same day and asked her to submit her written grades without annotation although it showed mere quotation mark. At least 22 counts of such
unfavorable attitude towards her dissertation was explanation to the charges against her. that private respondent passed her dissertation documented liftings were identified by the
a reaction to her failure to include him and Dr. with 12 units of credit. Committee. These form part of the approximately
Francisco in the list of panel members; that she During the meeting, Chancellor Roman informed ninety (90) instances found by the Committee
made the revisions proposed by Drs. Medina and private respondent of the charges and provided On August 17, 1994, Chancellor Roger Posadas created by the Dean of the College and
Teodoro in the revised draft of her dissertation; her a copy of the findings of the investigating issued Administrative Order No. 94-94 subsequently verified as correct by the Special
and that Dr. Diokno was guilty of harassment. committee. Private respondent, on the other constituting a special committee composed of Committee. These instances involved the
hand, submitted her written explanation in a senior faculty members from the U.P. units following forms of intellectual dishonesty: direct
In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, dated May 1, letter dated September 25, 1993. outside Diliman to review the University lifting/copying without acknowledgment,
1993, Dr. Medina formally charged private Council's recommendation to withdraw private full/partial lifting with improper documentation
respondent with plagiarism and recommended Another meeting was held on October 8, 1993 respondent's degree. With the approval of the and substitution of terms or words (e.g., Tamil in
that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn.9 between Chancellor Roman and private Board of Regents and the U.P. Diliman Executive place of Sanskrit, Tamilization in place of
respondent to discuss her answer to the charges. Committee, Posadas created a five-man Indianization) from an acknowledged source in
On May 13, 1993, Dean Paz formed an ad A third meeting was scheduled on October 27, committee, chaired by Dr. Paulino B. Zafaralla, support of her thesis (attached herewith is a copy
hoc committee, composed of faculty members 1993 but private respondent did not attend it, with members selected from a list of nominees of the documents for reference); and
from various disciplines and chaired by Eva alleging that the Board of Regents had already screened by Dr. Emerenciana Arcellana, then a
Duka-Ventura, to investigate the plagiarism decided her case before she could be fully heard. member of the Board of Regents. On August 13, 2. Ms. Arokiaswamy William herself admits of
charge against private respondent. Meanwhile, 1994, the members of the Zafaralla committee being guilty of the allegation of plagiarism. Fact
she recommended to U.P. Diliman Chancellor, On October 11, 1993, private respondent wrote to and private respondent met at U.P. Los Baños. is, she informed the Special Committee that she
Dr. Emerlinda Roman, that the Ph.D. degree Dr. Emil Q. Javier, U.P. President, alleging that had been admitting having lifted several portions
conferred on private respondent be withdrawn. some members of the U.P. administration were Meanwhile, on August 23, 1994, the U.P. in her dissertation from various sources since the
playing politics in her case. 14 She sent another Diliman Registrar released to private respondent beginning.
In a letter, dated June 7, 1993, Dean Paz letter, dated December 14, 1993, to Dr. Armand a copy of her transcript of grades and certificate
informed private respondent of the charges Fabella, Chairman of the Board of Regents, of graduation.
against her. complaining that she had not been afforded due
process and claiming that U.P. could no longer In a letter to Chancellor Posadas, dated
On June 15, 1993, the Ventura Committee withdraw her degree since her dissertation had September 1, 1994, private respondent requested
submitted a report to Dean Paz, finding at least already been accepted by the CSSP. that the Zafaralla committee be provided with
ninety (90) instances or portions in private copies of the U.P. Charter (Act No. 1870), the
3 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

In view of the overwhelming proof of massive your request to the Office of Legal Aid, College No pronouncement as to costs. committees, she was deprived of the opportunity
lifting and also on the admission of Ms. of Law, U.P. Diliman. to comment or refute their findings.
Arokiaswamy William that she indeed SO ORDERED.
plagiarized, the Committee strongly supports the Sincerely yours, In addition, private respondent maintains that
recommendation of the U.P. Diliman Council to Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend: petitioners are estopped from, withdrawing her
withdraw the doctoral degree of Ms. Margaret (Sgd.) doctorate degree; that petitioners acted contrary
Celine Arokiaswamy William. VIVENCIO R. JOSE I to §9 of the U.P. Charter and the U.P. Rules and
Secretary of the University Regulations of Student Conduct and Discipline
On the basis of the report, the University and of the Board of Regents THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A of the University, which according to her, does
Council, on September 24, 1994, recommended QUESTION OF LAW IN GRANTING THE not authorize the withdrawal of a degree as a
to the Board of Regents that private respondent On January 18, 1995, private respondent wrote a WRIT OFMANDAMUS AND ORDERING penalty for erring students; and that only the
be barred in the future from admission to the letter to Commissioner Sedfrey Ordoñez, PETITIONERS TO RESTORE college committee or the student disciplinary
University either as a student or as an employee. Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, RESPONDENT'S DOCTORAL DEGREE. tribunal may decide disciplinary cases, whose
asking the commission's intervention. 18 In a report must be signed by a majority of its
On January 4, 1995, the secretary of the Board of letter, dated February 14, 1995, to Secretary II
members.
Regents sent private respondent the following Ricardo Gloria, Chairman of the Board of
Regents, she asked for a reinvestigation of her THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A
letter:17 We find petitioners' contention to be meritorious.
case. She also sought an audience with the Board QUESTION OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT
4 January 1995 of Regents and/or the U.P. President, which THE DOCTORAL DEGREE GIVEN Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal,
request was denied by President Javier, in a letter RESPONDENT BY U.P. CANNOT BE corporation, board or person to do the act
Ms. Margaret Celine Arokiaswamy William dated June 2, 1995. RECALLED WITHOUT VIOLATING HER required to be done when it or he unlawfully
Department of Anthropology RIGHT TO ENJOYMENT OF neglects the performance of an act which the law
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy On August 10, 1995, private respondent then INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TO specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
U.P. Diliman, Quezon City filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a JUSTICE AND EQUITY. office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
Dear Ms. Arokiaswamy William: damages, which was docketed as Civil Case No. III
office to which such other is entitled, there being
Q-95-24690 and assigned to Branch 81 of the no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
This is to officially inform you about the action THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.19 She the ordinary course of law. In University of the
taken by the Board of Regents at its 1081st and QUESTION OF LAW IN DEPRIVING
alleged that petitioners had unlawfully Philippines Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan, this
1082nd meetings held last 17 November and 16 PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO
withdrawn her degree without justification and Court ruled that the writ was not available to
December 1994 regarding your case, the excerpts SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.
without affording her procedural due process. restrain U.P. from the exercise of its academic
from the minutes of which are attached herewith. She prayed that petitioners be ordered to restore freedom. In that case, a student who was found
Petitioners argue that private respondent failed to
her degree and to pay her P500,000.00 as moral guilty of dishonesty and ordered suspended for
Please be informed that the members present at show that she had been unlawfully excluded
and exemplary damages and P1,500,000.00 as one year by the Board of Regents, filed a petition
the 1081st BOR meeting on 17 November 1994 from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
compensation for lost of earnings. for mandamus and obtained from the lower court
resolved, by a majority decision, to withdraw which she is entitled so as to justify the issuance
of the writ of mandamus. They also contend that a temporary restraining order stopping U.P. from
your Ph.D. degree as recommended by the U.P. On August 6, 1996, the trial court, Branch 227,
she failed to prove that the restoration of her carrying out the order of suspension. In setting
Diliman University Council and as concurred rendered a decision dismissing the petition
degree is a ministerial duty of U.P. or that the aside the TRO and ordering the lower court to
with by the External Review Panel composed of for mandamus for lack of merit.20 Private
withdrawal of the degree violated her right to the dismiss the student's petition, this Court said:
senior faculty from U.P. Los Baños and U.P. respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals,
Manila. These faculty members were chosen by enjoyment of intellectual property.
which on December 16, 1997, reversed the lower [T]he lower court gravely abused its discretion in
lot from names submitted by the University court. The dispositive portion of the appellate issuing the writ of preliminary injunction of May
Councils of U.P. Los Baños and U.P. Manila. On the other hand, private respondent, unassisted
court's decision reads: 29, 1993. The issuance of the said writ was based
by counsel, argue that petitioners acted arbitrarily
and with grave abuse of discretion in on the lower court's finding that the
In reply to your 14 December 1994 letter WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is
withdrawing her degree even prior to verifying implementation of the disciplinary sanction of
requesting that you be given a good lawyer by hereby reversed and set aside. Respondents are
the truth of the plagiarism charge against her; and suspension on Nadal "would work injustice to the
the Board, the Board, at its 1082nd meeting on ordered to restore to petitioner her degree of
that as her answer to the charges had not been petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his
16 December 1994, suggested that you direct Ph.D. in Anthropology.
forwarded to the members of the investigating course, and consequently, in getting a decent and
4 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

good paying job." Sadly, such a ruling considers dissertation on the basis of which she was examination. An administrative proceeding autonomy of universities and institutions of
only the situation of Nadal without taking into conferred the Ph.D. degree. conducted to investigate students' participation in higher learning. As pointed out by this Court
account the circumstances, clearly of his own a hazing activity need not be clothed with the in Garcia vs. Faculty Admission
making, which led him into such a predicament. Indeed, in administrative proceedings, the attributes of a judicial proceeding. . . Committee, Loyola School of Theology, it is a
More importantly, it has completely disregarded essence of due process is simply the opportunity freedom granted to "institutions of higher
the overriding issue of academic freedom which to explain one's side of a controversy or a chance In this case, in granting the writ of mandamus, learning" which is thus given "a wide sphere of
provides more than ample justification for the seek reconsideration of the action or ruling the Court of Appeals held: authority certainly extending to the choice of the
imposition of a disciplinary sanction upon an complained of. A party who has availed of the students." If such institution of higher learning
erring student of an institution of higher learning. opportunity to present his position cannot tenably First. Petitioner graduated from the U.P. with a can decide who can and who cannot study in it, it
claim to have been denied due process. doctorate degree in Anthropology. After certainly can also determine on whom it can
From the foregoing arguments, it is clear that the graduation, the contact between U.P. and confer the honor and distinction of being its
lower court should have restrained itself from In this case, private respondent was informed in petitioner ceased. Petitioner is no longer within graduates.
assuming jurisdiction over the petition filed by writing of the charges against her and afforded the ambit of the disciplinary powers of the U.P.
Nadal. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful opportunities to refute them. She was asked to As a graduate, she is entitled to the right and Where it is shown that the conferment of an
cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on submit her written explanation, which she enjoyment of the degree she has earned. To recall honor or distinction was obtained through fraud,
the part of the petitioner being required. It is of forwarded on September 25, 1993. Private the degree, after conferment, is not only arbitrary, a university has the right to revoke or withdraw
no avail against an official or government agency respondent then met with the U.P. chancellor and unreasonable, and an act of abuse, but a flagrant the honor or distinction it has thus conferred.
whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or the members of the Zafaralla committee to violation of petitioner's right of enjoyment to This freedom of a university does not terminate
judgment. discuss her case. In addition, she sent several intellectual property. upon the "graduation" of a student, as the Court
letters to the U.P. authorities explaining her of Appeals held. For it is precisely the
In this case, the trial court dismissed private position. Second. Respondents aver that petitioner's "graduation" of such a student that is in question.
respondent's petition precisely on grounds of graduation was a mistake. It is noteworthy that the investigation of private
academic freedom but the Court of Appeals It is not tenable for private respondent to argue respondent's case began before her graduation. If
reversed holding that private respondent was that she was entitled to have an audience before Unfortunately this "mistake" was arrived at after she was able to join the graduation ceremonies
denied due process. It said: the Board of Regents. Due process in an almost a year after graduation. Considering that on April 24, 1993, it was because of too many
administrative context does not require trial-type the members of the thesis panel, the College investigations conducted before the Board of
It is worthy to note that during the proceedings proceedings similar to those in the courts of Faculty Assembly, and the U.P. Council are all Regents finally decided she should not have been
taken by the College Assembly culminating in its justice. It is noteworthy that the U.P. Rules do not men and women of the highest intellectual allowed to graduate.
recommendation to the University Council for require the attendance of persons whose cases are acumen and integrity, as respondents themselves
the withdrawal of petitioner's Ph.D. degree, included as items on the agenda of the Board of aver, suspicion is aroused that the alleged Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted to
petitioner was not given the chance to be heard Regents. "mistake" might not be the cause of withdrawal institutions of higher learning, for the
until after the withdrawal of the degree was but some other hidden agenda which respondents constitutional grant of academic freedom, to
consummated. Petitioner's subsequent letters to Nor indeed was private respondent entitled to be do not wish to reveal. quote again from Garcia v. Faculty Admission
the U.P. President proved unavailing. furnished a copy of the report of the Zafaralla Committee, Loyola School of Theology, "is not to
committee as part of her right to due process. At any rate, We cannot countenance the plight be construed in a niggardly manner or in a
As the foregoing narration of facts in this case In Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong, we the petitioner finds herself enmeshed in as a grudging fashion."
shows, however, various committees had been held: consequence of the acts complained of. Justice
formed to investigate the charge that private and equity demand that this be rectified by Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is
respondent had committed plagiarism and, in all Respondent students may not use the argument restoring the degree conferred to her after her the highest governing body of the University of
the investigations held, she was heard in her that since they were not accorded the opportunity compliance with the academic and other related the Philippines.38It has the power confer degrees
defense. Indeed, if any criticism may be made of to see and examine the written statements which requirements. upon the recommendation of the University
the university proceedings before private became the basis of petitioners' February 14, Council. If follows that if the conferment of a
respondent was finally stripped of her degree, it 1991 order, they were denied procedural due Art. XIV, §5 (2) of the Constitution provides that degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of
is that there were too many committee and process. Granting that they were denied such "[a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all Regents is also empowered, subject to the
individual investigations conducted, although all opportunity, the same may not be said to detract institutions of higher learning." This is nothing observance of due process, to withdraw what it
resulted in a finding that private respondent from the observance of due process, for new. The 1935 Constitution and the 1973 has granted without violating a student's rights.
committed dishonesty in submitting her doctoral disciplinary cases involving students need not Constitution36 likewise provided for the academic An institution of higher learning cannot be
necessarily include the right to cross freedom or, more precisely, for the institutional powerless if it discovers that an academic degree
5 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

it has conferred is not rightfully deserved. Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline revoked by the Securities and Exchange
Nothing can be more objectionable than which provides: Commission (SEC) on May 26, 2003; that ADC
bestowing a university's highest academic degree G.R. No. 187456 June 2, 2014 has no cause of action because by law it is no
upon an individual who has obtained the same Jurisdiction. — All cases involving discipline of longer the absolute owner but is merely holding
through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic students under these rules shall be subject to the ALABANG DEVELOPMENT the property in question in trust for the benefit of
excellence is the university's concern. It should jurisdiction of the student disciplinary tribunal, CORPORATION vs. ALABANG HILLS AHVAI as beneficial owner thereof; and that the
be empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take except the following cases which shall fall under VILLAGE ASSOCIATION subject lot is part of the open space required by
measures to protect itself from serious threats to the jurisdiction of the appropriate college or unit; law to be provided in the subdivision. As
its integrity. DECISION counterclaim, it prayed that an order be issued
(a) Violation of college or unit rules and divesting ADC of the title of the property and
While it is true that the students are entitled to regulations by students of the college, or PERALTA, J.:
declaring AHVAI as owner thereof; and that
the right to pursue their educaiton, the USC as an ADC be made liable for moral and exemplary
(b) Misconduct committed by students of the Before the Court is a petition for review on
educational institution is also entitled to pursue damages as well as attorney's fees.
college or unit within its classrooms or premises certiorari assailing the Decision of the Court of
its academic freedom and in the process has the
or in the course of an official activity; Appeals (CA), dated March 27, 2009, in CA-
concomitant right to see to it that this freedom is Tinio filed his separate Answer With Compulsory
G.R. CV No. 88864.
not jeopardized. Counterclaim, practically reiterating the defenses
Provided, that regional units of the University of AHVAI.
shall have original jurisdiction over all cases The factual and procedural antecedents of the
In the case at bar, the Board of Regents
involving students of such units. case, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
determined, after due investigation conducted by On January 4, 2007, the RTC of Muntinlupa City,
a committee composed of faculty members from Branch 276, rendered judgment dismissing
Private respondent argues that under §25 (a) of The case traces its roots to the Complaint for
different U.P. units, that private respondent herein petitioner's complaint on the grounds (1)
the said Rules and Regulations, dishonesty in Injunction and Damages filed [with the Regional
committed no less than ninety (90) instances of that the latter has no personality to file the same;
relation to one's studies (i.e., plagiarism) may be Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City] on
intellectual dishonesty in her dissertation. The (2) that the subject property "is a reserved area
punished only with suspension for at least one (1) October 19, 2006 by [herein petitioner, Alabang
Board of Regents' decision to withdraw private for the beneficial use of the homeowners, as
year. Development Corporation] ADC against [herein
respondent's doctorate was based on documents mandated by law;" and (3) that the Housing and
respondents, Alabang Hills Village Association,
on record including her admission that she Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), not the
As the above-quoted provision of §5 of the Rules Inc.] AHVAI and Rafael Tinio (Tinio), President
committed the offense. RTC, has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute
and Regulations indicates, the jurisdiction of the of AHVAI. The Complaint alleged that
between petitioner and respondents.
student disciplinary tribunal extend only to [petitioner] is the developer of Alabang Hills
On the other hand, private respondent was
disciplinary actions. In this case, U.P. does not Village and still owns certain parcels of land
afforded the opportunity to be heard and explain Aggrieved, herein petitioner filed a Notice of
seek to discipline private respondent. Indeed, as therein that are yet to be sold, as well as those
her side but failed to refute the charges of Appeal of the RTC decision. Herein respondent
the appellate court observed, private respondent considered open spaces that have not yet been
plagiarism against her. Her only claim is that her AHVAI, on the other hand, moved that it be
is no longer within "the ambit of disciplinary donated to [the] local government of Muntinlupa
responses to the charges against her were not allowed to prosecute its compulsory
powers of the U.P." Private respondent cannot City or the Homeowner's Association. Sometime
considered by the Board of Regents before it counterclaim praying, for this purpose, that the
even be punished since, as she claims, the in September [2006], ADC learned that AHVAI
rendered its decision. However, this claim was RTC decision be amended accordingly.
penalty for acts of dishonesty in administrative started the construction of a multi-purpose hall
not proven. Accordingly, we must presume
disciplinary proceedings is suspension from the and a swimming pool on one of the parcels of In its Order dated February 20, 2007, the RTC
regularity in the performance of official duties in
University for at least one year. What U.P., land still owned by ADC without the latter's approved petitioner's notice of appeal but
the absence of proof to the contrary.
through the Board of Regents, seeks to do is to consent and approval, and that despite demand, dismissed respondent AHVAI’s counterclaim on
Very much the opposite of the position of the protect its academic integrity by withdrawing AHVAI failed to desist from constructing the said the ground that it is dependent on petitioner's
Court of Appeals that, since private respondent from private respondent an academic degree she improvements. ADC thus prayed that an complaint. Respondent AHVAI then filed an
was no longer a student of the U.P., the latter was obtained through fraud. injunction be issued enjoining defendants from appeal with the CA.
no longer within the "ambit of disciplinary constructing the multi-purpose hall and the
powers of the U.P.," is private respondent's WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of swimming pool at the Alabang Hills Village. In its assailed Decision dated March 27, 2009,
contention that it is the Student Disciplinary Appeals is hereby REVERSED and the petition the CA dismissed both appeals of petitioner and
for mandamus is hereby In its Answer With Compulsory Counterclaim, respondent, and affirmed the decision of the
Tribunal which had jurisdiction over her case
DISMISSED.1âwphi1.nêt AHVAI denied ADC's asseverations and claimed RTC. With respect to petitioner, the CA ruled that
because the charge is dishonesty. Private
that the latter has no legal capacity to sue since the RTC correctly dismissed petitioner's
respondent invoke §5 of the U.P. Rules and
SO ORDERED. its existence as a registered corporate entity was
6 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

complaint as the same was filed when petitioner have the necessary qualification to appear in the shall be escheated to the city or municipality May 26, 2003.1âwphi1Based on the above-
was already defunct and, as such, it no longer case, or does not have the character or where such assets are located. quoted provision of law, it had three years, or
had capacity to file the said complaint. As representation he claims[;] 'lack of capacity to until May 26, 2006, to prosecute or defend any
regards, respondent AHVAI’s counterclaim, the sue' refers to a plaintiff's general disability to sue, Except by decrease of capital stock and as suit by or against it. The subject complaint,
CA held that "where there is no claim against the such as on account of minority, insanity, otherwise allowed by this Code, no corporation however, was filed only on October 19, 2006,
[respondent], because [petitioner] is already in incompetence, lack of juridical personality or any shall distribute any of its assets or property more than three years after such revocation. It is
existent and has no capacity to sue, the other general disqualifications of a party. ..." In except upon lawful dissolution and after payment likewise not disputed that the subject complaint
counterclaim is improper and it must be the instant case, petitioner lacks capacity to sue of all its debts and liabilities. was filed by petitioner corporation and not by its
dismissed, more so where the complaint is because it no longer possesses juridical directors or trustees. In fact, it is even averred,
dismissed at the instance of the [respondent]." personality by reason of its dissolution and lapse This Court has held that: albeit wrongly, in the first paragraph of the
of the three-year grace period provided under Complaint that "[p]laintiff is a duly organized
Thus, the instant petition based on the following Section 122 of the Corporation Code, as will be It is to be noted that the time during which the and existing corporation under the laws of the
grounds: discussed below. corporation, through its own officers, may Philippines, with capacity to sue and be sued. x x
conduct the liquidation of its assets and sue and x"
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS With respect to the second assigned error, be sued as a corporation is limited to three years
GRAVELY ERRED IN RELYING ON THE Section 122 of the Corporation Code provides as from the time the period of dissolution Petitioner, nonetheless, insists that a corporation
CASE OF "COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC. v. follows: commences; but there is no time limit within may still sue, even after it has been dissolved and
COURT OF APPEALS" IN RESOLVING which the trustees must complete a liquidation the three-year liquidation period provided under
PETITIONER'S LACK OF CAPACITY SEC. 122. Corporate liquidation.– Every placed in their hands. It is provided only (Corp. Section 122 of the Corporation Code has passed.
corporation whose charter expires by its own Law, Sec. 78 now Sec. 122]) that the conveyance Petitioner cites the cases of Gelano v. Court of
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS limitation or is annulled by forfeiture or to the trustees must be made within the three- Appeals, Knecht v. United Cigarette
GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING LACK OF otherwise, or whose corporate existence for other year period. It may be found impossible to Corporation, and Pepsi-Cola Products
CAPACITY OFTHE PETITIONER IN FILING purposes is terminated in any other manner, shall complete the work of liquidation within the Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, as authority
THE CASE CONTRARY TO THE EARLIER nevertheless be continued as a body corporate for three-year period or to reduce disputed claims to to support its position. The Court, however,
RULINGS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT three (3) years after the time when it would have judgment. The authorities are to the effect that agrees with the CA that in the abovecited cases,
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS been so dissolved, for the purpose of prosecuting suits by or against a corporation abate when it the corporations involved filed their respective
GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO and defending suits by or against it and enabling ceased to be an entity capable of suing or being complaints while they were still in existence. In
RESOLVE THE ISSUE THAT PETITIONER IS it to settle and close its affairs, to dispose of and sued (7 R.C.L., Corps., par. 750); but trustees to other words, they already had pending actions at
MANDATED TO CEDE PROPERTIES TO convey its property and to distribute its assets, whom the corporate assets have been conveyed the time that their corporate existence was
RESPONDENT AHVAI but not for the purpose of continuing the business pursuant to the authority of Sec. 78 [now Sec. terminated.
for which it was established. 122] may sue and be sued as such in all matters
Anent the first assigned error, the Court does not connected with the liquidation...
agree that the CA erred in relying on the case of At any time during said three (3) years, said
Columbia Pictures, Inc. v. Court of Appeals. The corporation is authorized and empowered to In the absence of trustees, this Court ruled, thus:
CA cited the case for the purpose of restating and convey all of its property to trustees for the
distinguishing the jurisprudential definition of benefit of stockholders, members, creditors, and … Still in the absence of a board of directors or
the terms "lack of capacity to sue" and "lack of other persons in interest. From and after any such trustees, those having any pecuniary interest in
personality to sue;" and of applying these conveyance by the corporation of its property in the assets, including not only the shareholders
definitions to the present case. Thus, the fact that, trust for the benefit of its stockholders, members, but likewise the creditors of the corporation,
unlike in the instant case, the corporations creditors and others in interest, all interest which acting for and in its behalf, might make proper
involved in the Columbia case were foreign the corporation had in the property terminates, representations with the Securities and Exchange
corporations is of no moment. The definition of the legal interest vests in the trustees, and the Commission, which has primary and sufficiently
the term "lack of capacity to sue" enunciated in beneficial interest in the stockholders, members, broad jurisdiction in matters of this nature, for
the said case still applies to the case at bar. creditors or other persons in interest. working out a final settlement of the corporate
Indeed, as held by this Court and as correctly concerns.
cited by the CA in the case of Columbia: "[l]ack Upon winding up of the corporate affairs, any
of legal capacity to sue means that the plaintiff is asset distributable to any creditor or stockholder In the instant case, there is no dispute that
not in the exercise of his civil rights, or does not or member who is unknown or cannot be found petitioner's corporate registration was revoked on
7 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

The import of this Court's ruling in the cases SO ORDERED. The complaint accuses respondents and Quiambao pressured Blando to make certain
cited by petitioner is that the trustee of a Casanova of violating Section 74 in relation to entries in the stock and transfer books. After
corporation may continue to prosecute a case G.R. No. 180416 June 2, 2014 Section 144 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 or the making such entries, Blando again demanded
commenced by the corporation within three years Corporation Code. The petitioners premise such that he be given possession of the stock and
from its dissolution until rendition of the final ADERITO Z. YUJUICO and BONIFACIO C. accusation on the following factual allegations: transfer book. Quiambao refused.
judgment, even if such judgment is rendered SUMBILLA vs. CEZAR T. QUIAMBAO
beyond the three-year period allowed by Section 1. During the stockholders' meeting on 1 March 7. On 1 July 2004, Blando received an order
122 of the Corporation Code. However, there is DECISION 2004, Yujuico-as newly elected president and dated 30 June 2004 issued by the RTC, Branch
nothing in the said cases which allows an already chairman of STRADEC-demanded Quiambao for 71, of Pasig City in Civil Case No. 70027, which
PEREZ, J.: the turnover of the corporate records of the directed him to cancel the entries he made in the
defunct corporation to initiate a suit after the
lapse of the said three-year period. On the company, particularly the accounting files, stock and transfer book. Hence, on even date,
This case is a Petition for Review on
contrary, the factual circumstances in the ledgers, journals and other records of the Blando wrote letters to Quiambao and Pilapil
Certiorari from the Orders dated 4 June 2007 and
abovecited cases would show that the corporation's business. Quiambao refused. once again demanding for the turnover of the
5 November 2007 of the Regional Trial Court
corporations involved therein did not initiate any stock and transfer book. Pilapil replied thru a
(RTC), Branch 154, of Pasig City in S.C.A. No. 2. As it turns out, the corporate records of
complaint after the lapse of the three-year period. letter dated 2 July 2004 where he appeared to
3047. STRADEC were in the possession of Casanova-
In fact, as stated above, the actions were already agree to Blando's demand.
pending at the time that they lost their corporate the accountant of STRADEC. Casanova was
The facts:
existence. keeping custody of the said records on behalf of 8. However, upon meeting with Pilapil and
Quiambao, who allegedly needed the same as Quiambao, the latter still refused to turnover the
Background
In the present case, petitioner filed its complaint part of his defense in a pending case in court. stock and transfer book to Blando. Instead,
not only after its corporate existence was Strategic Alliance Development Corporation Blando was once again constrained to agree to a
terminated but also beyond the three-year period 3. After the 1 March 2004 stockholders' meeting, proposal by Pilapil to have the stock and transfer
(STRADEC) is a domestic corporation operating
allowed by Section 122 of the Corporation Code. Quiambao and Casanova caused the removal of book deposited with the RTC, Branch 155, of
as a business development and investment
Thus, it is clear that at the time of the filing of the corporate records of STRADEC from the Pasig City. The said court, however, refused to
company.
the subject complaint petitioner lacks the company's offices in Pasig City. accept such deposit on the ground that it had no
capacity to sue as a corporation. To allow On 1 March 2004, during the annual place for safekeeping.
petitioner to initiate the subject complaint and 4. Upon his appointment as corporate secretary
stockholder's meeting of STRADEC, petitioner
pursue it until final judgment, on the ground that on 21 June 2004, Blando likewise demanded 9. Since Quiambao and Pilapil still refused to
Aderito Z. Yujuico (Yujuico) was elected as
such complaint was filed for the sole purpose of Pilapil for the turnover of the stock and transfer turnover the stock and transfer book, Blando
president and chairman of the company. Yujuico
liquidating its assets, would be to circumvent the book of STRADEC. Pilapil refused. again acceded to have the book deposited in a
replaced respondent Cezar T. Quiambao
provisions of Section 122 of the Corporation (Quiambao), who had been the president and safety deposit box, this time, with the Export and
5. Instead, on 25 June 2004, Pilapil proposed to Industry Bank in San Miguel A venue, Pasig
Code. chairman of STRADEC since 1994.
Blando to have the stock and transfer book City.
As to the last issue raised, the basic and pivotal deposited in a safety deposit box with Equitable
With Yujuico at the helm, STRADEC appointed
issue in the instant case is petitioner's capacity to PCI Bank, Kamias Road, Quezon City. Blando Petitioners theorize that the refusal by the
petitioner Bonifacio C. Sumbilla (Sumbilla) as
sue as a corporation and it has already been acceded to the proposal and the stock and respondents and Casanova to turnover
treasurer and one Joselito John G. Blando
settled that petitioner indeed lacks such capacity. transfer book was deposited in a safety deposit STRADEC's corporate records and stock and
(Blando) as corporate secretary. Blando replaced
Thus, this Court finds no cogent reason to depart box with the bank identified. It was agreed that transfer book violates their right, as stockholders,
respondent Eric C. Pilapil (Pilapil), the previous
from the ruling of the CA finding it unnecessary the safety deposit box may only be opened in the directors and officers of the corporation, to
corporate secretary of STRADEC.
to delve on the other issues raised by petitioner. presence of both Quiambao and Blando. inspect such records and book under Section 7 4
The Criminal Complaint of the Corporation Code. For such violation,
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. 6. On 30 June 2004, however, Quiambao and petitioners conclude, respondents may be held
The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in On 12 August 2005, petitioners filed a criminal Pilapil withdrew the stock and transfer book criminally liable pursuant to Section 144 of the
CA-G.R. CV No. 88864, sustaining the Decision complaint against respondents and one Giovanni from the safety deposit box and brought it to the Corporation Code.
of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, T. Casanova (Casanova) before the Office of the offices of the Stradcom Corporation
Branch 276, in Civil Case No. 06-138, is City Prosecutor (OCP) of Pasig City. The (STRADCOM) in Quezon City. Quiambao Preliminary investigation thereafter ensued.
AFFIRMED. complaint was docketed in the OCP as LS. No. thereafter asked Blando to proceed to the
PSG 05-08-07465. STRADCOM offices. Upon arriving thereat, Resolution of the OCP and the Informations
8 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

After receiving the counter-affidavits of the On and/or about the period between March 1 and merely removing the stock and transfer book of 1. The R TC noted that, aside from the complaint
respondents and Casanova, as well as the other June 25, 2004, inclusive, in Pasig City, and STRADEC from its principal office-actually itself, no evidence was ever submitted by
documentary submissions9 by the parties, the within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, charges no offense and, therefore, cannot be petitioners to prove that they demanded and was
OCP issued a Resolution dated 6 January 2006 in the above accused, being then members of the sustained. refused access to the corporate records of
I.S. No. PSG 05-08-07465. In the said resolution, Board of Directors and/or officers, as the case STRADEC between 1 March to 25 June 2004.
the OCP absolved Casanova but found probable maybe, of Strategic Alliance Development Anent directing the issuance of a warrant of What petitioners merely submitted is their letter
cause to hail respondents to court on two (2) Corporation (STRADEC, for short), conspiring arrest in Criminal Case No. 89724, the MeTC dated 6 September 2004 demanding from
offenses: (1) for removing the stock and transfer and confederating together and mutually helping found probable cause to do so; given the failure respondents access to the corporate records of
book of STRADEC from its principal office, and and aiding one another, did then and there of the respondents to present any evidence during STRADEC.
(2) for refusing access to, and examination of, the willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, refuse to the preliminary investigation showing that they
corporate records and the stock and transfer book allow complainants Bonifacio C. Sumbilla and do not have possession of the corporate records 2. The allegations of petitioners in their
of STRADEC at its principal office. Aderito Z. Yujuico, being then stockholders of STRADEC or that they allowed petitioners to complaint, as well as 6 September 2004 letter
and/or directors of STRADEC, access to, and inspect the corporate records and the stock and above-mentioned, however, are contradicted by
Pursuant to the resolution, two (2) examination of, the corporate records, including transfer book of STRADEC. the sworn statement dated 1 July 2004 of
informations were filed against the respondents the stock and transfer book, of STRADEC at its Blando wherein he attested that as early as 25
before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of principal office at the 24th Floor, One Unsatisfied, the respondents filed a motion for June 2004, Pilapil already turned over to him
Pasig City. The informations were docketed as Magnificent Mile-CITRA Bldg., San Miguel partial Reconsideration of the 8 May 2006 order "two binders containing the minutes, board
Criminal Case No. 89723 and Criminal Case No. Avenue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, where they of the MeTC insofar as the disposition in resolutions, articles of incorporation, copies of
89724 and were raffled to Branch 69. should all be kept, in violation of the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 89724 is concerned. The contracts, correspondences and other papers of
law, and to the prejudice of the said MeTC, however, denied such motion on 16 the corporation, except the stock certificate book
Criminal Case No. 89723 is for the offense of complainants. August 2006. and the stock and transfer book."
removing the stock and transfer book of
STRADEC from its principal office. The Urgent Omnibus Motion and the Dismissal of Certiorari Petition and the Dismissal of Criminal 3. The RTC also took exception to the reason
information reads: Criminal Case No. 89723 Case No. 89724 After their motion for partial provided by the MeTC in supporting its finding
reconsideration was denied, respondents filed a of probable cause against the respondents. The R
On and/or about the period between March 1 and On 18 January 2006, respondents filed before the certiorari petition, with prayer for the issuance of TC held that it was not incumbent upon the
June 25, 2004, inclusive, in Pasig City and within MeTC an Urgent Omnibus Motion for Judicial a temporary restraining order (TRO), before the respondents to provide evidence proving their
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the Determination of Probable Cause and To Defer RTC of Pasig City on 27 September 2006. The innocence. Hence, the failure of the respondents
above accused, being then members of the Board Issuance of Warrants of Arrest (Urgent Omnibus petition was docketed as S.C.A. No. 3047. to submit evidence showing that they do not have
of Directors and/or officers, as the case maybe, Motion). possession of the corporate records of
of Strategic Alliance Development Corporation On 16 November 2006, the RTC issued a TRO STRADEC or that they have allowed inspection
(STRADEC, for short), conspiring and On 8 May 2006, the MeTC issued an enjoining the MeTC from conducting further of the same cannot be taken against them much
confederating together and mutually helping and order partially granting the Urgent Omnibus proceedings in Criminal Case No. 89724 for less support a finding of probable cause against
aiding one another, did then and there willfully, Motion. The MeTC dismissed Criminal Case No. twenty (20) days. them.
unlawfully and feloniously, remove the stock and 89723 but ordered the issuance of a warrant of
transfer book of the said STRADEC at its arrest against respondents in Criminal Case No. On 4 June 2007, the R TC issued an The RTC further pointed out that, at most, the
principal office at the 24th Floor, One 89724. Order granting respondents' certiorari petition evidence on record only supports probable cause
Magnificent Mile-CITRA City Bldg., San Miguel and directing the dismissal of Criminal Case No. that the respondents were withholding the stock
A venue, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, where they In dismissing Criminal Case No. 89723, the 89724. According to the RTC, the MeTC and transfer book of STRADEC. The RTC,
should all be kept, in violation of the aforesaid MeTC held that Section 74, in relation to Section committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing a however, opined that refusing to allow inspection
law, and to the prejudice of the said 144, of the Corporation Code only penalizes the warrant of arrest against respondents in Criminal of the stock and transfer book, as opposed to
complainants. act of "refus[ing] to allow any director, trustee, Case No. 89724. refusing examination of other corporate records,
stockholder or member of the corporation to is not punishable as an offense under the
Criminal Case No. 89724, on the other hand, examine and copy excerpts from the records or The RTC found that the finding of probable Corporation Code. Hence, the directive of the
covers the offense of refusing access to, and minutes of the corporation" and that act is cause against the respondents in Criminal Case RTC dismissing Criminal Case No. 89724.
examination of, the corporate records and the already the subject matter of Criminal Case No. No. 89724 was not supported by the evidence
stock and transfer book of STRADEC at its 89724. Hence, the MeTC opined, Criminal Case presented during the preliminary investigation The petitioners moved for reconsideration, but
principal office. The information reads: No. 89723-which seeks to try respondents for but was, in fact, contradicted by them: the R TC remained steadfast.
9 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

Hence, this petition by petitioners. The act of ref using to allow inspection of the shall be liable to such director, trustee, fee herein provided, shall be applicable. (5 la and
stock and transfer book of a corporation, stockholder or member for damages, and in 32a; P.B. No. 268.) (Emphasis supplied)
The Instant Petition when done in violation of Section 74(4) of addition, shall be guilty of an offense which shall
the Corporation Code, is punishable as an be punishable under Section 144 of this Code: Section 144 of the Corporation Code, on the
In their petition, petitioners claim that Criminal offense under Section 144 of the same code. Provided, That if such refusal is made pursuant to other hand, is the general penal provision of the
Case No. 89724 may still be sustained against the a resolution or order of the board of directors or Corporation Code. It reads:
respondents insofar as the charge of refusing to We first address the inaccurate pronouncement of trustees, the liability under this section for such
allow access to the stock and transfer book of the RTC. action shall be imposed upon the directors or Section 144. Violations of the Code. - Violations
STRADEC is concerned. They argue that the R trustees who voted for such refusal: and of any of the provisions of this Code or its
TC made a legal blunder when it held that the Section 74 is the provision of the Corporation Provided, further, That it shall be a defense to amendments not otherwise specifically penalized
refusal to allow inspection of the stock and Code that deals with the books a corporation is any action under this section that the person therein shall be punished by a fine of not less
transfer book of a corporation is not a punishable required to keep. It reads: demanding to examine and copy excerpts from than one thousand (P1,000.00) pesos but not
offense under the Corporation Code. Petitioners the corporation's records and minutes has more than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos or by
contend that such a refusal still amounts to a Section 74. Books to be kept; stock transfer improperly used any information secured through imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days
violation of Section 74 of the Corporation Code, agent. - Every corporation shall keep and any prior examination of the records or minutes but not more than five (5) years, or both, in the
for which Section 144 of the same code carefully preserve at its principal office a record of such corporation or of any other corporation, discretion of the court. If the violation is
prescribes a penalty. of all business transactions and minutes of all or was not acting in good faith or for a legitimate committed by a corporation, the same may, after
meetings of stockholders or members, or of the purpose in making his demand. notice and hearing, be dissolved in appropriate
OUR RULING board of directors or trustees, in which shall be proceedings before the Securities and Exchange
set forth in detail the time and place of holding Stock corporations must also keep a book to be Commission: Provided, That such dissolution
The RTC indeed made an inaccurate the meeting, how authorized, the notice given, known as the "stock and transfer book'', in which shall not preclude the institution of appropriate
pronouncement when it held that the act of whether the meeting was regular or special, if must be kept a record of all stocks in the names action against the director, trustee or officer of
refusing to allow inspection of the stock and special its object, those present and absent, and of the stockholders alphabetically arranged; the the corporation responsible for said violation:
transfer book of a corporation is not a punishable every act done or ordered done at the meeting. installments paid and unpaid on all stock for Provided, further, That nothing in this section
offense under the Corporation Code. Such Upon the demand of any director, trustee, which subscription has been made, and the date shall be construed to repeal the other causes for
refusal, when done in violation of Section 74(4) stockholder or member, the time when any of payment of any installment; a statement of dissolution of a corporation provided in this
of the Corporation Code, properly falls within the director, trustee, stockholder or member entered every alienation, sale or transfer of stock made, Code. (190 112 a) (Emphasis supplied)
purview of Section 144 of the same code and or left the meeting must be noted in the minutes; the date thereof, and by and to whom made; and
thus may be penalized as an offense. and on a similar demand, the yeas and nays must such other entries as the by-laws may prescribe. In the assailed Orders, the RTC expressed its
be taken on any motion or proposition, and a The stock and transfer book shall be kept in the opinion that the act of refusing to allow
The foregoing gaffe nonetheless, We still sustain record thereof carefully made. The protest of any inspection of the stock and transfer book, even
principal office of the corporation or in the office
the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 89724 as director, trustee, stockholder or member on any though it may be a violation of Section 74(4), is
of its stock transfer agent and shall be open for
against the respondents. action or proposed action must be recorded in not punishable as an offense under the
inspection by any director or stockholder of the
full on his demand. corporation at reasonable hours on business days. Corporation Code. In justifying this conclusion,
A criminal action based on the violation of a the RTC seemingly relied on the fact that, under
stockholder's right to examine or inspect the The records of all business transactions of the Section 7 4 of the Corporation Code, the
No stock transfer agent or one engaged
corporate records and the stock and transfer book corporation and the minutes of any meetings application of Section 144 is expressly
principally in the business of registering transfers
of a corporation under the second and fourth shall be open to inspection by any director, mentioned only in relation to the act of
of stocks in behalf of a stock corporation shall be
paragraphs of Section 74 of the Corporation trustee, stockholder or member of the corporation "refus[ing] to allow any director, trustees,
allowed to operate in the Philippines unless he
Code-such as Criminal Case No. 89724--can at reasonable hours on business days and he may stockholder or member of the corporation to
secures a license from the Securities and
only be maintained against corporate officers or demand, in writing, for a copy of excerpts from examine and copy excerpts from [the
Exchange Commission and pays a fee as may be
any other persons acting on behalf of such said records or minutes, at his expense. corporation's] records or minutes" that excludes
fixed by the Commission, which shall be
corporation. The submissions of the petitioners its stock and transfer book.
renewable annually: Provided, That a stock
during the preliminary investigation, however, Any officer or agent of the corporation who shall corporation is not precluded from performing or
clearly suggest that respondents are neither in refuse to allow any director, trustees, stockholder We do not agree.
making transfer of its own stocks, in which case
relation to STRADEC. or member of the corporation to examine and all the rules and regulations imposed on stock
copy excerpts from its records or minutes, in transfer agents, except the payment of a license While Section 74 of the Corporation Code
Hence, we deny the petition. accordance with the provisions of this Code, expressly mentions the application of Section
10 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

144 only in relation to the act of "refus[ing] to book of a corporation under the second and preliminary investigation is that they do not AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
allow any director, trustees, stockholder or fourth paragraphs of Section 74 of the establish that respondents were acting on behalf
member of the corporation to examine and copy Corporation Code can only be maintained of STRADEC. Quite the contrary, the scenario Before us is a petition for review
excerpts from [the corporation's] records or against corporate officers or any other persons painted by the complaint is that the respondents on certiorari filed by Jose Alemania Buatis, Jr.
minutes," the same does not mean that the latter acting on behalf of such corporation. are merely outgoing officers of STRADEC who, (petitioner) seeking to set aside the
section no longer applies to any other possible for some reason, withheld and refused to turn- Decision dated January 18, 2000 of the Court of
violations of the former section. The foregoing notwithstanding, and over the company records of STRADEC; that it Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR. No. 20988 which
independently of the reasons provided therefor is the petitioners who are actually acting on affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court
It must be emphasized that Section 144 already by the RTC, we sustain the dismissal of Criminal behalf of STRADEC; and that STRADEC is (RTC), Branch 167 of Pasig City, convicting him
purports to penalize "[v]iolations" of "any Case No. 89724. actually merely trying to recover custody of the of the crime of libel. Also assailed is the
provision" of the Corporation Code "not withheld records. appellate court’s Resolution dated March 13,
otherwise specifically penalized therein." Hence, Criminal Case No. 89724 accuses respondents of 2000 denying petitioner’s Motion for
we find inconsequential the fact that that Section denying petitioners' right to examine or inspect In other words, petitioners are not actually Reconsideration.
74 expressly mentions the application of Section the corporate records and the stock and transfer invoking their right to inspect the records and the
144 only to a specific act, but not with respect to book of STRADEC. It is thus a criminal action stock and transfer book of STRADEC under the The facts of the case, as summarized by the
the other possible violations of the former that is based on the violation of the second and second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74. appellate court, are as follows:
section. fourth paragraphs of Section 7 4 of the What they seek to enforce is the proprietary right
Corporation Code. of STRADEC to be in possession of such records On August 18, 1995, the wife of private-
Indeed, we find no cogent reason why Section and book. Such right, though certainly legally complainant Atty. Jose J. Pieraz (Atty. Pieraz),
144 of the Corporation Code cannot be made to A perusal of the second and fourth paragraphs of enforceable by other means, cannot be enforced retrieved a letter from their mailbox addressed to
apply to violations of the right of a stockholder to Section 74, as well as the first paragraph of the by a criminal prosecution based on a violation of her husband. The letter was open, not contained
inspect the stock and transfer book of a same section, reveal that they are provisions that the second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74. in an envelope, and Atty. Pieraz’ wife put it on
corporation under Section 74(4) given the obligates a corporation: they prescribe what That is simply not the situation contemplated by her husband’s desk. On that same day, Atty.
already unequivocal intent of the legislature to books or records a corporation is required to the second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74 Pieraz came upon the letter and made out its
penalize violations of a parallel right, i.e., the keep; where the corporation shall keep them; of the Corporation Code. content. It reads:
right of a stockholder or member to examine the
other records and minutes of a corporation under and what are the other obligations of the For this reason, we affirm the dismissal of DON HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ Y REYES
Section 74(2). Certainly, all the rights guaranteed corporation to its stockholders or members in Criminal Case No. 89724 for lack of probable ESTATE
to corporators under Section 7 4 of the relation to such books and cause. Office of the Asst. Court Administrator
Corporation Code are mandatory for the records.1âwphi1 Hence, by parity of reasoning, No. 1063 Kamias St., Bgy. Manggahan, Pasig
corporation to respect. All such rights are just the the second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the City,
same underpinned by the same policy including the first paragraph of the same section, petlt10n is hereby DENIED. The Orders dated 4 Metro Manila
consideration of keeping public confidence in the can only be violated by a corporation. June 2007 and 5 November 2007 of the Regional
corporate vehicle thru an assurance of Trial Court, Branch 154, of Pasig City in S.C.A. August 18, 1995
transparency in the corporation's operations. It is clear then that a criminal action based on the No. 3047, insofar as said orders effectively
violation of the second or fourth paragraphs of dismissed Criminal Case No. 89724 pending ATTY. JOSE J. PIERAZ
Verily, we find inaccurate the pronouncement of Section 74 can only be maintained against before Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, of Counsel for Benjamin A. Monroy
the RTC that the act of refusing to allow corporate officers or such other persons that are Pasig City, are hereby AFFIRMED. #8 Quirino St., Life Homes Subdivision
inspection of the stock and transfer book is not a acting on behalf of the corporation. Violations of Rosario , Pasig City, Metro Manila
punishable offense under the Corporation Code. the second and fourth paragraphs of Section 74 SO ORDERED.
contemplates a situation wherein a corporation, Subject: Anent your letter dated August 18, 1995
Such refusal, when done in violation of Section
acting thru one of its officers or agents, denies G.R. NO. 142509 March 24, 2006 addressed to one Mrs. Teresita Quingco
74(4) of the Corporation Code, properly falls
within the purview of Section 144 of the same the right of any of its stockholders to inspect the
records, minutes and the stock and transfer book JOSE ALEMANIA BUATIS, JR. vs THE Atty. Pieraz:
code and thus may be penalized as an offense.
of such corporation. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ATTY.
JOSE J. PIERAZ This has reference to your lousy but inutile
A criminal action based on the violation of a
The problem with the petitioners' complaint and threatening letter dated August 18, 1995,
stockholder's right to examine or inspect the
the evidence that they submitted during DECISION addressed to our client; using carabao English.
corporate records and the stock and transfer
11 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

May we remind you that any attempt on your carabao," Atty. Pieraz filed a complaint for libel party in the amount of P20,000.00, by way of awarded moral damages as well as exemplary
part to continue harassing the person of Mrs. against accused-appellant. Subject letter and its compensatory damages; the amount damages since the publication of the libelous
Teresita Quingco of No. 1582 Mngo St., Bgy. contents came to the knowledge not only of his of P10,000.00, as and for moral damages, and letter was made with special ill will, bad faith or
Manggahan, Pasig City, Metro Manila--- wife but of his children as well and they all another amount ofP10,000.00, for exemplary in a reckless disregard for the rights of
undersigned much to his regrets shall be chided him telling him: "Ginagawa ka lang gago damages; to suffer all accessory penalties respondent.
constrained/compelled to file the necessary dito." provided for by law; and, to pay the costs. 5
complaint for disbarment against you. Subsequently, petitioner appealed the RTC’s
Aside from the monetary expenses he incurred as The trial court ruled that: calling a lawyer decision to the CA which, in a Decision dated
You may proceed then with your stupidity and a result of the filing of the instant case, Atty "inutil", stupid and capable of using only carabao January 18, 2000, affirmed in its entirety the
suffer the full consequence of the law. Needless Pieraz’ frail health was likewise affected and English, is intended not only for the consumption decision of the trial court.
for you to cite specific provisions of the Revised aggravated by the letter of accused-appellant. of respondent but similarly for others as a copy
Penal Code, as the same is irrelevant to the of the libelous letter was furnished all concerned; The CA found that the words used in the letter
present case. As a matter of fact, the same shall The defense forwarded by accused-appellant the letter was prejudicial to the good name of are uncalled for and defamatory in character as
be used by no other than the person of Mrs. Buatis, Jr. was denial. According to him, it was at respondent and an affront to his standing as a they impeached the good reputation of
Quingco in filing administrative charge against the behest of the president of the organization lawyer, who, at the time the letter was addressed respondent as a lawyer and that it is malicious. It
you and all persons behind these nefarious "Nagkakaisang Samahan Ng Mga Taga to him, was representing a client in whose favor rejected petitioner’s claim that the letter is a
activities. Manggahan" or NASATAMA, and of a member, he sent a demand letter to the person represented privileged communication which would
Teresita Quingco, that he had dictated to one of by petitioner; the letter is libelous per se since a exculpate him from liability since he failed to
Finally, it is a welcome opportunity for the his secretaries, a comment to the letter of private- defect or vice imputed is plainly understood as come up with a valid explanation as to why he
undersigned to face you squarely in any courts of complainant in the second week of August 1995. set against the entire message sought to be had to resort to name calling and downgrading a
justice, so as we can prove "who is who" once conveyed; petitioner failed to reverse the lawyer to the extent of ridiculing him when he
and for all. Initially during his testimony, Buatis, Jr. could presumption of malice from the defamatory could have discharged his so called "duty" in a
not recall whether he had signed that letter- imputation contained in the letter; the letter could more toned down fashion. It found also that there
Trusting that you are properly inform (sic) comment or if it was even addressed to Atty. have been couched in a civil and respectful was publication of the letter, thus, it cannot be
regarding these matters, I remain. Pieraz. Neither could he remember if he had manner, as the intention of petitioner was only to classified as privileged.
made and sent another letter, this time dated advice respondent that demand was not proper
Yours in Satan name; August 24, 1995, to Atty. Pieraz. Confronted in and legal but instead petitioner was seething with The CA denied petitioner’s motion for
court with the counter-affidavit which he filed hate and contempt and even influenced by reconsideration in a Resolution dated March 13,
(Signed) before the Pasig City Prosecutor’s Office, 2000.
satanic intention.
however, Buatis, Jr. could not deny its contents,
JOSE ALEMANIA BUATIS, JR. among which was his admission that indeed, he Hence the instant petition for review on certiorari
The RTC also found that since the letter was
Atty-in- Fact of the present had sent subject letter of August 18 and the letter filed by petitioner, raising the following issues:
made known or brought to the attention and
Court Administrator of the entire dated August 24, 1995 to Atty. Pieraz. notice of other persons other than the offended
Intestate Estate of Don Hermogenes A. CAN THERE BE MALICE IN FACT, AS
party, there was publication; and that the element
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered its of identity was also established since the letter ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF LIBEL,
Rodriguez Y. Reyes. Decision dated April 30, 1997 finding petitioner ATTRIBUTED TO A RESPONDING URBAN
was intended for respondent. It rejected
guilty of the crime of libel, the dispositive petitioner’s stance that the libelous letter resulted POOR LEADER ACTING AS COUNSEL,
Copy furnished: DEFENDING A MEMBER OF AN
portion of which reads: from mistake or negligence since petitioner
All concerned. ASSOCIATION UNDER THREAT OF
boldly admitted that he had to reply to
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered respondent’s letter to Mrs. Quingco, it being his EJECTMENT FROM HER DWELLING
Not personally knowing who the sender was,
finding the accused Jose Alemania Buatis, Jr. duty to do as the latter is a member of PLACE?
Atty. Pieraz, nevertheless, responded and sent a
GUILTY of the crime of LIBEL defined in Art. petitioner’s association.
communication by registered mail to said Buatis, B. WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE
353 and penalized under Art. 355 of the Revised
Jr., accused-appellant. In reply, Buatis, Jr. COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THE
Penal Code and is hereby sentenced to an The RTC found respondent entitled to recover
dispatched a second letter dated August 24, 1995 ALLEGED LIBELOUS LETTER AS ONE OF
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Four compensatory damages as the immediate
to Atty. Pieraz. THOSE FALLING UNDER THE PURVIEW OF
(4) Months and One (1) Day, as minimum, to tendency of the defamatory imputation was to
Two (2) Years, Eleven (11) Months and Ten (10) impair respondent’s reputation although no actual PRIVILEGE (sic) COMMUNICATION?
Reacting to the insulting words used by Buatis,
Days, as maximum; to indemnify the offended pecuniary loss has in fact resulted. It also
Jr., particularly: "Satan, senile, stupid, [E]nglish
12 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

C. WHETHER OR NOT THE APPELLATE Petitioner further argues that if the words used in The victim of the libelous letter was identifiable English", "stupidity", and "satan", the letter, as it
COURT ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT: the libelous letter-reply would be fully as the subject letter-reply was addressed to was written, casts aspersion on the character,
THE PETITIONER CAN NOT BE MADE TO scrutinized, there is justification for the use of respondent himself. integrity and reputation of respondent as a lawyer
ACCEPT FULL RESPONSIBILITY THAT those words, to wit: "lousy but inutile threatening which exposed him to ridicule. No
WHAT HE DID IS A CRIME? letter…using carabao English" was due to the We shall then resolve the issues raised by evidence aliunde need be adduced to prove it. As
fact that the demand letter was indeed a petitioner as to whether the imputation is the CA said, these very words of petitioner have
The Office of the Solicitor General filed its threatening letter as it does not serve its purpose defamatory and malicious. caused respondent to public ridicule as even his
Comment in behalf of the People and respondent as respondent’s client has no legal right over the own family have told him: "Ginagawa ka lang
filed his own Comment praying for the property and respondent did not file the In determining whether a statement gago dito."
affirmance of the CA decision. As required by us, ejectment suit; that respondent is just making a is defamatory, the words used are to be construed
the parties submitted their respective mockery out of Mrs. Quingco, thus he is stupid; in their entirety and should be taken in their Any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is
memoranda. that the words "Yours in Satan name" is only a plain, natural and ordinary meaning as they defamatory; and, under the general rule laid
complementary greeting used in an ordinary would naturally be understood by persons down in Article 354, every defamatory
The principal issue for resolution is whether or communication letter, which is reflected to the reading them, unless it appears that they were imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it
not petitioner is guilty of the crime of libel. sender but not to the person being communicated used and understood in another sense. be true, if no good intention and justifiable
and which is just the reverse of saying "Yours in motive for making it is shown. Thus, when the
In his Memorandum, petitioner claims that: the Christ". For the purpose of determining the meaning of imputation is defamatory, the prosecution need
CA failed to apply the ruling in People v. any publication alleged to be libelous, we laid not prove malice on the part of petitioner (malice
Velasco that "if the act/matter charged as libelous We deny the petition. down the rule inJimenez v. Reyes, to wit: in fact), for the law already presumes that
is only an incident in [an] act which has another petitioner’s imputation is malicious (malice in
objective, the crime is not libel;" when he made Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code defines In Tawney vs. Simonson, Whitcomb & Hurley law). A reading of petitioner’s subject letter-reply
his reply to respondent’s letter to Mrs. Quingco libel as a public and malicious imputation of a Co. (109 Minn., 341), the court had the following showed that he malevolently castigated
making a demand for her to vacate the premises, crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or to say on this point: "In determining whether the respondent for writing such a demand letter to
his objective was to inform respondent that Mrs. any act, omission, condition, status, or specified matter is libelous per se, two rules of Mrs. Quingco. There was nothing in the said
Quingco is one of the recognized tenants of the circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, construction are conspicuously applicable: (1) letter which showed petitioner’s good intention
Rodriguez estate which is claiming ownership discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical That construction must be adopted which will and justifiable motive for writing the same in
over the area of Brgy. Manggahan, Pasig City, person, or to blacken the memory of one who is give to the matter such a meaning as is natural order to overcome the legal inference of malice.
and petitioner is the attorney-in-fact of the dead. and obvious in the plain and ordinary sense in
administrator of the Rodriquez estate; which the public would naturally understand Petitioner, however, insists that his letter was a
communication in whatever language, either For an imputation to be libelous, the following what was uttered. (2) The published matter private communication made in the performance
verbal or written of a lawyer under obligation to requisites must concur: (a) it must be alleged to be libelous must be construed as a of his moral and social duty as the attorney-in-
defend a client’s cause is but a privileged defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must whole." fact of the administrator of the Rodriguez estate
communication; the instant case is a qualified be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be where Mrs. Quingco is a recognized tenant and
privileged communication which is lost only by identifiable. In applying these rules to the language of an to whom respondent had written the demand
proof of malice, however, respondent failed to alleged libel, the court will disregard any subtle letter to vacate, thus in the nature of a privileged
present actual proof of malice; the existence of The last two elements have been duly established or ingenious explanation offered by the publisher communication and not libelous.
malice in fact may be shown by extrinsic by the prosecution. There is publication in this on being called to account. The whole question
evidence that petitioner bore a grudge against the case. In libel, publication means making the being the effect the publication had upon the We are not persuaded.
offended party, or there was ill will or ill feeling defamatory matter, after it is written, known to minds of the readers, and they not having been
between them which existed at the time of the someone other than the person against whom it assisted by the offered explanation in reading the Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
publication of the defamatory imputation which has been written.9 Petitioner’s subject letter-reply article, it comes too late to have the effect of
were not at all indicated by respondent in his itself states that the same was copy furnished to removing the sting, if any there be, from the Art. 354. Requirement for publicity.─ Every
complaint; contrary to the findings of the CA, all concerned. Also, petitioner had dictated the words used in the publication. defamatory imputation is presumed to be
there was justifiable motive in sending such a letter to his secretary. It is enough that the author malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention
letter which was to defend the vested interest of of the libel complained of has communicated it to Gauging from the above–mentioned tests, the and justifiable motive for making it is shown,
the estate and to abate any move of respondent to a third person. Furthermore, the letter, when words used in the letter dated August 18, 1995 except in the following cases:
eject Mrs. Quingco. found in the mailbox, was open, not contained in sent by petitioner to respondent is defamatory. In
an envelope thus, open to public. using words such as "lousy", "inutile", "carabao
13 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

1. A private communication made by any person lawyer, a lawyer who had served as legal officer or not. We find that the award of P20,000.00 as In the subsequent case of Lim v. People, we did
to another in the performance of any legal, moral, in the Department of Environment and Natural compensatory damages should be deleted for the same and deleted the penalty of
or social duty; and Resources for so many years until his retirement lack of factual basis. To be entitled to actual and imprisonment and merely imposed a fine for
and afterwards as consultant of the same agency compensatory damages, there must be competent violation of B.P. 22, concluding that such would
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, and also a notary public. The letter was crafted in proof constituting evidence of the actual amount best serve the ends of criminal justice.
without any comments or remarks, of any an injurious way than what is necessary in thereof. Respondent had not presented evidence
judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings answering a demand letter which exposed in support thereof. Adopting these cases, we issued Administrative
which are not of confidential nature, or of any respondent to public ridicule thus negating good Circular No. 12-2000. On February 14, 2001, we
statement, report, or speech delivered in said faith and showing malicious intent on petitioner’s Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes issued Administrative Circular 13-2001 which
proceedings, or of any other act performed by part. libel by means of writings or similar means modified Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 by
public officers in the exercise of their functions. with prision correccional in its minimum and stressing that the clear tenor of Administrative
Moreover, the law requires that for a defamatory medium periods or a fine ranging from 200 to Circular No. 12-2000 is not to remove
Clearly, the presumption of malice is done away imputation made out of a legal, moral or social 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay
with when the defamatory imputation is a duty to be privileged, such statement must be action which may be brought by the offended down a rule of preference in the application of
qualified privileged communication. communicated only to the person or persons who party. the penalties provided for in B.P. 22.
have some interest or duty in the matter alleged,
In order to prove that a statement falls within the and who have the power to furnish the protection The courts are given the discretion to choose While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we
purview of a qualified privileged communication sought by the author of the statement. A written whether to impose a single penalty or find the reasons behind the imposition of fine
under Article 354, No. 1, as claimed by letter containing libelous matter cannot be conjunctive penalties; that is, whether to impose instead of imprisonment applicable to petitioner’s
petitioner, the following requisites must concur: classified as privileged when it is published and a penalty of fine, or a penalty of imprisonment case of libel. We note that this is petitioner’s first
(1) the person who made the communication had circulated among the public. In this case, only, or a penalty of both fine and imprisonment. offense of this nature. He never knew respondent
a legal, moral, or social duty to make the petitioner admitted that he dictated the letter to prior to the demand letter sent by the latter to
communication, or at least, had an interest to one of her secretaries who typed the same and In Vaca v. Court of Appeals, where petitioners Mrs. Quingco who then sought his assistance
protect, which interest may either be his own or made a print out of the computer. While therein were convicted of B.P. 22 which provides thereto. He appealed from the decision of the
of the one to whom it is made; (2) the petitioner addressed the reply-letter to for alternative penalties of fine or imprisonment RTC and the CA in his belief that he was merely
communication is addressed to an officer or a respondent, the same letter showed that it was or both fine and imprisonment, we deleted the exercising a civil or moral duty in writing the
board, or superior, having some interest or duty copy furnished to all concerned. His lack of prison sentence imposed upon petitioners and letter to private complainant. In fact, petitioner
in the matter, and who has the power to furnish selectivity is indicative of malice and is instead ordered them only to pay a fine could have applied for probation to evade prison
the protection sought; and (3) the statements in anathema to his claim of privileged equivalent to double the amount of the check. We term but he did not do so believing that he did
the communication are made in good faith and communication. Such publication had already held: not commit a crime thus, he appealed his case.
without malice. created upon the minds of the readers a We believe that the State is concerned not only in
circumstance which brought discredit and shame Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are the imperative necessity of protecting the social
While it would appear that the letter was written to respondent’s reputation. Filipino entrepreneurs who presumably organization against the criminal acts of
by petitioner out of his social duty to a member contribute to the national economy. Apparently, destructive individuals but also in redeeming the
of the association which he heads, and was Since the letter is not a privileged they brought this appeal, believing in all good individual for economic usefulness and other
written to respondent as a reply to the latter’s communication, malice is presumed under faith, although mistakenly, that they had not social ends. Consequently, we delete the prison
demand letter sent to a member, however, a Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code. The committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, sentence imposed on petitioner and instead
reading of the subject letter-reply addressed to presumption was not successfully rebutted by they could simply have accepted the judgment of impose a fine of six thousand pesos.
respondent does not show any explanation petitioner as discussed above. the trial court and applied for probation to evade
concerning the status of Mrs. Quingco and why prison term. It would best serve the ends of This is not the first time that we removed the
she is entitled to the premises as against the Thus, we find that the CA did not commit any criminal justice if in fixing the penalty within the penalty of imprisonment and imposed a fine
claim of respondent’s client. The letter merely error in affirming the findings of the trial court range of discretion allowed by §1, par. 1, the instead in the crime of libel. In Sazon v. Court of
contained insulting words, i.e, "lousy" and that petitioner is guilty of the crime of libel. same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Appeals, petitioner was convicted of libel and
"inutile letter using carabao English", "stupidity", Sentence Law is observed, namely, that of was meted a penalty of imprisonment and fine;
and "satan", which are totally irrelevant to his An appeal in a criminal case throws the entire redeeming valuable human material and and upon a petition filed with us, we affirmed the
defense of Mrs. Quingco’s right over the case for review and it becomes our duty to preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal findings of libel but changed the penalty imposed
premises. The words as written had only the correct any error, as may be found in the liberty and economic usefulness with due regard to a mere fine.
effect of maligning respondent’s integrity as a appealed judgment, whether assigned as an error to the protection of the social order.
14 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Teachers on behalf of one Evelyn B. Junio-Decir The Action and Recommendation of the OCA The issue raised for the Court’s resolution is
Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with (Decir). On March 21, 1996, after Ampong whether or not Ampong had been dismissed from
the MODIFICATIONS that, in lieu of herself admitted to having committed the charges In a Memorandum dated March 27, 2013,the her employment as Court Interpreter III of the
imprisonment, the penalty to be imposed upon against her, the CSC rendered a OCA recommended that Ampong be found guilty RTC.
the petitioner shall be a fine of Six Thousand resolution dismissing her from service, imposing of Dishonesty for impersonating and taking the
(P6,000.00) Pesos with subsidiary imprisonment all accessory penalties attendant to such November 1991 Civil Service Eligibility The Court’s Ruling
in case of insolvency. The award of dismissal, and revoking her Professional Board Examination for Teachers in behalf of Decir and,
compensatory damages is DELETED. Examination for Teachers (PBET) rating. thus, be dismissed from the service on the ground The Court resolves the issue in the affirmative.
Ampong moved for reconsideration on the that she no longer possesses the appropriate
SO ORDERED. ground that when the said administrative case eligibility required for her position, with As the records show, in the August 26, 2008
was filed, she was already appointed to the forfeiture of retirement and other benefits except Decision, the Court had already held Ampong
A.M. No. P-13-3132 June 4, 2014 judiciary; as such, she posited that the CSC no accrued leave credits and with perpetual administratively liable for dishonesty in
(Formerly A.M. No. 12-3-54-RTC) longer had any jurisdiction over her. Ampong’s disqualification from re-employment in any impersonating and taking the November 1991
motion was later denied, thus, prompting her to government agency or instrumentality, including Civil Service Eligibility Examination for
OFFICE OF THE COURT file a petition for review before the Court of any government-owned and controlled Teachers on behalf of Decir, viz.:
ADMINISTRATOR vs SARAH P. AMPONG Appeals (CA). corporation or government financial institution.
The CSC found [Ampong] guilty of dishonesty.
RESOLUTION On November 30, 2004, the CA denied The OCA found that Ampong’s act of It is categorized as "an act which includes the
Ampong’s petition and affirmed her dismissal impersonating and taking the November 1991 procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: Civil Service Eligibility Examination for service eligibility, the giving of assistance to
from service on the ground that she never raised
the issue of jurisdiction until after the CSC ruled Teachers for and on behalf of another person ensure the commission or procurement of the
This administrative case arose from the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation, or any
against her and, thus, she is estopped from indeed constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense
letter dated March 15, 2011 of Executive Judge other anomalous act which amounts to any
assailing the same. Similarly, on August 26, which carries the corresponding penalty of
Jaime L. Infante (Judge Infante) of the Regional violation of the Civil Service examination."
2008, the Court En Banc denied her petition for dismissal from service. It added that the fact that
Trial Court of Alabel, Sarangani Province, [Ampong] impersonated Decir in the PBET
review on certiorari and, thus, affirmed her the offense was not connected with her office or
"Branch 38. (RTC), addressed to complainant the exam, to ensure that the latter would obtain a
dismissal from service in G.R. No. 167916, was committed prior to her appointment in the
Office of the Court Administrator passing mark. By intentionally practicing a
entitled "Sarah P. Ampong v. Civil Service judiciary does not in any way exonerate her from
(OCA), inquiring about the employment status of deception to secure a passing mark, their acts
Commission, CSC-Regional Office No. administrative liability as an employee of the
respondent Sarah P. Ampong (Ampong), a Court undeniably involve dishonesty.
11" (August 26, 2008 Decision). court.
Interpreter III of the said RTC since August 3,
1993. In the aforementioned letter, Judge Infante Further, the OCA found that Ampong’s This Court has defined dishonesty as the
Notwithstanding said Decision, the Financial
informed the OCA that despite Ampong's appointment as Court Interpreter III did not "(d)isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud;
Management Office (FMO) of the OCA, which
dismissal from service by the Civil Service divest the CSC of its inherent power to discipline untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
did not receive any official directive regarding
Commission (CSC), which dismissal was employees from all branches and agencies of the honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of
Ampong’s dismissal, continued to release her
affirmed by the Court, the RTC never received government in order to protect the integrity of the fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to
salaries and allowances. However, in view of
any official information or directive from the civil service. Consequently, the CSC could defraud, deceive or betray." [Ampong’s]
Judge Infante’s letter notifying the OCA of such
OCA on the matter. As such, Ampong remains validly impose the administrative penalty of dishonest act as a civil servant renders her unfit
situation, the FMO issued a Memorandum 7 dated
employed in the RTC and has been continuously dismissal against her, which carries with it that of to be a judicial employee. Indeed, We take note
September 7, 2011 informing the OCA that
receiving all her monthly salary, benefits, cancellation of civil service eligibility, forfeiture that [Ampong] should not have been appointed
starting June 2011, it had started to withhold
allowances, and the like. of retirement benefits, and perpetual as a judicial employee had this Court been made
Ampong’s salaries and allowances.
disqualification for re-employment in the aware of the cheating that she committed in the
The Facts civil service examinations. Be that as it may,
In her Comment dated September 25, 2012, government service, unless otherwise provided.
Ampong prayed that the Court revisit its ruling in In this relation, the OCA emphasized that the [Ampong’s] present status as a judicial employee
Sometime in August 1994, the CSC instituted an is not a hindrance to her getting the penalty she
G.R. No. 167916 despite its finality because it CSC ruling effectively stripped Ampong of her
administrative case against Ampong for deserves. (Emphases and underscoring supplied).
might lead to unwarranted complications in its civil service eligibility and, hence, could no
Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Conduct
enforcement. Moreover, Ampong reiterated her longer hold the position of Court Interpreter III.
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for
argument that the CSC did not have any
having impersonated or taken the November
jurisdiction over the case against her. The Issue Before the Court
1991 Civil Service Eligibility Examination for
15 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

Notably, the Court also addressed Ampong’s A similar fate befell judicial personnel in Consequently, the penalty of dismissal from employee and does not, therefore, deserve to
misgivings on the issue of jurisdiction in the Bartolata v. Julaton, involving judicial employees service on account of Ampong’s Dishonesty remain with the Judiciary.
same case, viz.: who also impersonated civil service should be enforced in its full course. In line with
examinees.1âwphi1 As in Sta. Ana, the CSC Section 58(a) of the Uniform Rules on WHEREFORE, the Court SUSTAINS the
It is true that the CSC has administrative likewise filed the necessary charges before the Administrative Cases in the Civil Service dismissal of respondent Sarah P. Ampong, Court
jurisdiction over the civil service. As defined OCA because respondents were judicial (URACCS), the penalty of dismissal carries with Interpreter III of the Regional Trial Court of
under the Constitution and the Administrative employees. Finding respondents guilty of it the following administrative disabilities: (a) Alabel, Sarangani Province, Branch 38, on the
Code, the civil service embraces every branch, dishonesty and meting the penalty of dismissal, cancellation of civil service eligibility; (b) ground of Dishonesty. Accordingly, her
agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the this Court held that "respondents’ machinations forfeiture of retirement benefits; and (c) retirement and other benefits are forfeited except
government, and government-owned or reflect their dishonesty and lack of integrity, perpetual disqualification from reemployment in accrued leave credits, and she is perpetually
controlled corporations. Pursuant to its rendering them unfit to maintain their positions any government agency or instrumentality, disqualified from re-employment in any
administrative authority, the CSC is granted the as public servants and employees of the including any government-owned and controlled government agency or instrumentality, including
power to "control, supervise, and coordinate the judiciary." corporation or government financial institution. any government-owned and controlled
Civil Service examinations." This authority Ampong should be made to similarly suffer the corporation or government financial institution,
grants to the CSC the right to take cognizance of Compared to Sta. Anaand Bartolata, the present same. effective immediately.
any irregularity or anomaly connected with the case involves a similar violation of the Civil
examinations. Service Law by a judicial employee. But this To clarify, however, despite Ampong’s dismissal SO ORDERED.
case is slightly different in that petitioner on the ground of dishonesty, she should
However, the Constitution provides that the committed the offense before her appointment to nevertheless been titled to receive her accrued A.C. No. 9317 June 4, 2014
Supreme Court is given exclusive administrative the judicial branch. At the time of commission, leave credits, if any, pursuant to the (Formerly CBD Case No. 12-3615)
supervision over all courts and judicial petitioner was a public school teacher under the aforementioned provision of the URACCS,
personnel. By virtue of this power, it is only the administrative supervision of the DECS and, in which does not include the forfeiture of the same. ADELIA V. QUIACHON vs. ATTY. JOSEPH
Supreme Court that can oversee the judges’ and taking the civil service examinations, under the It is a standing rule that despite their dismissal ADORA. RAMOS
court personnel’s compliance with all laws, rules CSC. Petitioner surreptitiously took the CSC- from the service, government employees are
and regulations. It may take the proper RESOLUTION
supervised PBET exam in place of another entitled to the leave credits that they have earned
administrative action against them if they commit person. When she did that, she became a party to during the period of their employment. As a
SERENO, CJ:
any violation. No other branch of government cheating or dishonesty in a civil service- matter of fairness and law, they may not be
may intrude into this power, without running supervised examination. deprived of such remuneration, which they have This is a disbarment case filed by Adelia V.
afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers. earned prior to their dismissal. Quiachon (complainant), against her lawyer,
Thus, this Court ruled that the Ombudsman That she committed the dishonest act before she
Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos (respondent). The
cannot justify its investigation of a judge on the joined the RTC does not take her case out of the It must be stressed that every employee of the
latter represented complainant, who was then the
powers granted to it by the Constitution. It administrative reach of the Supreme Court. Judiciary should be an example of integrity,
plaintiff in a labor case filed before the National
violates the specific mandate of the Constitution uprightness, and honesty. Like any public
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and in a
granting to the Supreme Court supervisory The bottom line is administrative jurisdiction servant, she must exhibit the highest sense of
special proceeding case filed before the Regional
powers over all courts and their personnel; it over a court employee belongs to the Supreme honesty and integrity not only in the performance
Trial Court (R TC). Complainant charges
undermines the independence of the judiciary. Court, regardless of whether the offense was of her official duties but also in her personal and
respondent with gross negligence and deceit in
committed before or after employment in the private dealings with other people, to preserve
violation of Canon Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
In Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, this judiciary. (Emphases in the original; citations the court’s good name and standing. The image
Code of Professional Responsibility.
Court held that impersonating an examinee of a omitted) of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct,
civil service examination is an act of dishonesty. official and otherwise, of the personnel who The Labor Arbiter (LA) granted complainant a
But because the offender involved a judicial Pursuant to the doctrine of immutability of work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its favorable decision on 26 November 2007. Upon
employee under the administrative supervision of judgment, which states that "a decision that has personnel. Court personnel have been enjoined to appeal, it was reversed and set aside by the
the Supreme Court, the CSC filed the necessary acquired finality becomes immutable and adhere to the exacting standards of morality and NLRC in its Decision dated 25 July 2008. On 24
charges before the Office of the Court unalterable, and may no longer be modified in decency in their professional and private conduct October 2008, the NLRC also denied the Motion
Administrator (OCA), a procedure which this any respect, even if the modification is meant to in order to preserve the good name and integrity for Reconsideration filed by respondent on
Court validated. correct erroneous conclusions of fact and of the courts of justice. Here, Ampong failed to complainant's behalf. A Petition for Certiorari
law," Ampong could no longer seek the August meet these stringent standards set for a judicial was filed before the Court of Appeals (CA), but it
26, 2008 Decision’s modification and reversal.
affirmed the NLRC's reversal of the LA's
16 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

Decision. The Notice of the CA Decision was In a Resolution dated 13 June 2012, the Court In the present case, Almeyda recommended the In this case, the IBP found that respondent
received by respondent on 23 November 2010. referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the dismissal of the case against respondent, even violated Canon Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the
Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and after finding that the latter had been negligent. Code of Professional
After the Petition was filed before the CA, recommendation. On the basis of this finding, the latter was Responsibility.1âwphi1 Thus, it should have
complainant would always ask respondent about declared to have "been remiss in failing to update imposed the appropriate penalty despite the
the status of her case. The latter always told her During the pendency of the proceedings, complainant in what had happened to the cases desistance of complainant or the withdrawal of
that there was no decision yet. specifically on 5 February 2013, complainant being handled by him in behalf of the charges.
filed a Motion to Withdraw Complaint. complainant." Still, Almeyda recommended the
Sometime in August 2011, while complainant dismissal of the case, because "without the The failure of respondent to file an appeal from
was in respondent’s office waiting for him to In his Report and Recommendation dated 23 complaint, there will be no basis to make any the CA Decision without any justifiable reason
arrive, she noticed a mailman delivering an April 2013, IBP Commissioner Hector B. finding of liability." deserves sanction. Lawyers who disagree with
envelope with the title of her labor case printed Almeyda (Almeyda) declared: the pursuit of an appeal should properly
thereon. The Board of Governors of the IBP affirmed the withdraw their appearance and allow their client
True enough, it seems clear that respondent had recommendation. to retain another counsel.
Complainant asked the secretary of respondent to been remiss in failing to update complainant in
open the envelope and was surprised to discover what had happened to the cases being handled by The IBP Board of Governors should not have In Abay v. Montesino, the respondent-lawyer and
that it contained the Entry of Judgment of the respondent in behalf of complainant. There was a supported Almeyda’s stance. his client disagreed on the legal course to be
CA’s Decision. Thereafter, complainant tried failure to inform complainant (the client) of the taken regarding the appealed case. The lawyer
repeatedly to contact respondent, but to no avail. status of the cases that thereafter prevented the The complainant in a disbarment case is not a therein strongly advised the client to abandon the
When she finally got to talk to him, respondent client from exercising her options. There was direct party to the case, but a witness who appeal and to consider the other available
assured her that "it was alright" as they still had neglect in that regard. brought the matter to the attention of the remedies. The client, on the other hand, wanted
six months to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. There is neither a plaintiff nor a to pursue it. Without obtaining the assent of his
Court. After that final meeting, no updates on the However, in spite of finding neglect on prosecutor in disciplinary proceedings against client, the respondent-lawyer deemed it wise to
labor case were ever communicated to respondent’s part, he recommended the dismissal lawyers. The real question for determination in abandon the appeal without informing the
complainant. of the case against him, stating that "with the these proceedings is whether or not the attorney former. In finding the respondent-lawyer guilty
decision to withdraw the complaint, there does is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges of of negligence, the Court explained:
With respect to the special proceeding case, the not appear basis to go ahead with the proceedings a member of the bar. Public interest is the
RTC of Roxas City dismissed it for lack of since without the complaint, there will be no primary objective. We explained why in Rayos- Not filing an appellant's brief is prejudicial
jurisdiction. A Motion for Reconsideration was basis to make any finding of liability." Ombac v. Rayos, viz.: because, as happened in this case, such failure
filed, but it was also denied. Once again, could result in the dismissal of the appeal. The
respondent did nothing to reverse the RTC On 11 May 2013, a Resolution was passed by the The affidavit of withdrawal of the disbarment conduct of respondent shows that he failed to
Decision. Consequently, the Entry of Judgment Board of Governors of the IBP resolving to adopt case allegedly executed by complainant does not, exercise due diligence, and that he had a cavalier
was received on 28 October 2008. and approve the Report and Recommendation of in any way, exonerate the respondent. A case of attitude towards the cause of his client. The
investigation commissioner Almeyda. The case suspension or disbarment may proceed regardless abandonment by the former of the latter's cause
On 28 November 2011, complainant filed the against respondent was dismissed with a warning of interest or lack of interest of the complainant. made him unworthy of the trust that his client
instant disbarment Complaint against respondent. that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt What matters is whether, on the basis of the facts reposed in him. Even if respondent was "honestly
with more severely. borne out by the record, the charge of deceit and and sincerely" protecting the interests of
In his Comment, respondent averred that grossly immoral conduct has been duly proven x complainant, the former still had no right to
complainant was informed of the status of the This Court finds this to be an opportune time to x x. The complainant or the person who called waive the appeal without the latter's knowledge
case. He claimed that he had told complainant remind the investigating commissioners and the the attention of the court to the attorney's alleged and consent. If indeed respondent felt unable or
that he "cannot cite any error of law or abuse of members of the Board of Governors of the IBP misconduct is in no sense a party, and has unwilling to continue his retainership, he should
discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals’ that the withdrawal of a disbarment case against generally no interest in the outcome except as all have properly withdrawn his appearance and
decision that necessitates a Petition for Review a lawyer does not terminate or abate the good citizens may have in the proper allowed the client to appoint another lawyer.
with the Supreme Court;" thus, he supposedly jurisdiction of the IBP and of this Court to administration of justice. Hence, if the evidence
advised her to "respect the decision of the Court continue an administrative proceeding against a on record warrants, the respondent may be In the present case, respondent failed not only to
of Appeals." Respondent prayed that a Decision lawyer-respondent as a member of the Philippine suspended or disbarred despite the desistance of keep the client informed of the status of the case,
be rendered dismissing the instant disbarment Bar. complainant or his withdrawal of the charges x x but also to avail of the proper legal remedy that
Complaint for lack of merit. x.
17 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

would promote the client's cause. It is clear that RESOLUTION Respondent further stated in his Answer that Mr. Board of Governors on 29 December
respondent neglected the case entrusted to him. and Mrs. Gregorio Abreu filed two cases against 2012. Notices of the denial were received by the
SERENO, CJ: his clients, Mr. And Mrs. William Lim, on the parties on 21 March 2013.
All lawyers owe fidelity to their client's belief that Mr. Abreu was not bound by the Times
cause. Regardless of their personal views, they For resolution by this Court is the dismissal by Square Preamble. The first case, was filed with No petition for review has been filed with this
must present every remedy or defense within the the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Board the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board Court.
authority of the law in support of that cause. of Governors of the administrative Complaint for (HLURB), which was an action to declare the
DISHONESTY against respondent, Atty. Manuel Times Square Preamble invalid. The second suit It is worth noting that a case is deemed
Whenever lawyers take on their clients' cause/s, Molina. Atty. Molina allegedly advised his was an action for declaratory relief. Both cases, terminated if the complainant does not file a
they covenant that they will exercise due clients to enforce a contract on the complainant's according to respondent, were dismissed. petition with the Supreme Court within fifteen
diligence in protecting the client's rights; their client who had never been a party to the (15) days from notice of the Board’s resolution.
failure to exercise that degree of vigilance and agreement. Respondent further claimed that another case had This rule is derived from Section 12(c) of Rule
attention expected of a good father of a family been filed in court, this time by his client, the 139-B, which states:
makes them unworthy of the trust reposed in The facts are as follows: Lims. They were prompted to file a suit since Mr.
them by their client/s and make them answerable Abreu had allegedly taken matters into his own (c) If the respondent is exonerated by the Board
to the client, the courts and society. The case involves a conflict between neighbors hands by placing two vehicles directly in front of or the disciplinary sanction imposed by it is less
in a four-unit compound named "Times Square" the gate of the Lims, thus blocking the latter’s than suspension or disbarment (such as
In Pilapil v. Carillo, this Court upheld the at Times Street, Quezon City. The neighbors are egress to Times Street. The Lims filed with the admonition, reprimand, or fine) it shall issue a
recommendation of the IBP to suspend a lawyer the following: 1) Mr. And Mrs. Gregorio M. Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Quezon City, a decision exonerating respondent or imposing
from the practice of law for six months after Abreu, clients of Atty. Paguia; 2) Mr. And Mrs. Complaint for Injunction and Damages, coupled such sanction. The case shall be deemed
finding that he had failed to file a petition for Wilson Lim, clients of respondent Molina; 3) Dr. with a prayer for the immediate issuance of a terminated unless upon petition of the
certiorari of the adverse decision rendered in the and Mrs. Eduardo Yap; and Dr. Belinda San Juan. Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary complainant or other interested party filed with
case of his client despite the latter's repeated Injunction, which was docketed as Civil Case the Supreme Court within fifteen (15) days from
follow-ups. The clients of Atty. Molina entered into a notice of the Board’s resolution, the Supreme
No. Q-08-63579. According to respondent, the
contract with the other unit owners save for Mr. Court orders otherwise. (Underscoring supplied)
RTC granted the relief prayed for in an Order
WHEREFORE, Atty. Joseph Ador A. Ramos is Abreu. The agreement, covered by a document
dated 12 December 2008.
found GUILTY of negligence and is hereby titled "Times Square Preamble," establishes a set In this case, Atty. Paguia received notice of the
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six of internal rules for the neighbors on matters Atty. Molina concluded that the above facts Board’s resolution on 21 March 2013, as
months, effective upon receipt of this Decision. such as the use of the common right of way to sufficiently served as his answer to the evidenced by a registry return receipt. To this
He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or a the exit gate, assignment of parking areas, and Complaint. date, this Court has yet to receive a petition for
similar act will be dealt with more severely. security. Mr. Abreu, the client of complainant, review from Atty. Paguia. Thus, for his failure to
Atty. Paguia, was not a party to the contract since On 3 August 2010, Investigating Commissioner file a petition for review with the Court within 15
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in the the former did not agree with the terms Victor C. Fernandez rendered a Report and days, this case is deemed terminated pursuant to
record of respondent as attorney. Further, let concerning the parking arrangements. Recommendation. He recommended dismissal the above mentioned Section 12(c).
copies of this Decision be served on the IBP as for lack of merit, based on the following
well as on the court administrator, who is On 4 February 2010, Atty. Paguia filed a grounds: 1) the complaint consisted only of bare Nevertheless, we have gone over the records but
directed to circulate these copies to all the courts Complaint for Dishonesty1 with the IBP allegations; and 2) even assuming that we have no reason to deviate from the findings of
in the country for their information and guidance. Commission on Bar Discipline against Atty. respondent Molina gave an erroneous legal the IBP Board of Governors.
Molina for allegedly giving legal advice to the advice, he could not be held accountable in the
No costs. latter’s clients to the effect that the Times Square absence of proof of malice or bad faith. When it comes to administrative cases against
Preamble was binding on Mr. Abreu, who was lawyers, two things are to be considered:
SO ORDERED. never a party to the contract. On 14 May 2011, the IBP Board of Governors quantum of proof, which requires clearly
passed Resolution No. XIX-2011-210, adopting preponderant evidence; and burden of proof,
A.C. No. 9881 June 4, 2014 In his Answer, Atty. Molina downplayed the case which is on the complainant.
and approving the Report and Recommendation
(Formerly CBD 10-2607) as a petty quarrel among neighbors. He of the Investigating Commissioner.
maintained that the Times Square Preamble was In the present case, we find that the Complaint is
ATTY. ALAN F. PAGUIA vs. ATTY. entered into for purposes of maintaining order in without factual basis. Complainant Atty. Paguia
Atty. Paguia filed a Motion for Reconsideration
MANUEL T. MOLINA the residential compound. All homeowners, charges Atty. Molina with providing legal advice
dated 2 August 2011, but was denied by the IBP
except Mr. Abreu, signed the document. to the latter’s clients to the effect that the Times
18 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

Square Preamble is binding on complainant’s DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, petition. Judge Teresita Dizon-Capulong held that schools, by upgrading the quality of those
client, Mr. Abreu, who was not a signatory to the CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) vs. the petitioner had been deprived of his right to admitted to the student body of the medical
agreement. The allegation of giving legal advice, ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO pursue a medical education through an arbitrary schools. That upgrading is sought by selectivity
however, was not substantiated in this case, exercise of the police power. in the process of admission, selectivity
either in the complaint or in the corresponding CRUZ, J.: consisting, among other things, of limiting
hearings. Nowhere do the records state that Atty. We cannot sustain the respondent judge. Her admission to those who exhibit in the required
Paguia saw respondent giving the legal advice to The issue before us is mediocrity. The question is decision must be reversed. degree the aptitude for medical studies and
the clients of the latter. Bare allegations are not whether a person who has thrice failed the eventually for medical practice. The need to
proof. National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) is In Tablarin v. Gutierrez, this Court upheld the maintain, and the difficulties of maintaining, high
entitled to take it again. constitutionality of the NMAT as a measure standards in our professional schools in general,
Even if we assume that Atty. Molina did provide intended to limit the admission to medical and medical schools in particular, in the current
his clients legal advice, he still cannot be held The petitioner contends he may not, under its schools only to those who have initially proved state of our social and economic development,
administratively liable without any showing that rule that- their competence and preparation for a medical are widely known.
his act was attended with bad faith or malice. The education. Justice Florentino P. Feliciano
rule on mistakes committed by lawyers in the h) A student shall be allowed only three (3) declared for a unanimous Court: We believe that the government is entitled to
exercise of their profession is as follows: chances to take the NMAT. After three (3) prescribe an admission test like the NMAT as a
successive failures, a student shall not be allowed Perhaps the only issue that needs some means of achieving its stated objective of
An attorney-at-law is not expected to know all to take the NMAT for the fourth time. consideration is whether there is some reasonable "upgrading the selection of applicants into [our]
the law. For an honest mistake or error, an relation between the prescribing of passing the medical schools" and of "improv[ing] the quality
attorney is not liable. Chief Justice Abbott said The private respondent insists he can, on NMAT as a condition for admission to medical of medical education in the country." Given the
that, no attorney is bound to know all the law; constitutional grounds. school on the one hand, and the securing of the widespread use today of such admission tests in,
God forbid that it should be imagined that an health and safety of the general community, on for instance, medical schools in the United States
But first the facts. the other hand. This question is perhaps most
attorney or a counsel, or even a judge, is bound of America (the Medical College Admission Test
to know all the law. x x x. usefully approached by recalling that the [MCAT] and quite probably, in other countries
The private respondent is a graduate of the
regulation of the pratice of medicine in all its with far more developed educational resources
University of the East with a degree of Bachelor
The default rule is presumption of good faith. On branches has long been recognized as a than our own, and taking into account the failure
of Science in Zoology. The petitioner claims that
the other hand, bad faith is never reasonable method of protecting the health and or inability of the petitioners to even attempt to
he took the NMAT three times and flunked it as
presumed.1âwphi1 It is a conclusion to be drawn safety of the public. That the power to regulate prove otherwise, we are entitled to hold that the
many times. When he applied to take it again,
from facts. Its determination is thus a question of and control the practice of medicine includes the NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of
the petitioner rejected his application on the basis
fact and is evidentiary. There is no evidence, power to regulate admission to the ranks of those the ultimate end of legislation and regulation in
of the aforesaid rule. He then went to the
though, to show that the legal advice, assuming it authorized to practice medicine, is also well this area. That end, it is useful to recall, is the
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro
was indeed given, was coupled with bad faith, recognized. Thus, legislation and administrative protection of the public from the potentially
Manila, to compel his admission to the test.
malice, or ill-will. The presumption of good regulations requiring those who wish to practice deadly effects of incompetence and ignorance in
faith, therefore, stands in this case. medicine first to take and pass medical board those who would undertake to treat our bodies
In his original petition for mandamus, he first
examinations have long ago been recognized as and minds for disease or trauma.
invoked his constitutional rights to academic
The foregoing considered, complainant failed to valid exercises of governmental power. Similarly,
freedom and quality education. By agreement of
prove his case by clear preponderance of the establishment of minimum medical However, the respondent judge agreed with the
the parties, the private respondent was allowed to
evidence. educational requirements-i.e., the completion of petitioner that the said case was not applicable.
take the NMAT scheduled on April 16, 1989,
prescribed courses in a recognized medical Her reason was that it upheld only the
WHEREFORE, the Resolution of the IBP Board subject to the outcome of his petition. In an
school-for admission to the medical profession, requirement for the admission test and said
of Governors adopting and approving the amended petition filed with leave of court, he
has also been sustained as a legitimate exercise nothing about the so-called "three-flunk rule."
Decision of the Investigating Commissioner is squarely challenged the constitutionality of
of the regulatory authority of the state. What we
hereby AFFIRMED. MECS Order No. 12, Series of 1972, containing
have before us in the instant case is closely We see no reason why the rationale in the
the above-cited rule. The additional grounds
related: the regulation of access to medical Tablarin case cannot apply to the case at bar. The
SO ORDERED. raised were due process and equal protection.
schools. MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, as noted issue raised in both cases is the academic
After hearing, the respondent judge rendered a earlier, articulates the rationale of regulation of preparation of the applicant. This may be gauged
G.R. No. 89572 December 21, 1989
decision on July 4, 1989, declaring the this type: the improvement of the professional at least initially by the admission test and, indeed
challenged order invalid and granting the and technical quality of the graduates of medical with more reliability, by the three-flunk rule. The
19 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

latter cannot be regarded any less valid than the wants to be a lawyer may prove better as a The Court feels that it is not enough to simply ALBERTO VALDEZ, Complainant,
former in the regulation of the medical plumber, he should be so advised and adviced. Of invoke the right to quality education as a vs.
profession. course, he may not be forced to be a plumber, but guarantee of the Constitution: one must show DESIDERIO W. MACUSI, JR., Sheriff IV,
on the other hand he may not force his entry into that he is entitled to it because of his preparation Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tabuk,
There is no need to redefine here the police the bar. By the same token, a student who has and promise. The private respondent has failed Kalinga, Respondent.
power of the State. Suffice it to repeat that the demonstrated promise as a pianist cannot be the NMAT five times. While his persistence is
power is validly exercised if (a) the interests of shunted aside to take a course in nursing, noteworthy, to say the least, it is certainly DECISION
the public generally, as distinguished from those however appropriate this career may be for misplaced, like a hopeless love.
of a particular class, require the interference of others. PER CURIAM:
the State, and (b) the means employed are No depreciation is intended or made against the
reasonably necessary to the attainment of the The right to quality education invoked by the private respondent. It is stressed that a person This administrative matter refers to the failure of
object sought to be accomplished and not unduly private respondent is not absolute. The who does not qualify in the NMAT is not an respondent Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV,
oppressive upon individuals. Constitution also provides that "every citizen has absolute incompetent unfit for any work or Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabuk, Kalinga,
the right to choose a profession or course of occupation. The only inference is that he is a Branch 25, to act on a writ of execution issued by
In other words, the proper exercise of the police study, subject to fair, reasonable and equitable probably better, not for the medical profession, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of
power requires the concurrence of a lawful admission and academic requirements. but for another calling that has not excited his Tabuk, Kalinga on 3 December 2003 in Criminal
subject and a lawful method. interest. Case No. 4050, entitled "People v. Jorge Macusi
The private respondent must yield to the y Wayet," for reckless imprudence and
The subject of the challenged regulation is challenged rule and give way to those better In the former, he may be a bungler or at least negligence resulting in homicide. Sheriff Macusi
certainly within the ambit of the police power. It prepared. Where even those who have qualified lackluster; in the latter, he is more likely to was charged with misfeasance, nonfeasance or
is the right and indeed the responsibility of the may still not be accommodated in our already succeed and may even be outstanding. It is for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
State to insure that the medical profession is not crowded medical schools, there is all the more the appropriate calling that he is entitled to service.
infiltrated by incompetents to whom patients may reason to bar those who, like him, have been quality education for the full harnessing of his
unwarily entrust their lives and health. tested and found wanting. potentials and the sharpening of his latent talents In a letter-complaint dated 12 May 2009 sent to
toward what may even be a brilliant future. Judge Victor Dalanao (Judge Dalanao), presiding
The method employed by the challenged The contention that the challenged rule violates judge of the MTCC of Tabuk, Kalinga,
regulation is not irrelevant to the purpose of the the equal protection clause is not well-taken. A We cannot have a society of square pegs in round complainant Alberto Valdez (Valdez) alleged that
law nor is it arbitrary or oppressive. The three- law does not have to operate with equal force on holes, of dentists who should never have left the Sheriff Macusi failed to act on the writ of
flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical all persons or things to be conformable to Article farm and engineers who should have studied execution issued by the MTCC in violation of
schools and ultimately the medical profession III, Section 1 of the Constitution. banking and teachers who could be better as Section 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
from the intrusion of those not qualified to be merchants. Procedure.
doctors. There can be no question that a substantial
distinction exists between medical students and It is time indeed that the State took decisive steps In his Comment dated 14 July 2009, Sheriff
While every person is entitled to aspire to be a other students who are not subjected to the to regulate and enrich our system of education by Macusi stated that he was appointed as Sheriff IV
doctor, he does not have a constitutional right to NMAT and the three-flunk rule. The medical directing the student to the course for which he is in the Province of Kalinga on 24 May 2004.
be a doctor. This is true of any other calling in profession directly affects the very lives of the best suited as determined by initial tests and Sheriff Macusi explained that in a Report dated 6
which the public interest is involved; and the people, unlike other careers which, for this evaluations. Otherwise, we may be "swamped January 2004, his predecessor, Francisco C.
closer the link, the longer the bridge to one's reason, do not require more vigilant regulation. with mediocrity," in the words of Justice Holmes, Mabazza, served on accused Jorge Macusi the
ambition. The State has the responsibility to The accountant, for example, while belonging to not because we are lacking in intelligence but writ of execution issued by the MTCC on 5
harness its human resources and to see to it that an equally respectable profession, does not hold because we are a nation of misfits. December 2003. However, the accused replied
they are not dissipated or, no less worse, not used the same delicate responsibility as that of the that he had no money to pay for the execution.
at all. These resources must be applied in a physician and so need not be similarly treated. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Thus, the notation in the writ of execution was
manner that will best promote the common good decision of the respondent court dated January "unsatisfactory (sic) served. "Thereafter, Sheriff
while also giving the individual a sense of There would be unequal protection if some 13, 1989, is REVERSED, with costs against the Macusi stated that he tried to serve the order
satisfaction. applicants who have passed the tests are admitted private respondent. It is so ordered. again by entering the residence of defendant
and others who have also qualified are denied looking for personal properties that could be
A person cannot insist on being a physician if he entrance. In other words, what the equal A.M. No. P-13-3123 June 10, 2014 confiscated on account of the writ but to no avail.
will be a menace to his patients. If one who protection requires is equality among equals. Sheriff Macusi then asked accused to voluntarily
20 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

comply with his legal obligation but found out submitted monthly to the Court (Section 14, Rule recommended the dismissal of the complaint. In returns or periodic reports shall set forth the
that accused had suffered a stroke and could no 39, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). a Resolution dated 4 July 2012, this Court whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed
longer fend for himself and his family and referred the Investigation Report to the OCA. with the court and copies thereof promptly
resorted to accepting charity from his sister. Instead, the Sheriff appears to be lawyering for furnished the parties.
accused, even going to the extent of accusing the In its Report dated 23 April 2013, the OCA
In a Partial Report dated 3 May 2006, Sheriff Court of having denied the accused his day in disagreed with the recommendation of Judge The 30-day period imposed for the execution of
Macusi filed a return of the writ of execution Court. Certainly, this comment, from a Wacas and found Sheriff Macusi liable for (1) the writ after the judgment has been received by
stating that it was still unserved. The relevant responsible officer of the Court is unwarranted or simple neglect of duty for his failure to submit the sheriff, as well as the periodic report every 30
portions of the Report state: without any justification at all. Not only that, it the proper returns, and (2) violation of the Code days, is mandatory under the rule. In Aquino v.
will certainly diminish the good image of the of Conduct for Court Personnel for his failure to Martin, we held that it is mandatory for the
1. That the accused because of the incident Court, and worst, tarnish the faith and confidence disclose that the accused in "People v. Jorge sheriff to execute the judgment and make a return
suffered a stroke and therefrom could no longer of the litigants in our judicial processes. Macusi y Wayet"is his brother. The OCA on the writ of execution within the period
find a livelihood for himself and his children and recommended that Sheriff Macusi be suspended provided by the Rules of Court. Also, the sheriff
as stated in the order of the Honorable Court is The Court just came to know that the accused in from office for two months without pay. The must make periodic reports on partially satisfied
now living on the charity of his sister. His sister this case is the brother of Sheriff Desiderio recommendation of the OCA states: or unsatisfied writs in accordance with the rule in
is also tending to the needs of their mother who Macusi. The least that he should have done was order that the court and the litigants are apprised
also suffered the same fate because of illness that to inhibit himself from handling this case. 1. The instant administrative complaint be RE- of the proceedings undertaken. Such periodic
befell her son; DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; reporting on the status of the writs must be done
Furnish a copy of this Order to the Executive by the sheriff regularly and consistently every 30
xxxx Judge for his information and/or appropriate 2. Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV, Branch days until they are returned fully satisfied.
action without prejudice for this Court to take 25, Regional Trial Court, Tabuk, Kalinga, be held
3. That the court battle begun armed with the measures appropriate under the premises, where LIABLE for Simple Neglect of Duty and In the present case, the records show that Sheriff
hope that the accused was never given his day in warranted. Violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Macusi submitted only one return of writ of
court (in fact an ocular inspection was done to Personnel; and execution in his Partial Report dated 3 May 2006
determine the seriousness of the illness of the SO ORDERED. and did not file any other report to the court.
accused and at that time he could hardly speak 3. Sheriff Macusi be SUSPENDED from office Sheriff Macusi failed to implement the court
and walk yet the court continued hearing his Valdez, in the letter-complaint, added that Sheriff for two (2) months without pay, with a order and failed to submit periodic reports of the
case; thus, his right to be present in all the stages Macusi did not submit another report to the court WARNING that a repetition of the same or a actions he had taken on the writ "every 30 days
of the court proceedings of his case was denied) since the time the MTCC issued the Order dated similar act shall be dealt with more severely. until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its
will be imprisoned should the decision of the 19 June 2006. Acting on the letter-complaint, effectivity expires," as required by the Rules. In
Hon. Court will (sic) be against him; Judge Dalanao issued an Order dated 13 May We adopt the findings of the OCA but modify its Dilan v. Dulfo, we held that sheriffs play an
2009 endorsing the letter-complaint to the Office recommendation on the penalty. important part in the administration of justice
xxxx of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate because they are tasked to execute the final
action. Section 14, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
judgment of courts. If not enforced, such
Sheriff Macusi averred that he could not be held Procedure states:
decisions are empty victories on the part of the
liable for misfeasance, nonfeasance or conduct In a Report dated 1 June 2010,the OCA
prevailing parties. Clearly, Sheriff Macusi was
prejudicial to the best interest of the service since recommended that the administrative complaint Section 14. Return of writ of execution. — The
remiss in his duties and is thus liable for simple
he carried out all the possible legal remedies on be referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of writ of execution shall be returnable to the court
neglect of duty.
execution and satisfaction of judgment under the Bulanao, Tabuk City, Kalinga, Branch 25, for issuing it immediately after the judgment has
rules. investigation, report and recommendation within been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment
Simple neglect of duty is the failure to give
60 days from receipt of notice. In a cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days
attention to a task, or the disregard of a duty due
On 19 June 2006, Judge Dalanao issued an Resolution dated 28 July 2010, this Court after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall
to carelessness or indifference. Under the
Order stating that the Partial Report dated 3 May adopted the recommendation of the OCA and report to the court and state the reason therefor.
Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
2006 of Sheriff Macusi was an improper and referred the matter to Executive Judge Marcelino Such writ shall continue in effect during the
in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a
inadequate report as required under the Rules. K. Wacas (Judge Wacas). period within which the judgment may be
less grave offense punishable with suspension of
The relevant portions of the Order state: enforced by motion. The officer shall make a
one month and one day to six months for the first
In an Investigation Report dated 20 April 2012, report to the court every thirty (30) days on the
offense and dismissal for the second offense.
It appears therefrom that the said report is not the Judge Wacas found no substantial evidence to proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is
report contemplated by law, which should be hold Sheriff Macusi for the offense charged and satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The
21 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

Further, aside from Sheriff Macusi’s long delay We disagree with the penalty of suspension for previously warned that a repetition of the same or In the Verified Complaint, Dulang alleged that on
in the enforcement of the writ, it has also been two months without pay as recommended by the similar act would be dealt with more severely. May 4, 2009, he moved for the resolution of the
verified by the OCA that Sheriff Macusi is the OCA. This is the second time that Sheriff Macusi above-mentioned ejectment case, given that the
brother of the accused Jorge Macusi in Criminal was found guilty of simple neglect of duty. In the WHEREFORE, we find respondent Desiderio W. same had been filed as early as year 2000 and
Case No. 4050. Section 1(a)(i) of Canon III of 2013 case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court of had already been submitted for resolution.
the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel Macusi, Jr., this Court found Sheriff Macusi Tabuk, Kalinga, Branch 25, GUILTY of SIMPLE Notwithstanding the summary nature of the
provides: liable for simple neglect of duty for his "failure NEGLECT OF DUTY and VIOLATION OF ejectment proceedings, Judge Regencia rendered
to file periodic reports on the Writ of Execution THE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT a Judgment dismissing the ejectment case only
Section 1. Court personnel shall avoid conflicts dated 10 September 2008 in Civil Case No. 429- PERSONNEL and impose on him the penalty of on February 18, 2011(February 18, 2011
of interest in performing official 06, as well as on the writs of execution in the forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued Judgment), or more than 11 years since its filing.
duties.1âwphi1 Every court personnel is required other cases in Judge Dalanao’s inventory." leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in Consequently, the Notice of Judgment was issued
to exercise utmost diligence in being aware of However, instead of imposing on him the penalty any branch or instrumentality of the government, only on March 7, 2011 and mailed on March 15,
conflicts of interest, disclosing conflicts of of suspension from service in accordance with including government-owned and controlled 2011.
interest to the designated authority, and the Rules, the Court imposed on him the penalty corporations.
terminating them as they arise. of fine ofP4,000 since he was deemed resigned Dulang likewise noted that Judge Regencia was
from government service after filing his SO ORDERED. previously found administratively liable for gross
(a) A conflict of interest exists when: certificate of candidacy for the 2010 local inefficiency in Tam v. Judge Regencia and was
elections. A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841 June 2, 2014 thereby ordered to pay a fine of 5,000.00 and
(i) The court personnel’s objective ability or (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-2388-MTJ) warned that a repetition of the same or similar
independence of judgment in performing official Here, respondent is found guilty of committing offense will be dealt with more severely.
duties is impaired or may reasonably appear to be two offenses: (1) simple neglect of duty (second GERSHON N. DULANG vs. JUDGE MARY
impaired; x x x offense), and (2) violation of civil service law JOCYLEN G. REGENCIA On September 1, 2011, Dulang filed a Verified
and rules of a serious nature (first offense). Thus, Supplemental Complaint to the Verified
As an officer of the court, Sheriff Macusi should RESOLUTION Complaint dated May 28, 2011 (supplemental
the penalty for the more serious offense must be
have informed the court and inhibited himself imposed. This is expressly laid down under complaint) before the OCA, alleging that despite
from enforcing the writ knowing fully well that PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Section 55, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform the filing of a notice of appeal from Judge
there is a conflict of interest since the accused is Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Regencia’s February 18, 2011 Judgment, the
his brother. It is incumbent upon him, as an agent This is an administrative case for gross
Service which states: latter nevertheless issued an Order dated August
of the law, to adhere to high ethical standards in inefficiency, gross ignorance of the. law, gross
1, 2011 (August 1, 2011 Order) directing the
order to preserve the good name and standing of incompetence, serious misconduct, and serious
Section 55. Penalty for the Most Serious Offense. postmaster and postal carrier of the Cebu Central
the court. In Office of the Court Administrator v. dereliction of duty against respondent Judge
If the respondent is found guilty of two or more Post Office, Cebu City to certify Dulang’s receipt
Sheriff IV Cabe, we emphasized the heavy Mary Jocylen G. Regencia (Judge Regencia) of
charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed of a copy of the said Judgment. In this regard,
burden and responsibility which court personnel the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Asturias-
should be that corresponding to the most serious Dulang accused Judge Regencia ofgross
bear in view of their exalted positions as keepers Balamban, Cebu (MCTC), commenced thru a
charge or count and the rest shall be considered ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, serious
of public faith. They must be constantly Verified Complaint dated May 28, 2011 filed by
as aggravating circumstances. misconduct, and serious dereliction of duty,
reminded that any impression of impropriety, complainant Gershon N. Dulang (Dulang) before
contending that by filing his appeal, the latter
misdeed or negligence in the performance of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In view of the circumstances, the penalty that was already stripped of her (Judge Regencia)
official functions must be avoided. We agree with should be imposed is dismissal from the jurisdiction over the case and should not have
The Facts
the OCA that Sheriff Macusi violated the Code of government service. However, considering that issued the said order. Dulang claimed that this
Conduct for Court Personnel for his failure to Sheriff Macusi was deemed resigned after filing effectively stalled the administration of justice,
The instant case stemmed from an ejectment
disclose that the accused in "People v. Jorge his certificate of candidacy making the penalty of much to his prejudice.
complaint with prayer for the issuance of a writ
Macusi y Wayet"is his brother. The Rules classify dismissal no longer feasible, we impose on him of preliminary injunction, docketed as Civil Case
this violation of existing Civil Service Law and the penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits, In her Comments (to the Verified
No. 212-B, entitled "Spouses Gershon Dulang
rules a serious offense punishable with except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to Complaint) dated August 7, 2011, Judge
and Luzviminda Dulang, represented by
suspension of one month and one day to six reemployment in any branch or instrumentality Regencia maintained that no trial was held in
Reynaldo Moldez v. Emmanuel Flores," which
months for the first offense and dismissal for the of the government, including government owned Civil Case No. 212-B as the parties merely filed
was filed before the MCTC on Februrary 2, 2000
second offense. and controlled corporations, since he had been their respective position papers and that she
(ejectment case).
could have easily resolved the said case if not for
22 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

another case pending before the Regional Trial contentions, there was no suspension of the afforded due process, said charges shall no needless delays in the orderly and speedy
Court of Toledo City, Branch 59 (Toledo City proceedings that was agreed upon by the parties longer be tackled herein. disposition of cases and, thus, should be regarded
RTC), i.e., Civil Case No. T-862, entitled and that no prejudicial question ever existed to as mandatory, the Court has nevertheless been
"Spouses Emmanuel Flores and Daisy Flores v. warrant a discontinuance of the same. The Issue Before the Court mindful of the plight of judges and has been
Spouses Jose G. Paulin and Eleodora Ganhinhin, understanding of circumstances that may hinder
et al.," which was closely intertwined with the Meanwhile, Judge Regencia filed a Motion for The sole issue raised for the Court’s resolution is them from promptly disposing of their businesses
former. Reconsideration of the Court’s Resolution dated whether or not Judge Regencia may be held and, as such, has allowed extensions of time due
July 30, 2012 referring her administrative case to administratively liable for undue delay in to justifiable reasons.
As such, she found it prudent to defer the Judge Montero for investigation, report, and rendering a decision.
resolution of Civil Case No. 212-B until Civil recommendation. She argued that Judge Montero However, Judge Regencia failed to proffer any
Case No. T-862 was decided. She also averred cannot be expected to make an impartial The Court’s Ruling acceptable reason in delaying the disposition of
that she should not be faulted for the long delay investigation of her case as he is the "compadre" the ejectment case, thus, making her
in resolving the ejectment case as she assumed of Dulang’s lawyer and that he had constantly The Court agrees with the findings and administratively liable for undue delay in
her post as MCTC judge only in November 2002 shown a hostile attitude towards her. Judge conclusions of the OCA, with the modification, rendering a decision.
and, thereafter, began presiding over the same Regencia also sent two (2) letters, both dated however, as to the penalty imposed on Judge
starting on November 15, 2007. April 10, 2013, informing the Court that Dulang Regencia. Further, as adverted to earlier, Judge Regencia
was reportedly killed and that she had verified tried to justify the delay in resolving Civil Case
In opposition to the accusations contained in the Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically No. 212-B by claiming, inter alia, that there
this information with Flores. In view of Dulang’s
supplemental complaint, Judge Regencia through the efficiency and dedication to duty of exists a prejudicial question brought about by the
death, Judge Regencia prayed that the
commented that she issued the August 1, 2011 judges. If judges do not possess those traits, existence of a pending case in the Toledo RTC
administrative case against her be dismissed.
Order because the defendant in the ejectment delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to and that the parties agreed on the suspension of
case, Emmanuel Flores (Flores), opposed The Action and Recommendation of the OCA the prejudice of the litigants. Accordingly, judges the proceedings. However, Judge Montero found
Dulang’s notice of appeal. She explained that this should be imbued with a high sense of duty and that there was neither a prejudicial question nor
order was merely intended to determine whether In a Memorandum dated November 22, 2013, the responsibility in the discharge of their obligation an agreement between the litigants that would
or not Dulang filed his appeal within the OCA recommended that Judge Regencia be held to administer justice promptly. This is embodied warrant substantial delays in the proceedings – a
reglementary period. administratively liable for undue delay in in Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial finding which is subscribed to by the
rendering a decision, and thereby fined her in the Conduct which states that "[a] judge shall OCA. Verily, Judge Regencia’s clear and blatant
Pursuant to the Court’s Resolution dated July 30, amount of 20,000.00 with a stern warning that a dispose of the court’s business promptly and attempt to mislead the Court is deplorable and
2012, the administrative case was referred to the repetition of the same or similar acts shall be decide cases within the required periods" and should never be countenanced.1âwphi1
Executive Judge of the Toledo City RTC for dealt with more severely. It agreed with the echoed in Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of
investigation, report, and recommendation. findings of Judge Montero that there is no Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Undue delay in rendering a decision is classified
Consequently, in his Report and justifiable excuse for Judge Regencia not to Judiciary which provides that "[j]udges shall as a less serious charge, punishable either by: (a)
Recommendation dated December 20, 2012, render judgment in the ejectment case within the perform all judicial duties, including the delivery suspension from office without salary and other
Executive Judge Hermes B. Montero (Judge 30-day reglementary period mandated by the of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with benefits for not less than one nor more than three
Montero) found Judge Regencia administratively Rules on Summary Procedure. In this relation, reasonable promptness." months; or ( b) a fine of more than P10,000.00
liable for gross inefficiency, gross ignorance of the OCA brushed aside Judge Regencia’s charge but not exceeding P20,000.00. In imposing the
the law, gross incompetence, serious misconduct, of partiality against Judge Montero for lack of Here, it is undisputed that Civil Case No. 212-B proper sanction on Judge Regencia, the Court
and serious dereliction of duty in handling the factual support and equally disregarded the fact was already submitted for resolution on October notes that aside from her aforementioned
ejectment case, and thereby recommended that of Dulang’s death, holding that such 17, 2008. Being an ejectment case, it is governed misrepresentation, she was also previously found
she be dismissed from service. Judge Montero circumstance does not automatically result in the by the Rules of Summary Procedure which administratively liable for gross inefficiency
opined that Judge Regencia failed to observe the dismissal of his administrative complaint.24 clearly sets a period of thirty (30) days from the where she was ordered to pay a fine of PS,000.00
Rules on Summary Procedure as she did not submission of the last affidavit or position paper and warned that a repetition of the same or
resolve said case with dispatch; despite the case However, the OCA no longer determined Judge within which a decision thereon must be issued. similar offense will be dealt with more
having been submitted for resolution on October Regencia’s administrative liability with respect to Despite this, Judge Regencia rendered judgment severely. Moreover, as correctly observed by
17, 2008, she only rendered judgment on the charges of gross inefficiency, gross ignorance only about two (2) years and four (4) months Justice Arturo D. Brion during the deliberations
February18, 2011, or after more than 11 years of the law, gross incompetence, serious later, or on February 18,2011. While rules of this case, her length of service of more .than
since the case was filed. Judge Montero also misconduct, and serious dereliction of duty. prescribing the time within which certain acts 17 years should be taken against her instead of
pointed out that contrary to Judge Regencia’s Hence, in due deference to her right to be must be done are indispensable to prevent being considered a mitigating factor as she
23 LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

should have already known that Civil Case No. Circuit Trial Court of Asturias-Balamban, Cebu,
212-B, being an ejectment case, is a summary GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision.
proceeding and, thus, ought to be expeditiously Accordingly, she is ordered to pay a fine
resolved. Hence, a fine of P40,000.00, instead of of P40,000.00 and is STERNLY WARNED that a
suspension, should be the appropriate penalty for repetition of the same or similar acts in the future
Judge Regencia' s misconduct. shall be dealt with more severely.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge SO ORDERED.