3-D vs justice roxas

A.M. No. CA-10-50-J 

October 5, 2010
[formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-152-CA-J]

3-D INDUSTRIES, INC. and SMARTNET PHILIPPINES, INC. Complainants, vs. JUSTICES VICENTE Q. ROXAS and JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., Respondents.


FULL TEXT

Facts:


In the present administrative complaint, complainants allege that in issuing the assailed Resolutions dated January 24, 2005 and April 26, 2005, respondents caused undue injury to them by, among other things, giving the petitioners (NICI and the Guy Family) in the new petition for Certiorari unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the discharge of their judicial functions in violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.9




Complainants likewise allege that respondents, in issuing the questioned Resolutions, had "maneuvered" the assignment to the Eighth Division of the "supplemental" petitions of NICI and the Guy family, which were, however, completely different from the new petition for Certiorari, for the purpose of assuring that those "supplemental" petitions would not be raffled or assigned to other possibly unsympathetic divisions of the appellate court.10




Furthermore, complainants allege that the conclusory ruling in the questioned Resolutions was a "lame pretext" since the properties involved therein are not in custodia legis, and there was no factual basis that 3-D is a mere alter ego or dummy of Gilbert.11




Finally, complainants allege that the Divisions in which respondents were sitting had mutated into a "judicial vending machine," regularly dispensing TROs and injunctions at an "impressive maximum" of five days from the filing of the pleadings by the petitioners.12


Respondent Justice Enriquez filed his Comment dated September 16, 2009, emphasizing that the questioned Resolution of April 26, 2007 was upheld by this Court in its Decision in G.R. No. 165849, Guy v. Courts of Appeals,13 hence, complainants’ allegation of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, gross negligence, and derogation of established procedure is totally devoid of factual and legal basis. He informs that he was neither the ponente of this assailed Resolution nor the Senior Member of the now Seventh Division of the appellate court.


Issue:
can respondent judge be administratively liable?


Ruling:
No.


There are two ways by which Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 may be violated,16 viz: 1) by giving undue injury to any party, including the Government, 2) by causing any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.17 These acts must be committed with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross and inexcusable negligence.


Manifest partiality has been defined as "a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side rather than the other."18 Bad faith connotes not only bad judgment or negligence, but also a dishonest purpose, a conscious wrongdoing, or a breach of duty amounting to fraud.19 Gross negligence is the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences as far as other persons are concerned.20

That the assailed Resolutions issued by respondents favored NICI and the Guy family does not necessarily render respondents guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, absent proven particular acts of manifest, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, good faith and regularity being generally presumed in the performance of official duties by public officers.21

In order for this administrative offense to prosper, the subject order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, more importantly, must be attended by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.23


Since the impleading of additional parties, on motion of any party or motu proprio at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just is allowed,24 the Court finds that respondents’ participation in the admission of the supplemental petitions impleading herein complainants as respondents in CA-G.R.SP No. 87104 does not render them administratively liable.


While respondents may have based the assailed Resolutions on mere allegations, thus disregarding what has been established in jurisprudence that "mere allegation that a corporation is the alter ego of the individual stockholders is insufficient,"25 this does not render them administratively liable because not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice,26 which is not the case here.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

people vs dela torre- yadao

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON. DELA TORRE-YADAO, ET AL. G.R. No. 162144-54 ; 13 November 2012 FULL TEXT Facts: This case, which involves the alleged summary execution of suspected members of the Kuratong Bale/eng Gang, is once again before this Court this time questioning, among other things, the trial qmrt's determination of the absence of probable cause and its dismissal of the criminal actions. 1 On review, however, the Office of the Ombudsman reversed the finding and filed charges of murder against the police officers involved before the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases 23047 to 57, except that in the cases of respondents Zubia, Acop, and Lacson, their liabilities were downgraded to mere accessory. On arraignment, Lacson pleaded not guilty. Upon respondents’ motion, the Sandiganbayan ordered the transfer of their cases to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City on the ground that none of the principal accused had the rank of Chief ...
Read more

G.R. No. 131588 People vs De los Santos

G.R. No. 131588 March 27, 2001 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GLENN DE LOS SANTOS, accused-appellant. DAVIDE, JR., J.: Facts: On the early morning of october 5, 1995 Members of the Philippine National Police (PNP), undergoing a Special Training Course (Scout Class 07-95), wearing black T-shirts and black short pants, performing an "Endurance Run" of 35 kilometers coming from their camp in Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, heading to Regional Training Headquarters in Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City, running in a column of 3, was hit by Glenn was driving his Isuzu Elf causing the death of 13 trainee/members and  injuries to others. After which said accused thereafter escaped from the scene of the incident, leaving behind the victims helpless. Issue: Is Glenn negligent? Ruling : Yes. The test for determining whether a person is negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results to the person or property of another is this: Could a ...
Read more

tamondong v pasal

October 18, 2017 A.M. No. rtj-16-2467 ATTY. EDDIE U. TAMONDONG, Petitioner vs. JUDGE EMMANUEL P. PASAL, Presiding Judge, Branch 38, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan De Oro City, Respondent FULL TEXT Facts: On June 21, 2012, the heirs of Enrique Abada (Abada's heirs), represented by his wife and children, filed a case for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-33060, and Annulment of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale,before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Opol, Misamis Oriental, against Atty. Tamondong's client, Henmar Development Property Inc. (Henmar) Henmar filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TR0) 2 before the RTC, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 2013- 184. The case was raffled to Branch 38, presided by Judge Pasal. On December 23, 2013, Judge Pasal issued a Resolution 3 dismissing the...
Read more