Download - EN BANC watata

8/12/2019 EN BANC watata

1/14

EN BANC

A. C. No. 2756, November 12, 1987

PRUDENTIAL BANK, COMPLAINANT, !. "UD#E "O!E P.CA!TRO AND ATT$. BEN"AMIN M. #RECIA,

RE!PONDENT!.

D E C I ! I O N

PER CURIAM%

On April 11, 1985, the late Pio Pedrosa, former President of complainant PrudentialBank, filed this Administrative Complaint praying that udge ose P! Castro, former

Presiding udge of the "egional #rial Court in $ue%on City, Branch &'''(, )edisciplinarily dealt *ith and that +is)arment proceedings )e instituted againstrespondent Atty! Ben amin -!.recia!

#his +ecision deals only *ith the +is)arment Case against "espondent .recia, theComplaint as against respondent udge Castro having )een decided )y thisCourt en )anc on une 5, 198/!

#he Complaint alleges, among others0

222 222 222

34! n 196/, 1969 and 1984, -acro #e2tile -ills Corporation 7-AC"O for shortapplied for and *as granted credit facilities )y the )ank secured )y real estatemortgages!

3 ! -AC"O having repeatedly defaulted on its o)ligations, the )ank finally applied fore2tra udicial foreclosure of its mortgages over #C# :o! ;/18 ;! #he sale *asconducted, consummated and registered in the day )ook of the register of deeds andannotated on the title itself!

35! On August ;, 198 , -AC"O through Atty! -ario

3/! On August /, 198 , -AC"O through ne* counsel here respondent Ben amin-! .recia filed an amended complaint alleging and claiming P5=,===,===!== actual andcompensatory damages and P;=,===,===!== as value of the mortgaged property!


2/14

36! On the same day, August /, 198 , respondent udge ose P! Castro issued anorder restraining the register of deeds of $ue%on City >from acting on, and completing)y affi2ing his signature on, the assailed registration of the sale at pu)lic auction of themortgage property descri)ed under #C# :o! ;/18 ; su) ect of this action ? 2 2 2

38! On the same day, August /, 198 , respondent udge ose P! Castro also issuedan order of attachment of the properties of the )ank to the value of the said demandsof costs of suit!@ 2 2 2!

#he *rit of attachment having )een attempted to )e e2ecuted againt the )ank, the)ank posted on August 1/, 198 a P1= million )ond to discharge it and filed a motion todischarge attachment *ithout pre udice! "espondent udge never acted on said )ondor motion!

9! On August 1=, 198 , the day scheduled for the hearing ofrespondent -AC"O s application for preliminary in unction, the )ank filed a motion to

discharge restraining order and opposition to application for preliminary in unction andattachment! "espondent udge never resolved the motion nor approved the )ond!

1=! or the filing of the complaint, the clerk of court collected only the amount ofP;1=!== evidenced )y Official "eceipt :os! /4;8 8 and /4;8/ 5 )oth datedAugust ;,198 ! 2 2 2

ince the original complaint interposed a P5= million claim for damages and sought theannulment of mortgage over a property *orth several millions although its value *asnot stated and since the amended complaint increased the claim for damages to P6=million and also sought the annulment of mortgage over a property no* stated to )e

*orth P;= million, the )ank filed a motion on August 15, 198 to collect the properfiling fees *hich at least should have )een P149,9==!==! +espite motions to resolvedated August 16, eptem)er 4 and Octo)er ;/, 198 , respondent udge ose P! Castrotook no action *hatsoever!

11! "espondent udge ose P! Castro rendered on :ovem)er 1/, 198 7noticereceived :ovem)er ;/, 198 summary udgment annulling the )ank s mortgage andordering the )ank to pay P4= million as actual damages and P4 million as e2emplarydamages plus ;=D attorneys fees for respondent Atty! Ben amin -! .recia? despiteopposition! 2 2 2

222 222 222

1;! On e)ruary 6, 1985, respondent udge ose P! Castro issued an order denyingthe )ank s 19?page 7e2cluding affidavits motion for reconsideration as pro forma andon e)ruary 14, 1985 an order granting -AC"O s motion for e2ecution of his summary

udgment as final and e2ecutory on the ground that the allegedlypro forma motion forreconsideration did not toll the running of the period of appeal!


3/14

222 222 222

7) Ee issued that *rit of e2ecution not*ithstanding the timely filing )y petitioner of anotice of appeal!

#he )ank s counsel having received notice of the order denying their motion forreconsideration on e)ruary 14, 1985, on that same day of their receipt of said notice,the )ank filed their notice of appeal to the ntermediate Appellate Court ? though it stillhad four 7 days left of its 15?day period of appeal!

7c Forse, the e2ecution of said *rit of e2ecution *as attempted on a riday,at 4055 P!-!, *ith a demand for the moneys of the )ank s tellers rather than for otherassets!

At 4055 P!-!, riday, e)ruary 15, 1985, the sheriff accompanied )y -AC"O s Atty!

Ben amin .recia 7respondent here and several other deputy sheriffs and men s*oopeddo*n on the )ank s )ranches and principal office to enforce the *rit of e2ecution dated

e)ruary 1 , 1985! #hey demanded delivery to them of all availa)le cash money )ut, ithaving )een closing hour, the tellers had already )rought their cash to the vaults *hich*ere then closed! #hey thereupon took the )o2es and coin counters, adding machines,type*riters, etc! and set them near the doors of the )ank! At past midnight, they left*ith notice that they *ould resume e2ecution on -onday morning at the principal officeof the )ank and its )ranches!

Fith those )o2es, coin counters, adding machines, type*riters, etc! seGuestered, the)ank and its )ranches *ould not )e a)le to service depositors and clients ne2t -onday? and feared that if it could not service its depositors and clients a run might occur!

ortunately, the upreme Court in .!"! :o! /99=6 intervened that early -ondaymorning *ith a restraining order!

222 222 222

1/! Attached hereto as Anne2 : hereof is a list of other cases involving otherparties *hich sho* a oint venture )et*een respondent udge ose P! Castro andrespondent Atty! Ben amin -! .recia!

FE


4/14

that the complaint is improper and prematureJ 7; that the charge is purely and plainlyan unfounded grievance of a party *hich lost its case in the #rial Court against thela*yer of the party *hich prevailed in that case and is intended merely to harass,em)arrass and degrade him and to deprive him of his livelihoodJ 74 that the collectionof the docket fee is an act *ithin the province of the clerk of court *hich cannot )eimputed to respondent nor serve as a ground for his dis)armentJ 7 that the list ofother cases involving other parties 2 2 2 sho* a > oint ventureK )et*een respondents isan empty and a gratuitous conclusion, an un ust, improper and insupporta)leaccusation, *hich renders the complaint insufficient and, conseGuently dismissi)le ,nine 79 out of the fourteen 71 cases in the list )eing cases of other la*yers, and thatthe proper parties to make the charge of a oint venture )eing the parties in the

other cases J and 75 that in almost thirty 74= years of la* practice, respondent hasnot once )etrayed his oath of office )ut has o)served photographic fidelity to theCanons of &egal


5/14

Fhat has )een prayed for )y Complainant Bank is the e2ercise )y this Court of itspo*er to discipline "espondent udge, and the initiation of proceedings for thedis)arment or suspension of "espondent .recia!

Based on documents su)mitted to this Court, the relevant facts upon *hich this

"esolution is )ased may )e stated as follo*s0

31! #he President and .eneral -anager of -AC"O is named .o Cun y! Ee is also apartner of, or a signatory for, a partnership named .ala2y #ricot -anufacturing Co!7.A&A'N, for short !

3;! As of anuary ; , 1984, -AC"O and .A&A'N, together, *ere inde)ted toComplainant Bank in the principal sum of P9,51=,===!==!

34! On the said date of anuary ; , 1984, -AC"O, through .o Cun y, e2ecuted amortgage over the -AC"O P"OP

udgment that may )e rendered against them!K

6! our days thereafter, or on August /, 198 , the Complaint *as amended over thesignature of "espondent .recia! #he amendments are of no su)stantial relevance to

this "esolution! #he same prayer for preliminary attachment *as reiterated!

8! On the same date of August /, 198 , "espondent udge, stating that the salehad not taken place on that date, issued an Order temporarily restraining the "egisterof +eeds of $ue%on City from registering any +eed of ale of the -AC"O P"OP


6/14

P"OP


7/14

31 ! On e)ruary 6, 1985, "espondent udge denied Complainant Bank s -otion for"econsideration >not only for )eing pro forma )ut also for lack of meritK! pon receiptof the corresponding Order on e)ruary 14, 1985, Complainant Bank filed a notice ofappeal to the ntermediate Appellate Court!

15! ConseGuent to the denial of the -otion for "econsideration filed )y ComplainantBank, "espondent udge, in his Order of e)ruary 14, 1985, considered his +ecision inthe "#C CA < to )e final and ordered the issuance of a Frit of


8/14

serious and grave misfeasance in connection *ith his actuations in the said "#C CA su)mission of false certificateof service under ection 5 of the udiciary &a* is not e2cusa)leK!

FE


10/14

O O"+


11/14

"espondent .recia filed the Amended Complaint on August /, 198 , and on the sameday "espondent udge issued an Order of Attachment! A P1=- )ond had to )e posted)y Complainant Bank to discharge it accompanied )y a -otion to +ischargeAttachment, *hich "espondent udge, resolved on August ;1, 198 !

#he summary udgment *as rendered )y "espondent udge on :ovem)er 1/, 198despite the allegation of fraud and deceit in the Complaint, there)y resulting in theavoidance of trial and the presentation of *itnesses, and the Bank *as ordered to payP4=- as actual damages, P4- as e2emplary damages plus ;=D attorney s fees *henthe property involved in the litigation *as alleged in the Amended Complaint as P;=-7and *as sold to alconi for P/- !

Complainant Bank filed a -otion for "econsideration of the +ecision on +ecem)er 6,198 )ut "espondent udge did not rule on it and instead amended that udgment on

anuary 6, 1985 )y directing the "egister of +eeds of $ue%on City to issue another

o*ner s copy of the transfer certificate of title in -AC"O s favor in lieu of the o*ner scopy in the possession of Complainant Bank, *hich *as deemed cancelled! #here)y-AC"O *as placed in a position to dispose of the mortgaged property, *hich it sold on

anuary 1 , 1985 to alconi -arketing and -anufacturing, nc!, for P/-!

"espondent udge denied the -otion for "econsideration only on e)ruary 6, 1985 for)eing pro forma! Complainant Bank filed a :otice of Appeal on e)ruary 14, 1985! Onthe same day, e)ruary 14, 1985, "espondent udge considered the ummary

udgment final and ordered the issuance of a Frit of


12/14

#he Court also takes udicial notice of a strikingly similar modus operandi follo*ed in-anchester +evelopment Corporation, et al!, vs! Court of

Appeals, Cityland +evelopment Corporation, et als!, 7.!"! :o! 65919, -ay 6, 1986JCivil Case :o! $? 48/6, "#C $ue%on City , *here the original complaint *as filed )ythe same Atty! -ario

tronghold nsurance Co!, a company )lacklisted in$ue%on CityJ the immediateimplementation of the attachment the day after its issuance *ith the garnishment ofthe operating funds of CitylandJ and the denial )y "espondent udge of the -otion to

trike Out Complaint filed )y Cityland for the reasons that the insufficiency of the filingfee is not a ground for dismissal citing -agaspi vs! "amolete 7115 C"A 194 and that

the action *as one for specific performance! f respondent udge *as una)le to see thecase to completion, and perhaps resolve it in the same manner as he did the -acroCase, it *as only )y reason of the re?raffle ordered )y this Court of that case, *ith ;;others, to all the "egional #rial Court udges of $ue%on City, *ith the e2ception of"espondent udge , in this Court s "esolution of une 18, 1985 in Adm! -atter :o! 85?/?6899?"#C!

Fhile it *as Atty! (alderrama, *ho *as counsel of record in the -anchester case,considering the striking similarity in the pattern of the cases he and"espondent .reciahandled, signing either singly or as co?counsel 7as in the Amended

Complaint,H5I

and in the Opposition to +efendant s -otion for "econsideration in the-acro Case , H/I a close colla)oration )et*een them is evident! n actual fact, a ointventure did e2ist )et*een -acro and -anchester kno*n as the -acro?-anchester"ealty Corporation! H6I

#he Court takes further udicial notice of other cases *here a similar modus operandi,particularly in respect of astronomical sums claimed )ut minimal docket fees paid, isapparent, *ith one of the parties represented )y either "espondent .recia orAtty! (alderrama, and the common denominator )eing that the cases pended )efore"espondent udge! A summary of those cases *as made in a "eport, dated Octo)er ;,1985, to the Acting Court Administrator Arturo Buena su)mitted )y then


13/14

Attachment and n unction , the )ody of the complaint alleged that defendant thereinhad inflicted damages on the plaintiff in the total sum of appro2imately P14-, )ut theprayer merely asked for payment of such sums as may )e proved during the trial! #hefiling fee paid *as P;==!==!

n Civil Case :o! $? 1166, "#C, $ue%on City, entitled -anuel Chua y Po #iong vs!un nsurance Office &td! 7incidentally, the President of -anchester is the same

-anuel Chua y Po #iong for um of -oney, +amages *ith Frit of PreliminaryAttachment for alleged fraudulent cancellation of an insurance policy issued )ydefendant therein, the )ody of the complaint mentioned the damages suffered )yplaintiff in the amount of around P4=-, )ut again the prayer asked for the payment of

such amounts as may )e proved during the trial and the filing fee paid *asP;==!==! #he original complaint *as filed )y Atty! (alderrama *hile"espondent .recia filed the Amended Complaint therein! #he case *as )efore"espondent udge s ala!

n Civil Case :o! $? 1;;9, "#C, $ue%on City, entitled Mumho Construction L#he modus operandi in the foregoing cases, taken cogni%ance of )y this Court either udicially or administratively, reveal the hidden maneuvers of a nefarious net*ork, *ith

respondents as the prime movers! #hose cases sufficiently provide the )asis for thedetermination of respondents administrative lia)ility *ithout need for further inGuiryinto the matter under the principle of res ipsa loGuitur! 7People vs! Eon! -anuel(alen%uela, .!"! :os! &?/495=?/=, April 19, 1985, 145 C"A 61;J "esolution, n #he-atter Of Proceedings or +isciplinary Action Against Atty! Fenceslao &aureta, etc!, in.! "! :o! /8/45, entitled


14/14

#he affirmance on April ;4, 198/ )y the Court of Appeals in AC?.!"! C( :o! =5/11 Q ofthe ummary udgment rendered )y "espondent udge in the -acro Case, for *hichreason, "espondent .recia had moved to dismiss this case against him on -ay 8, 198/is not a ground for the dismissal of this +is)arment Case, the said +ecision not havingattained finality )esides the fact that the issue herein is the fitness of"espondent .recia to continue in the practice of la*!

&'ERE(ORE , respondent Ben amin -! .recia is here)y + BA""