|
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
SC affirms: Lapu judge suspended
The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the six-month suspension of a Cebu Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge, for issuing an “unjust judgment” directing a bank to pay P16 million in damages to an Aznar scion.
Associate Justice Rena-to Corona of the Third Division penned the resolution that suspended Judge Jesus de la Peña and admonished him not to do it again, or risk “a penalty beyond mere suspension from public office.”
De la Peña presides over RTC Branch 27 in Lapu-Lapu City.
“We cannot help but find extreme bias and bad intent in respondent’s award of a whopping P16.2 million in damages,” the SC said.
It commented that de la Peña did not even conduct hearings before issuing the ruling last November 1998.
At first, the SC justices set aside last June 7 the suspension of Judge Jesus de la Peña, originally handed down by the SC Third Division last April 29.
Oversight
But the High Tribunal, in its Sept. 12, 2005 resolution, said it did so “as an oversight” as it was the Third Division that had jurisdiction over the matter.
According to Division Clerk of Court Lucita Abjelina-Soriano, the justices of the Third Division resolved to deny the motion “as no substantial arguments were raised to warrant a reconsideration.”
“The court en banc is not an appellate court vis-à-vis its divisions,” Soriano explained.
“The suspension of respondent should now be carried out. Respondent himself prayed that the enforcement of his suspension be held in abeyance, until the resolution of his motion for reconsideration. The court denied his motion for reconsideration with finality on June 15, 2005,” she added.
The sanction against the trial court judge stemmed from the July 16, 1999 letter-complaint that lawyer Julius Neri filed against de la Peña before the SC’s Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Neri represented Citibank in a civil suit filed by Emmanuel Aznar before then RTC judge Ferdinand Marcos.
Over limit
Judge Marcos dismissed the suit, which discussed Aznar’s claim of moral and exemplary damages incurred after some establishments in Singapore and Malaysia rejected some purchases because his credit card was “over the limit.”
However, de la Peña, who got the case via a motion for reconsideration and a motion for re-raffling, overturned Marcos’ order.
He ruled in Aznar’s favor and directed the bank to pay Aznar P10 million in moral damages, P5 million in exemplary damages, P1 million in attorney’s fees and P200,000 as reimbursement for litigation expenses.
But Neri, in his complaint, accused de la Peña of dishonesty, adding that he ruled “without ever having read the transcripts of the case.”
In support of the allegation, Neri submitted certifications from the Clerk of Court of Branch 20, Marcos’ former sala, which narrated how the transcripts of the case had remained in their custody and that these never got to de la Peña.
Never know
He also charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law. He said de la Peña based his ruling only on the computer printouts Aznar submitted as evidence, without requiring proof that the documents were genuine.
He said de la Peña didn’t even call for a hearing and, as a result, Citibank never knew that Aznar had appealed Marcos’ ruling.
De la Peña, upon orders of the court administrator, submitted his comment on Sept. 3, 1999. He said that while he did not call for hearings as alleged, he decided on the matter by reviewing the complete transcripts that Aznar had attached to his motion for reconsideration.
He also defended the amount awarded, by comparing it with the amount the court awarded in a 1973 case. He said one must take inflation into account.
He complained that Neri was forum-shopping when he filed the complaint because there is a pending appeal at the Court of Appeals (CA) over the same issue.
Liable
The SC, on Feb. 28, 2001, held the administrative case in abeyance until the CA could act on the appeal Neri had filed first.
But, after Neri informed the High Tribunal on June 8, 2004 that the CA had already upheld Citibank’s appeal, it immediately revived the administrative proceedings against de la Peña.
The OCA, which the High Court ordered to conduct the administrative investigation, submitted its findings on Aug. 27, 2004 and found de la Peña liable for violating provisions of the Revised Rules for Criminal Procedure.
Corona adopted the OCA’s findings but added one more point before issuing the penalty — that de la Peña should have at least called attention to its irregularity (the lack of notice to Citibank).
“That he acted on it... indeed, based his decision on it... while Citibank was totally unaware of its existence ran seriously afoul of the precepts of fair play.
Indeed, there seems to be something gravely amiss in respondent’s sense of fairness and righteousness, the primary requisites of a good judge,” Corona’s ruling read. (KNR)
(September 28, 2005 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
check>
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
