Tuesday, March 04, 2008
Supreme Court disbars former judge Suerte
AFTER his dismissal from the judiciary a month after he was scheduled to retire in 2005 and amidst allegations of improper conduct, the Supreme Court has dealt a second blow against Ildefonso Suerte.
In a ruling last Feb. 22, the Supreme Court has nullified his credentials as a lawyer and ordered his name removed from the roll of attorneys.
The dismissal in 2005 disqualified Suerte from receiving his retirement benefits from government and forced him to return to private practice for income.
The disbarment makes it illegal for him to practice law.
“The Supreme Court will furnish the Integrated Bar of the Philippines with a copy of the ruling and he (Suerte) will also be taken off the roll,” explained Atty. Jeoffrey Joaquino, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu, in an interview yesterday.
Under the rules, Suerte can file a motion for reconsideration.
En banc decision
The decision to disbar him, however, was made en banc, with all the justices of the Supreme Court sitting as one body. Decisions made en banc are rarely reversed.
The disbarment case, based on the ruling penned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, stemmed from the complaint Silas Cañada, received by the Office of the Court Administrator last July 11, 2003.
Cañada alleged that he and Suerte were neighbors in Badian, Cebu, and that sometime in 2002, Suerte volunteered to act as an agent-broker for the sale of Cañada’s beach-front lot in Barangay Bato, Badian.
They agreed that the selling price would be P1.6 million and that Suerte would receive P600,000 as commission.
In July 2002, Suerte reportedly informed Cañada that he had a foreign buyer but insisted on a commission of P1 million. Cañada was to be left with P600,000.
Cañada protested and refused to agree to the sale. He declined to sign the deed of sale Suerte prepared.
This, he said made Suerte furious enough to threaten him that, being a judge, he could easily order that Cañada be divested of his land.
Truck, sedan
Despite the fact that the sale did not proceed, Suerte demanded P200,000 from the complainant for his effort in finding a buyer. Cañada gave him P100,000.
Cañada further alleged that sometime in 1998, he refused Suerte’s offer to sell him a “dilapidated cargo pick-up truck” and a Daewoo sedan.
Cañada feared that because of their botched deals, Suerte would use his judicial power to persecute him and seek vengeance as soon as he has a chance.
Before Cañada’s complaint could be resolved, the Supreme Court received another complaint, dated Nov. 8, 2003, with Cañada accusing Suerte of ordering his detention for 14 days without bail for direct contempt.
Suerte justified the contempt ruling and the subsequent 14-day detention by accusing Cañada of filing a petition for certiorari against him using false testimony. He was slapped with a P40,000 fine for the incident after having been found guilty for gross ignorance of the law.
Dishonesty
When it finally ruled on the first complaint, the Supreme Court noted that the evidence attached to the complaint didn’t appear to be sufficient.
However, the High Court got Suerte for dishonesty – falsehoods he reportedly raised while defending himself from the charge.
“In his defense, respondent claimed that he never owned a dilapidated cargo pick-up truck and could not recall if he had a Daewoo car in 1998. But his Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the years 1998 to 2001 on file in the Court prove otherwise. They show that among his personal properties were a Daewoo car acquired in 1996 and an L-200 double cab acquired in 1998,” he ruling stated.
“Time and time again, we have emphasized that a judge should conduct himself at all times in a manner which will reasonably merit the respect and confidence of the people, for he is the visible representation of the law,” the justices said.
Tarnish image
“Unfortunately, respondent showed his capacity to lie and evade the truth. His dishonesty not only tended to mislead the Court but also tarnished the image of the judiciary,” they added.
In determining the penalty, the Supreme Court cited its previous ruling in Administrative Matter 02-9-02, which provides that cases against judges are automatically considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the bar – hence the disbarment.
When he was ordered dismissed from service in 2005, Suerte was found to have been guilty of violating Administrative Order (AO) 36-2004, issued last March 2004, which stripped him of all authority to act on newly filed cases in his court.
Even if he was no longer allowed to handle cases, Suerte reportedly still acted on five annulment petitions, one special proceeding and the homicide case against Cedrick Devinadera.
Devinadera had claimed he helped kill Alona Bacolod-Ecleo, wife of former mayor Ruben Ecleo Jr. Ecleo who is facing a separate parricide case, filed in 2002, with the Regional Trial Court. (KNR)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (March 4, 2008 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here.
|
