Friday, August 03, 2007 SC suspends Baguio judge for 'ignorance of the law'
THE Supreme Court (SC) has ordered the preventive suspension of a Baguio City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge who reversed the final ruling of a co-equal court regarding the custody of the famed "Golden Buddha" that formed part of the so-called Yamashita treasure.
In a resolution, the SC en banc found Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the Baguio RTC Branch 3, guilty of gross ignorance of the law when he motu proprio reversed the decision of Judge Antonio Reyes who has original jurisdiction over the case.
The suspension was issued pending the resolution of the administrative complaint filed against Pamintuan by former First Lady Imelda Marcos.
The case stemmed from a ruling by Pamintuan where he reversed the final and executive order of a co-equal judge in a civil case filed by the Treasure Hunters Association of the Philippines led by a certain Jose Umali against businessman Jose Roxas for the recovery of the statuette.
Pamintuan's ruling, which had been issued without motions from either party, confirmed the existence of the Golden Buddha despite a ruling by Reyes that no such thing exists.
The elusive statuette has entered popular folklore as supposedly part of caves full of war loot amassed during World War II by the Japanese Imperial Army General Yamashita, who was tried and hanged in Baguio at the end of the
Japanese Occupation.
The late Rogelio Roxas claimed he recovered the statue in a cave beside the Baguio General Hospital.
Reyes court's ruling issued in May 30, 1996 said the Golden Buddha in the court's possession is made of brass and is the same statue that was seized by soldiers from the Roxas family during Marcos time.
This ruling had become final and binding after none of the parties questioned it.
Reyes had said the Buddha had been kept solely on the authority of a search and seizure order issued in 1971 and that the state was no longer legally justified in retaining it.
The only question that remained was, between Umali and Jose, who had the better claim to the Buddha. The court ruled that Umali's contractual claim should be brought against the administrator of the Roxas Estate and was insufficient to support the release of the Buddha to Umali in the current proceeding. (ECV/Sunnex)
