|
Thursday, September 23, 2004
RTC judge sacked on P250T bribe rap
By Giovanni A. Nilles
CEBU CITY -- Cebu Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Agapito Hontanosas Jr. was dismissed from the bench after the Supreme Court found him guilty of two counts of gross misconduct, one count of gross ignorance of the law and simple misconduct.
The High Court came down hard on Hontanosas, who presides over RTC Branch 16, because he entertained litigants in his home and demanded money from them in exchange for a favorable ruling.
In the order dated Sept. 21, 2004, Hontanosas was given 10 days to show cause why he should not be barred from the practice of law for conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar.
"Kulba kaayo na... unya na lang ko ana ha kay kulba kaayo na (That's scary. Ask me about it later, that's too scary)," was all he said when sought for comment at Branch 16, where he was still hearing several cases.
He asked reporters what happened and why they visited him at his sala but immediately returned to his chambers when told of the ruling. It was apparently the first time he learned of the en banc decision.
In an earlier report, Hontanosas expressed optimism that the Office of the Court Administrator, which investigated the issue, will dismiss the case.
He said brothers Richard and Rafael King were just bullying the court after he issued an unfavorable ruling and that the false accusations were intended to destroy his reputation.
Except for his accrued leave credits, the High Court also forfeited all the judge's benefits and imposed on him a perpetual disqualification from public service. As of July 2002, he already had 19 years of service to the judiciary.
More than two years ago, Hontanosas was fined P12,000 for violating a circular, which enjoined judges from playing at or visiting gambling casinos.
He admitted, though, that he occasionally visits the casino to accompany his wife who plays the slot machines, as well as go to legally organized cockfights.
The King brothers had alleged that Hontanosas used their karaoke lounge inside the Metropolis Hotel, owned by J. King & Sons Co., which they also own.
In an advisory sent to Sun.Star Wednesday, it appeared that the dismissal stemmed from the administrative complaint filed by the King brothers more than two years ago.
The brothers, who own in part the J. King & Sons Co., said the judge lifted a writ of attachment without holding a hearing and that he demanded P250,000 from them when they asked for reconsideration of the lifting.
Basically, the cases all stemmed from the alleged kidnapping of James King by Roderick Go, his former business partner. King had alleged that Go owed him P97 million.
A writ of attachment was then issued against the bank accounts of Nelson and Lucy Go, Roderick's relatives. This was to ensure that the Kings would still get their money back.
However, Hontanosas lifted the attachment after declaring that there was no showing that Roderick incurred the debt together with Nelson and Lucy.
In finding him guilty of gross misconduct, the Supreme Court ruled that the allegations of extortion were sufficiently proven by the King brothers.
The judge reportedly entertained the Kings when they visited him at his home. It was there that the Kings, who wanted a reconsideration of the lifting of the writ of attachment, were allegedly asked P250,000.
"By entertaining a litigant in his home and receiving benefits given by said litigant, (Hontanosas) miserably failed to live up to the standards of judicial conduct," the High Court said.
As for gross ignorance of the law, the Supreme Court said the judge should have conducted a full-blown hearing and observed the three-day notice rule instead of lifting the attachment without a hearing.
"The judge acted with indecent haste in immediately holding a hearing on the motion to lift attachment filed only a few minutes before the said hearing," read the advisory.
It added that Hontanosas considered the same issue "submitted for resolution, issued the order lifting the writ of preliminary attachment and approved the counter-bond, all on the same day of July 5, 2002."
The advisory said Hontanosas did all these without giving the complainant the opportunity to be heard on the matter.
The High Court also ruled that Hontanosas acted negligently in approving the counter-bond, considering that the bonding company did not have enough properties to answer for the P35.9-million counter-bond. The bonding company's net retention only amounted to P13.4 million.
(September 23, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
'Unprofitable' state-owned firms face abolition