Santiago III vs Enriquez
Santiago III vs Enriquez...
Santiago III vs Enriquez, Jr. A.M. No. CA-09-47-J February 13, 2009 Carpio Morales, J: COMPLAINANT: Genaro Santiago III RESPONDENT: Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. ~ Chairperson, 13th Division, Court of Appeals FACTS: Santiago filed before RTC of QC a Petition for Reconstitution of Lost/Destroyed Original Certificate of Title No. 56, registered in the name of Pantaleon Santiago and Blas Fajardo. RTC granted the petition. Rep. of the Phils. through OSG appealed the decision of CA. The case was raffled to Justice Gonzales-Sision of the appellate court’s 13th Division of which respondent was Chairperson. On July 11, 2007, Justice GonzalesSison submitted her Report which was used as basis for the Division’s consultation and deliberation. On July 18, 2007, by letter addressed to Justice Gonzales-Sison and Justice Veloso, respondent expressed his dissent from the report. Justice Veloso who originally concurred in the report, requested Justice Gonzales-Sison to take a second look at the dissenting opinion as the reasons Justice Enriquez gave are strong enough to be ignored by plain technicality. In view of his dissent, respondent requested the Raffle Committee of
the CA to designate 2 associate justices to complete the composition of Special Division of five (5). Raffle Committee designated Justice Cruz and Justice Bersamin. Justice Veloso and Justice Cruz concurred in the dissenting opinion of Justice Enriquez and Justice Bersamin concurred with Justice Gonzales-Sison’s Report. Respondent’s Dissenting Opinion thus became the majority opinion of the Special Division and the Reportopinion of Justice Gonzales-Sison became the Dissenting Opinion. The Decision of the Special Division reversed and set aside the decision of RTC. Complainant then filed a motion for reconsideration. And while said motion is pending, Santiago filed the present complaint which is a Motion for Disqualification and/or Inhibition pursuant to Par. 2, Sec. 1, Rule 137. The appellate court denied the motion. HELD: That Cases cited to support a Decision are not applicable, and the appreciation of evidence and facts is erroneous, do not necessarily warrant the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge, unless the decision is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty or with deliberate intent to cause injustice. An administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available unless the assailed order or
decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonest. The failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render a judge administratively liable. There is no showing that the decision is tainted with fraud, malice or dishonesty or was rendered with deliberate intent to cause injustice. The Complaint must be dismissed. The Principle of JUDICIAL IMMUNITY ~ insulates judges, and even Justices of superior courts, from being held to account criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith. To hold otherwise would render judicial office untenable. This concept of judicial immunity rests upon consideration of public policy, its purpose being to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. This principle is of universal application and applies to all grades of judicial officers from the highest judge of the nation and to the lowest officer who sits as a court.
3-D Industries, Inc vs. Roxas A.M. No. CA-10-50-J October 5, 2010 Carpio-Morales, J.:
COMPLAINANT: 3-D Industires, Inc. and Smartnet Philippines, Inc. RESPONDENT: Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. FACTS: Smartnet’s representative Gilbert is the son of Francisco and Simny Guy. The Spouses organized the Northern Islands Co., Inc (NICI) which is engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of various appliances bearing the trademark 3D. The spouses Guy also organized Lincoln Continental as a holding company of 50% of the 21, 160 shares of Stock of NICI in trust for their 3 daughters. (Geraldine, Gladys, Grace) Finding that their son Gilbert had been dissipating the assets of Lincoln Continental, the spouses Guy caused the registration of 50% of the 20, 160 shares of stock of NICI in the names of their 3 daughters thus enabling the latter to assume active role in the management of NICI. Lincoln Continental filed a complaint at the RTC of Manila against NICI and the spouses Guy and 3 daughters for annulment of the transfer of 50% NICI shares of stock to Gilbert’s sister. Br. 46 restored the management of NICI to Gilbert and issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. NICI and the Guy Family thereafter filed a new petition for certiorari with application for TRO-
preliminary injunction but CA’s 8th Division enjoined the implementation issued by RTC of Manila Br. 46. On Nov. 2, 2004, NICI and the Guy Family filed with CA-Eight Division and Urgent Omnibus Motion for the issuance of Break-Open Order. The motion was granted and the Guy Family entered the NICI premises. Smartnet, one of the occupants of the NICI premises filed a complaint for forcible entry against NICI and the Guy Family. In the meantime, the CA-Eight Division directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by NICI and the Guy Family. By resolution of January 24, 2005, the appellate’s court 8th Division issued the questioned resolution admitting the Supplemental Petition for Certiorari alleging the continuing forum shopping of Gilbert by continuing to use Smartnet as alter ego and dummy to institute various case in court to gain control of the properties of NICI. By Resolution of April 26, 2005, 8th Division admitted the Second Supplemental Petition for Certiorari and restrained the additionally impleaded respondents including Smartnet from disturbing the writ of preliminary injunction issued but the 8th Division. In the present administrative complaint, complainants allege that in issuing the assailed
Resolutions dated January 24, 2005, respondent caused undue injury to them giving the NICI and Guy Family in the new petition for Certiorari unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest impartiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence in the discharge of their judicial functions in violation of Sec. 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. HELD: Since the impleading of additional parties, on motion of any party or motu propio at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just allowed, the Court finds that respondent’s participation in the admission of the supplemental petitions impleading herein complainants as respondents does not render them administratively liable. While respondents may have based the assailed Resolutions on mere allegations, this disregarding what has been established in jurisprudence that “mere allegation that a corporation is the alter ego of the individual stockholders is insufficient,” this does not render them administratively liable because not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice, which is not the case here.