Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 169-J)
Facts:
On May 20, 1970, Fritzie R. Espejo-Ty filed with the Supreme Court a verified complaint for disbarment against Lourdes P. San Diego, then an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, alleging (1) serious misconduct as a member of the Committee of Bar Examiners in the 1963 Bar Examinations involving her son-in-law, Santiago Ortega, Jr.; and (2) falsification of a public document through an order dismissing a slander case while respondent was Presiding Judge of Branch IX of the Court of First Instance of Rizal.The Court required memoranda on whether it had jurisdiction given respondent’s status as an Associate Justice removable only by impeachment, and later required answers on the merits. Respondent denied both specifications, while complainant maintained that the Court retained authority to discipline her and that Congress could still impeach her.
Issues:
- Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decide a complaint for disbarment against a Justice of th
Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 169-J)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of the case
- Complainant Fritzie R. Espejo-Ty filed with the Court a verified complaint for disbarment.
- Respondent was Lourdes P. San Diego, a member of the Philippine Bar and an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
- Filing of the complaint and specifications of misconduct
- On May 20, 1970, complainant filed the verified disbarment complaint charging respondent with serious misconduct under two specifications.
- First specification (misconduct as bar examiner).
- Complainant alleged that in 1963, respondent accepted appointment as member of the Committee of Bar Examiners and served as examiner in Commercial Law.
- Complainant alleged respondent knew her son-in-law, Santiago Ortega, Jr., was a candidate for the 1963 bar examinations and was related to her within the first civil degree by affinity.
- Complainant alleged respondent gave her son-in-law the highest rating of 91% in Commercial Law to ensure his passing.
- Complainant alleged that because of the rating given, Santiago Ortega, Jr. obtained a general average of 74.9%, passing by a slim margin of 0.4% above the reconsidered qualifying general average of 74.5%.
- Complainant alleged the acts damaged the integrity of the bar admission proceedings and disadvantaged other examinees.
- Second specification (falsification of public document).
- Complainant alleged that on April 2, 1968, while acting as Presiding Judge of Branch IX of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City, respondent issued an order in Criminal Case No. Q-7067 for slander.
- The case title in the allegation was: People of the Philippines, Plaintiff, vs. Maria A. Agapito, Accused.
- Complainant alleged respondent dismissed the case and acquitted the accused based on a statement that, when the case was called for trial that day, the Fiscal moved for dismissal on the ground that the complainant showed lack of interest in prosecuting, which complainant alleged was false.
- Complainant alleged no such motion was presented by the Fiscal, and no manifestation of lack of interest was made by the offended party, Atty. Leon O. Ty.
- Complainant alleged the act prejudiced the State and the offended party.
- Initial procedural step on jurisdiction over an Associate Justice
- On August 13, 1970, the Court resolved to require both complainant and respondent to submit memoranda within 15 days on the Court’s jurisdiction to act on the complaint, considering that respondent was a Justice of the Court of Appeals and was removable only by impeachment according to law.
- Respondent’s memorandum on lack of jurisdiction
- On August 28, 1970, respondent filed her “Memorandum of Authorities” asserting that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to disbar an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
- Respondent’s grounds in the memorandum included:
- Disbarment cannot prosper because an Associate Justice can be removed only by impeachment.
- Impeachment is exclusively lodged in the legislature.
- Impeachment grounds are exclusively those enumerated in the Constitution: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery and other high crimes.
- A Justice of the Court of Appeals may not be impeached for acts allegedly committed during a prior term of office (when respondent was then a Judge of the Court of First Instance).
- Complainant’s memorandum and reply positions
- Respondent required to comment on complainant’s memorandum; respondent filed her reply memorandum dated November 10, 1970; complainant filed a rejoinder dated December 30, 1970.
- In her memorandum, complainant maintained:
- The Supreme Court still had authority to investigate charges relating to bar examination anomaly despite respondent’s appointment to the Court of Appeals.
- Respondent’s appointment did not ipso facto clear her of anomalous acts committed as bar examiner.
- Congress retained power to impeach and try respondent.
- Further proceedings and respondent’s answer on the merits
- On January 18, 1971, the Court, without resolving the jurisdiction question in the interim, required respondent to file an answer.
- Respondent’s answer:
- Denied the charges of “acts constituting serious misconduct.”
- For the bar examiner charge, respondent alleged complainant filed the “very same charge” before the sub-committee on justice of the Commission on Appointments during confirmation of respondent’s appointment, but complainant failed to produce evidence; respondent was exonerated.
- Respondent asserted defenses as to the bar examiner incident:
- She did not solicit the appointment as bar examiner.
- She did not conceal her son-in-law’s status as an examinee.
- She did not violate any law by accepting the appointment.
- She did not practice favoritism because tight security measures prevented examiners from identifying the examinees through examination notebooks.
- She did not approach any bar examiners on behalf of her son-in-law.
- At the committee meeting, she voted against passing any candidate who got less than 50% in any subject.
- The committee allegedly flunked Santiago Ortega, Jr. because he got less than 50% in one subject.
- Santiago Ortega, Jr. allegedly filed petitions with the Supreme Court:
- A petition to be admitted based on a general average of 74.9% despite a 45% in Civil Law, which the Supreme Court allegedly denied by resolution of May 20, 1964.
- After denial, he allegedly joined other candidates in a common petition; based on a general average higher than 74.5% but less than 50% in one subject; the Supreme Court allegedly granted by resolution of September 22, 1964.
- After the Supreme Court issued the September 22, 1964 resolution, and when Santiago Ortega was admitted on October 26, 1964, the bar examiners committee had allegedly been dissolved and become functus officio.
- Respondent alleged a historical fact about Santiago Ortega’s favored subject in law school: Commercial Law, where he obtained a bar review grade of 1.25 and a rank of 1.5 among 22 reviewers in the University of Nueva Caceres.
- For the falsification of public document charge, respondent alleged:
- The same charge had also been filed with, fully investigated by, and dismissed by the sub-committee on justice of the Commission on Appointments.
- Respondent’s explanation of the slander case dismissal order:
- Criminal Case No. Q-7067 was originally filed by Leon O. Ty before the City Court of Quezon City against Maria A. Agapito, for slander.
- The City Court found the accused guilty and imposed a fine of P50.00.
- The case was appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal and heard by respondent as Presiding Judge of Branch IX.
- During trial, complainant testified, and in questions by Atty. Leon O. Ty (acting as private prosecutor), respondent allegedly gathered that the accused never apologized to the offended party despite opportunities and even after being advised.
- Respondent allegedly asked Atty. Leon O. Ty whether he and his wife would forgive the accused if the accused apologized; respondent asserted the prosecutor answered that he was a Christian and could forgive.
- Respondent allegedly suspended the trial and invited the parties for dialogue in her chamber.
- Respondent alleged that after exchange, the accused apologized; the Tys accepted the apology; and the parties shook hands.
- Respondent asserted counsel for the accused (Atty. Alfonso Cruz) asked for dismissal.
- Respondent asserted the Fiscal manifested that he could not do otherwise but agree to dismissal.
- Respondent alleged that when responden...(Subscriber-Only)