Case Digest (G.R. No. 118584)
Facts:
Aurelia S. Gomez, petitioner, G.R. No. 118584, October 24, 1995, the Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The criminal prosecution originated in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15, Ozamiz City, where Aurelia S. Gomez was convicted of libel in Criminal Case No. 85-49 and sentenced to imprisonment, a fine, and damages in favor of Marieto M. Tan, Sr. The Office of the Solicitor General represents the People. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the CA initially dismissed the appeal on 5 September 1990 for failure to file an appellant’s brief but later accepted a Memorandum filed by petitioner and, after the appellee filed its brief and no reply brief was filed by petitioner, resolved on 21 June 1991 to consider the case submitted without a reply brief.
On 9 June 1992 the CA affirmed with modification the RTC decision (dispositive quoted below). Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the CA was denied. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court docketed as G.R. No. 108331, which was at first denied for non-compliance with administrative circulars but later reinstated and finally denied on the merits by resolution of 31 March 1993; motions for reconsideration were denied and entry of judgment in G.R. No. 108331 was made on 8 September 1993. Separately, petitioner’s G.R. No. 116398 seeking to set aside the RTC’s denial of probation was denied.
After the prosecution moved for execution of judgment in Criminal Case No. 85-49, the trial court issued a warrant of arrest. Subsequently petitioner filed a special civil action seeking certiorari and mandamus to annul the RTC decision, the CA resolution, and this Court’s resolution in G.R. No. 108331 and to compel the CA to give due course to an appeal upon filing an appellant’s brief. The Supreme Court dismissed that petition for “utter lack of merit” in a resolution of 31 May 1995 and required counsel for petitioner—Attorneys Alvin C. Go, Fernando C. Cojuangco, Vigor D. Mendoza, II, and Antonio A. Ligon—to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken for impeding execution of the judgment and misusing procedure in violation of Rule 10.03, Canon 10 and Rule 12.04, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
In their Explanation (21 June 1995) counsel claimed they acted in good faith to protect their client’s liberty, invoked equity to excuse procedural noncompliance, and asserted difficulty obtaining records from a prior counsel (Atty. Rodolfo Pactolin). The Court found these explanations unsatisfactory, noting counsel had access to records, could have obtained the necessary information expeditiously (including recourse to Section 37, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court regarding retention of records), and that material antecedent facts were suppressed in the petition. Counsel filed a Manifestation (8 Septem...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does a special civil action for certiorari lie to challenge a final judgment of the Supreme Court?
- Was the petitioner’s special civil action timely under the “reasonable time” standard of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court?
- Did counsel for petitioner breach their ethical duties by suppressing material facts and filing the petition in a manner constituting misuse of procedure w...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)