Case Digest (G.R. No. 109645)
Facts:
Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership and Manila Banking Corporation filed a petition to remove Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco from the judiciary shortly after notice of the Supreme Court’s July 25, 1994 judgment in the consolidated cases, alleging among others jurisdictional and procedural violations in reconstitution proceedings and in related orders affecting appeals and execution pending appeal. Dolores V. Molina sought the same judge’s removal and, while an earlier administrative complaint against him was dismissed without prejudice as premature, it was later revived in relation to the pending cases.The Supreme Court required comment and memoranda. No hearing was conducted. The case was submitted for resolution on the pleadings and memoranda, and the Court eventually referred it to the Court En Banc due to the seriousness of the charges and corresponding penalty. The judge argued the matter was moot and academic because of the earlier dismissal of an administrative complaint and the f
Case Digest (G.R. No. 109645)
Facts:
- Parties and nature of the proceedings
- Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership filed a petition seeking the removal from the judiciary of Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco of Br. 105, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City.
- Manila Banking Corporation (TMBC) joined the petition for removal.
- Dolores V. Molina (petitioner in her own case) sought relief against Hon. Presiding Judge of RTC, Quezon City, Br. 105, and Manila Banking Corporation in the context of the administrative removal proceeding.
- The Supreme Court resolved the matter per curiam, after referral to the Court En Banc due to the seriousness of the charges and the penalty.
- Consolidated cases and the July twenty-five, nineteen ninety-four judgment
- A judgment dated July 25, 1994 was rendered in consolidated cases.
- Shortly after notice of the July 25, 1994 judgment was served on Ortigas & Co. Ltd. counsel, Ortigas & Co. Ltd. filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Dismissal of Respondent Judge).
- The Motion for Reconsideration dated August 15, 1994 stated that while Ortigas & Co. Ltd. was awarded the basic reliefs it sought, the prayer specifically seeking that Hon. Judge Tirso D.C. Velasco be purged from the judiciary was not granted.
- Ortigas & Co. Ltd. invoked alleged glaring errors committed by Judge Velasco, including:
- Disregard of mandatory notice requirements in reconstitution proceedings.
- Reviving a long interred petition.
- Disregard of the Court’s decisions and warning to take extra care in reconstitution proceedings.
- Reliance on incredible and unbelievable evidence.
- Bad faith in disallowing the appeals of Ortigas and the Republic of the Philippines.
- Allowing execution pending appeal.
- TMBC administrative complaint filed before and dismissal without prejudice
- TMBC had already filed an administrative complaint against Judge Velasco as early as July 12, 1993.
- The complaint alleged gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the service, patent bias partially in favor of Dolores Molina, and hostility to those opposing her claims involving the same orders and rulings annulled by the Court’s July 25, 1994 decision.
- The case was docketed as Administrative Matter No. RTJ-93-1108, entitled Epimaco V. Oreta (On Behalf of the Manila Banking Corporation) v. Hon. Tirso D.C. Velasco, etc.
- The First Division dismissed the complaint without prejudice by Resolution dated October 18, 1995 for being premature.
- Procedural history in the Supreme Court before final submission for resolution
- The Court required Judge Velasco to file a comment on the petition for his removal within ten (10) days, but his filing was held in abeyance pending resolution of petitioner Molina’s motion for reconsideration of the July 25, 1994 decision.
- The Court denied Molina’s motion for reconsideration with finality in a Resolution dated January 23, 1995, which ordered Judge Velasco to submit within ten (10) days from notice his comment on Ortigas & Co. Ltd.’s August 15, 1994 Motion for Reconsideration.
- In a subsequent Resolution, the Court directed that no further pleadings, motions, or papers be filed except only as regards the issues directly involved in the August 15, 1994 Motion for Reconsideration.
- Judge Velasco submitted his Comment on March 17, 1995.
- By Resolution dated July 24, 1995, the Court:
- Declared the consolidated cases closed and terminated.
- Reiterated the restriction on further pleadings except as to issues directly involved in the August 15, 1994 motion.
- Directed the Clerk of Court to transmit the mittimus in both cases to the corresponding Courts of origin for appropriate action.
- The Court later treated other incidents, including:
- The liability of Dolores Molina and her lawyers for contempt of court.
- The extended Resolution promulgated on March 4, 1996 by the Third Division found Dolores Molina guilty of contempt for willful disregard of Court orders and sentenced her to pay a fine of P1,000.00, with related resolutions imposing further P1,000.00 on one of Molina’s lawyers.
- On May 20, 1996, the Court granted the parties thirty (30) days from notice to file memoranda if they so minded, in relation to the application for Judge Velasco’s removal.
- Judge Velasco filed his memorandum on June 26, 1996.
- TMBC and Ortigas filed their memoranda on July 15, 1996 and September 11, 1996, respectively.
- No hearing was conducted because the parties did not request it and raised no issue of fact requiring presentation of proof.
- Due to the seriousness of the charges and the penalty, the case was referred to the Court En Banc.
- Judge Velasco’s theory of mootness and academic nature
- In his memorandum, Judge Velasco theorized that the recycled petition for his dismissal was rendered moot and academic by:
- The dismissal without prejudice of the administrative case Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1108 on October 18, 1995.
- The entry of final and executory judgment of the Second Division dated July 25, 1994 in G.R. No. 109645 and G.R. No. 112564.
- The Court found the theory untenable, stating that:
- The dismissal in Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1108 was without prejudice to revival if the Court, in adjudicating the pending consolidated cases, found that the Decisions/Orders issued by respondent Judge violated judicial norms warranting disciplinary action.
- Other pertinent Resolutions clarified that administrative liability would be dealt with separately from the merits of the consolidated judgment.
- Finality and entry of the consolidated judgment would have no effect on the determination of administrative liability.
- The Court emphasized that the administrative liability was not directly in issue in proceedings leading to the consolidated judgment.
- The four main substantive charges against Judge Velasco
- The petition condemned acts described as serious, indefensible, and warranting dismissal from the service.
- Unwarranted dismissal of appeals and favoring Molina
- The Court found that Judge Velasco disregarded doctrines on dismissal of appeals and execution of judgments, favoring Molina.
- The Court stated the long-standing rule that RTC dismissal of appeals from its judgments is allowed only under the conditions in Sections 13 and 14, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
- The Court emphasized that the only ground for dismissal of an appeal by the RTC was failure to file the notice of appeal, or the record on appeal within the period; and that dismissal on grounds such as frivolousness, mootness, or other merits-related grounds was improper because such issues belonged to the appellate court.
- The Court also stated that the RTC could not dismiss appeals on grounds mentioned in Rule 50, or on other recognized grounds, because jurisdiction to dismiss on such bases belonged to the appellate court, not the court whose decision was in issue.
- Despite these rules, Judge Velasco dismissed:
- Ortigas’ appeal, declaring Ortigas’ notice of appeal a “mere scrap of paper” because Ortigas allegedly had no material interest.
- The appeal of the Office of the Solicitor General, branding it sham because it allegedly filed no formal opposition, no evidence was offered, and the appeal was allegedly tardy.
- The Court cited its July 25, 1994 judgment to show facts and legal rationale contradicting Judge Velasco’s rulings on interest and dismissal:
- Ortigas still retained title to street lots within the land in question and would lose them if the entire area were declared to belong to Molina.
- Judge Velasco’s acknowledgment of Ortigas’ status as vendor of the subdivision lots covered by Molina’s adverse claim implie...(Subscriber-Only)