G.R. No. 91718 - Gallardo vs. Rimando

Complainant Arsenio Reyes initiated a letter dated 10 February 1989 addressed to the "Office of the Chief Justice".
In his letter, he complained that subsequent to the RESOLUTION of 9 December 1987, "whatever FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT TRANSPIRED" were merely noted without further action.
He further alleged that the "HONORABLE SECOND DIVISION REFUSED TO LIFT THE RESOLUTION OF FEBRUARY 3, 1988".
Reyes also claimed that by simply noting Annexes "A" and "B" (submitted in his letter of 25 October 1988) addressed to the Chief Justice, the Court had violated Presidential Decree No. 27 of 21 October 1972 and its Implementing Circular No. 31 of 22 August 1973.

The administrative complaint is an offshoot of Civil Case No. 808-R from the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Pasay City Branch), entitled "Hilarion Bautista, et al., vs. Arsenio Reyes, et al."
In that civil case, respondent Atty. Dante Tinga appeared as counsel for some of the plaintiffs.
On 16 September 1970, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs:

Complainant, as defendant in that case, appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the pertinent portion of the decision.
Entry of judgment was made on 15 January 1979.
On 3 October 1979, an Order for execution was issued granting relief by way of withdrawal of ₱6,900.00 from the supersedeas bond, leading to the execution by Special Sheriff Alfredo San Miguel.
In his Return, Special Sheriff San Miguel noted that on 13 July 1981, Atty. Dante Tinga, counsel for the plaintiffs, withdrew ₱4,100.00 from the Clerk of Court’s office, plus an additional ₱2,800.00 garnished from the Bank of the Philippine Islands on 17 July 1981.

On 11 August 1987, Complainant filed a Petition for the suspension of Atty. Dante Tinga from the practice of law alleging:

Collection of attorney’s fees and expenses in violation of Article 2208 (1) and (10).
Acting as a private person and assuming the role of sheriff, colluding illegally with Alfredo San Miguel and Judge Manuel Romillo Jr. (the latter matter having been dismissed).
Pocketing the legal fees amounting to ₱6,900.00 instead of depositing the same with the Clerk of Court.

The collection of fees was in strict conformity with the Trial Court’s decision, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and executed via a proper writ.
The allegation by Complainant that the fees should have been deposited with the Clerk of Court was baseless.

Consequently, on 9 December 1987, the administrative complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.

On 3 February 1988, a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dismissing the complaint was filed and subsequently denied for lack of merit.
The same Resolution ordered respondent to furnish a copy of the Comment and submit proof of service within five (5) days.

January 25, 1988 – Motion to include the law firm of Pimentel, Tinga, Fuentes, Tagle and Malate, as well as other associates as additional respondents. This was noted in the Resolution of 14 March 1988.
March 29, 1988 – Manifestation alleging that respondent’s compliance with the 3 February 1988 Resolution was a fraud. Noted in the Resolution of 2 May 1988.
May 18, 1988 – Letter reiterating the background and asserting non-compliance with the Resolution of 3 February 1988, later noted on 15 June 1988.
August 29, 1988 – Letter requesting that an affidavit (attesting to the truth of the complaint) be attached to the case record; noted on 10 October 1988.
October 25, 1988 – Letter submitting Annexes "A" and "B" containing letters-complaint against Hon. Teodoro C. Bonifacio (Administrator of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration) addressed to the Ministry of Justice; noted on 23 January 1989.
February 10, 1989 – Letter setting forth further allegations and restating the complaint’s background.

Complainant claimed that the noted series of pleadings demonstrated a "scandalous disposition and bias" in handling the administrative matter, although the Court later clarified there was no such misconduct.

The administrative complaint had been conclusively dismissed for lack of merit.
Additional pleadings were extraneous since no further action was warranted after the finality of the dismissal.

The mere act of "noting" such submissions did not equate to any administrative bias or violation of law.
Emphasis was placed on the objectivity, impartiality, and adherence to truth and justice in the rendering of decisions.

Whether the Division erred by merely "noting" the subsequent pleadings, including Annexes “A” and “B”, without taking further action, thus allegedly manifesting a scandalous disposition and bias.
Whether noting the additional pleadings amounted to a violation of Presidential Decree No. 27 and its Implementing Circular No. 31, as contended by the Complainant.
Whether Complainant’s allegations, particularly the claim of non-compliance with the Resolution of 3 February 1988, provide a sufficient basis for re-examining a matter already dismissed on its merits.
Whether the series of motions and supplemental pleadings filed after the dismissal of the administrative complaint should have been considered or expunged from the record.