Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1888)
Allegations Against the Respondent
The administrative complaint against Judge Grageda includes accusations of grave abuse of discretion, direct bribery, violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, violations of Canons of Judicial Ethics, and rendering manifestly unjust judgments under Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code. These allegations stem from Grageda's actions related to the enforcement and approval of a settlement agreement that was internationally negotiated.
Settlement and Court Orders
In July 1997, plaintiffs engaged in global settlement proceedings led to an Omnibus Order on December 20, 2002, wherein Judge Grageda approved a compromise settlement. Following this, the plaintiffs requested the execution of the order, which was contested by the corporations on the basis that all obligations were satisfied. Despite this, Judge Grageda issued a writ of execution on April 15, 2003, ordering the corporations to comply.
Controversial Orders and Travel to the U.S.
Judge Grageda issued an order on June 30, 2003, staying the execution of the writ and allowing himself to travel to the U.S. to oversee evidence reception related to the case. The order and the arrangements for travel raised eyebrows as it didn't have prior approval from the Supreme Court or relevant judicial authority. He later conducted court proceedings in the Philippine Consulate in San Francisco from August 27 to September 29, 2003.
Grounds for Administrative Complaint
Complainant Maquiran filed the complaint alleging that Grageda’s actions constituted grave abuse of discretion by allowing a suspension of writ execution, engaging in direct bribery for accepting travel benefits, conducting unauthorized court proceedings outside the Philippines, violating judicial ethics, and issuing unjust orders.
Respondent's Defense
In his response, Judge Grageda disputes the claims, labeling them as fabricated and asserting that there was no bribery involved. He maintained that his decisions aimed at fulfilling judicial responsibilities were within his jurisdiction and invoked legal provisions justifying his actions. Furthermore, he defended his conduct in conducting proceedings abroad as being in good faith and necessitated by the complexities faced in the case.
Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
The OCA conducted an investigation and found reasonable grounds to hold Judge Grageda administratively liable for his a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1888)
Case Overview
- Title: Edgardo O. Maquiran, Complainant vs. Judge Jesus L. Grageda, Respondent
- Case Number: A.M. No. RTJ-04-1888 (Formerly OCA IPI 03-1913-RTJ)
- Date of Decision: February 11, 2005
- Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines, Second Division
- Complainant: Edgardo O. Maquiran, Chairman of the Banned Chemical Research and Information Center, Inc.
- Respondent: Judge Jesus L. Grageda, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao del Norte
Background of the Case
- The case originates from an administrative complaint against Judge Grageda for allegations including:
- Grave abuse of discretion
- Direct bribery
- Violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129
- Violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
- Rendering manifestly unjust judgment under Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code
- Complainant Maquiran represents a group of Filipino claimants, banana plantation workers, affected by the chemical dibromochloropropane.
- The claimants filed civil cases in multiple jurisdictions against several U.S.-based multinational corporations due to health impacts from chemical exposure.
- Civil Case No. 95-45 was assigned to Judge Grageda.
Settlement and Controversy
- In July 1997, a global settlement was reached in the U.S., known as the "Compromise Settlement, Indemnity and Hold Harmless Agreements."
- Judge Grageda approved the settlement on December 20, 2002, issuing an Omnibus Order.
- Following the approval, a writ of execution was issued on April 23, 2003, to collect settlement amounts from the defendant corporations.
- The writ was returned unsatisfied, prompting the defendants to file motions for reconsideration and