Case Summary (G.R. No. 160445)
Procedural History and Legal Issues
The petitioners initially sought annulment of a judgment before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed their petition on procedural grounds. The Supreme Court denied their petition for review, citing failure to show reversible error, but later reinstated the petition upon motion for reconsideration. After respondent Security Bank’s comment and further review, the Supreme Court ultimately denied the petition again for failure to meet the necessary legal requisites. The key legal principle applied was that a petition for annulment of judgment cannot substitute for remedies such as appeal, motion for new trial, or petition for relief and must be based on extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process.
Petitioners’ Motion and Grounds for Annulment of Judgment
The petitioners argued that procedural dismissals sacrificed the interest of justice and equity and that their former counsel’s alleged gross negligence amounted to extrinsic fraud, a valid ground for annulment of judgment. The Supreme Court rejected their contentions, holding that extrinsic fraud involves preventing a party from presenting their case, which was not established. The Court emphasized that petitioners, as litigants, had the responsibility of monitoring their case and communicating with their counsel to avoid procedural lapses, such as missing the appeal period.
Petitioners’ Letter and Contempt Proceedings
After multiple denials of their petition, petitioner Mercado wrote a letter directly to Chief Justice Davide, asserting that the ponente (Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez) succumbed to “tremendous pressure” from the Chief Justice to favor Security Bank and alleging collusion and undue influence in the case's disposition. Mercado also insinuated that the ponente gave permission to sell his property, despite the litigation pending, resulting in property demolition and alleged deprivation of due process. The letter was highly accusatory, questioning the integrity and justice of the Court and its members.
Court’s Reaction and Contempt Charges
Chief Justice Davide required Mercado’s counsel, Atty. Jose P. Villanueva, to comment on the letter, and the Court ordered Mercado to appear and respond to contempt charges. Mercado swore to the truthfulness of his statements but admitted they were inspired by personal stress. Atty. Villanueva denied the allegations and submitted documentary evidence to refute the insinuations, including proof of his legitimate travel and denial of any improper dealings with the respondent bank.
Evidence and Testimonies
During hearings, Mercado testified that Atty. Villanueva told him about the ponente’s close relationship with the Court and that the petition’s dismissal was due to pressure from the Chief Justice. Villanueva admitted knowing the ponente for decades and confirmed her attendance at his mother’s wake but denied making the alleged statements suggesting influence. The Court appointed a Commissioner to investigate the factual disputes regarding the contempt allegations.
Findings on Malice, Bad Faith, and Disrespect
The Commissioner found Mercado guilty of improper conduct that tended to degrade the judiciary’s authority and administration of justice. Importantly, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Commissioner’s leniency, finding that Mercado acted with malice and bad faith by making baseless and malicious accusations that impugned the Chief Justice’s and ponente’s integrity, accusing them of bribery, undue influence, and depriving him of property without due process. Such statements were deemed beyond the bounds of fair criticism, constituting a serious attack on the Court’s honor and integrity.
Legal Standards on Annulment of Judgment and Petitioners’ Failures
The Court reiterated binding precedents that annulment of judgment does not replace lost appellate remedies and must be founded on extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process. Since petitioners failed to avail earlier remedies and did not sufficiently prove these grounds, dismissal of their petition was proper and legally sound. The Court also rejected petitioners’ insinuations that the change from reinstatement to denial of the petition was irregular, affirming the Court’s discretion in such procedural decisions.
Freedom of Speech and Limits in Contempt Cases
Mercado’s invocation of freedom of speech and privacy in defense of his contemptuous statements was dismissed. The Court held that freedom of speech does not protect abuse of such liberty, particularly when statements are contemptuous, defamatory, and undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Moreover, letters addressed to individual Justices regarding their judicial functions are matters of court concern and form part of the judicial record.
Liability of Atty. Jose P. Villan
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 160445)
Background and Procedural History
- Petitioners Jose Teofilo T. Mercado and Ma. Agnes R. Mercado filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, challenging the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated May 27, 2003, which dismissed their petition for annulment of judgment, and the Resolution dated October 23, 2003, which denied their motion for reconsideration.
- The Supreme Court initially denied the petition on January 12, 2004, citing petitioners’ failure to demonstrate reversible error by the Court of Appeals.
- Petitioners moved for reconsideration, alleging the Court of Appeals applied mere technical rules of procedure and accused their former counsel of gross negligence constituting extrinsic fraud to annul the trial court’s judgment.
- The Court granted the motion for reconsideration on March 24, 2004, reinstating the petition and requiring the respondent, Security Bank Corporation, to comment.
- Security Bank filed a comment denying the alleged extrinsic fraud and arguing petitioners had options ignored, such as terminating their counsel.
- On June 7, 2004, the Supreme Court again denied the petition, reaffirming the absence of reversible error.
- Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on September 15, 2004. The Court emphasized that an annulment of judgment cannot replace lost appeal remedies and reiterated that annulment must be based on extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction, or denial of due process, none of which were present.
- A second motion for reconsideration was dismissed as prohibited.
Facts Leading to Contempt Proceedings
- On October 18, 2004, petitioner Jose Teofilo T. Mercado wrote a letter to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. containing serious accusations including:
- The ponente succumbed to "tremendous pressure" from the Chief Justice in denying the petition.
- The respondent bank financed the ponente’s travel to the U.S.
- The ponente gave the respondent a "go signal" to sell petitioners’ property despite the pending case.
- The letter accused Chief Justice Davide of depriving petitioners of their property without due process, questioned judicial integrity, alleged collusion and bribery, and threatened to seek redress in another forum.
- The letter was deemed disrespectful, impertinent, and contemptuous toward the Court and its officers.
Contempt Proceedings and Investigation
- On November 2, 2004, Chief Justice Davide required petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Jose P. Villanueva, to comment on the letter and show cause why he should not be held in contempt.
- The Court’s Third Division ordered Mercado to appear and explain why he should not be held in contempt; Mercado personally appeared with his new counsel and swore to the truth of his letter.
- Mercado claimed his accusations were based on statements by Atty. Villanueva, who allegedly informed him of the reasons behind the petition’s denial and that the ponente and he were close friends.
- Atty. Villanueva denied making such statements, submitted evidence of his legitimate London trip unrelated to the case, and refuted Mercado