Case Summary (A.M. No. 07-6-14-CA)
Court En Banc’s Procedural Response and Requirement for Comments
Pursuant to the Court En Banc’s July 10, 2007 resolution, Justices Lim and Lopez and Clerk Ignes were directed to submit comments addressing the allegations contained in the anonymous letter. Each respondent filed a written comment, supported by documentary exhibits, addressing the specific charges leveled against them, explaining the circumstances of contested rulings and administrative acts, and disputing factual assertions in the anonymous communication.
Respondents’ Key Factual Assertions and Documentary Support
- Atty. Ignes: asserted she was absent March 6–10, 2006 (attending to duties as clerk in an administrative hearing) and had delegated office coverage to an assistant; learned of CEPALCO’s TRO only upon return on March 10, 2006; denied being approached regarding the CEPALCO matter; explained the entry of judgment in the Montessori de Oro case was issued after receipt of a Court certification confirming denial of an extension and absence of any petition for review on certiorari. She suggested allegations may have originated from disgruntled former employees. Documentary exhibits (certifications and correspondence) were offered to support her account.
- Justice Lim: acknowledged a delay in a particular appealed case but characterized the delay as six months and two days beyond the reglementary one-year period (the case was deemed submitted December 6, 2005 and decided June 8, 2007), explained that he had resolved 217 older cases (dating to matters pending in Manila) in the same period, and asserted his decision in the Zamboanga employees’ matter in fact favored the employees. He denied knowledge of any arrangement with Governor Cerilles or his father and denied partisan interest in Bukidnon politics; he pointed to issuance of an October 10, 2006 TRO in favor of Mayor Galario (contrary to the anonymous writer’s assertion). Regarding donations by Governor Zubiri at Court gatherings, Lim characterized contributions as voluntary and spontaneous and denied solicitation.
- Justice Lopez: stated a review of his dockets revealed no amicable settlement submitted for his resolution as alleged; asserted a longstanding reputation for fairness and independence and denied fraternization with politicians or susceptibility to their influence.
Legal Standards Applied by the Court
The Court reiterated that allegations of corruption against judicial officers require proof beyond reasonable doubt and that charges unsupported by adequate evidence should be rejected. The Court applied constitutional and ethical norms obligating prompt disposition of cases (12-month rule under Article VIII, Sec. 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution and Canon 6, Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct). The Court also relied on the jurisprudential principle that undue delay by judges undermines public confidence and that superior-court magistrates are held to higher standards of promptness and diligence.
Court’s Findings as to the Allegations Against Justice Lim
- Delay: The Court accepted that Justice Lim’s resolution of the Zamboanga employees’ appeal occurred more than six months after the reglementary one-year period, but credited his explanation that he had undertaken the resolution of a large backlog of older cases (217) and that the contested case was ultimately decided in favor of the employees. Absent evidence of malice, caprice, or illicit motive, the Court treated the delay as excusable but admonished Justice Lim to accord higher priority to cases implicating the welfare of government employees and to exercise greater discretion to avoid perceptions of “sitting” on cases.
- Alleged bias linked to donations and to Governor Zubiri: The Court found the record lacking proof of any corrupt motive or influence; it noted that accepted donations at events were described as spontaneous and did not supply evidence of quid pro quo. Nonetheless, the Court cautioned Justice Lim to be more circumspect about accepting cash donations that could create perceptions of impropriety.
Court’s Findings as to the Allegations Against Justice Lopez
The Court found the anonymous writer failed to substantiate assertions that Justice Lopez unduly delayed action on an amicable settlement or that he succumbed to political pressure. Because the anonymous submission did not identify the specific case and produced no corroborative evidence, the Court credited Justice Lopez’s denials and concluded the allegation was unproven.
Court’s Findings as to the Allegations Against Atty. Ignes
The Court accepted Atty. Ignes’s documentary proof that she was absent when CEPALCO’s urgent motion for resolution of its TRO application was filed and that she learned of the TRO only upon resuming office. CEPALCO’s own admission corroborated that no injunctive relief had issued prior to her departure. As to the entry of judgment in Montessori de Oro, the Court found
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 07-6-14-CA)
Nature and Procedural Posture
- En Banc matter decided January 18, 2011, reported at 654 Phil. 570, A.M. No. 07-6-14-CA.
- Origin: Anonymous letter dated June 10, 2007 addressed to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno alleging corruption at the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City (Mindanao Station).
- By Resolution of July 10, 2007, the Court En Banc required Court of Appeals Associate Justices Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr. and Mario V. Lopez, and 21st Division Clerk of Court Cherry Hope Valledor-Ignes to COMMENT on the anonymous letter.
- Formal Comments were filed: Atty. Ignes (August 31, 2007), Justice Lopez (August 31, 2007), Justice Lim (September 7, 2007).
- Decision authored by Justice Carpio Morales for the Court En Banc; concurrence by Corona, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, and Sereno, JJ.; Justice Perez took no part.
Substance of the Anonymous Letter — Allegations Summarized
- General allegation: Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City is "highly politicize[d]" so that politically connected persons obtain favorable decisions while unfavorable cases are delayed or ignored.
- Allegation of excessive delay and "sitting" on cases:
- Example: a case involving rank-and-file employees of the Province of Zamboanga allegedly submitted for decision over two years, contrary to the rule requiring decisions within one year of submission; the Civil Service Commission had ruled their termination illegal; the CA through Justice Lim allegedly issued an injunction enjoining implementation of the CSC decision and "sat" on the case.
- Allegation of bias and favoritism related to Mayor Jose M. Galario, Jr. (Valencia City, Bukidnon):
- Complaint that CA-Cagayan de Oro denied a TRO to the mayor despite jurisprudence (Ombudsman vs. Laja, G.R. No. 169241, May 2, 2006) indicating suspension penalties over one month permit appeal and delay in execution; alleged inconsistent treatment and corruption because Gov. Zubiri (political enemy of Mayor Galario) donated cash to CA-Cagayan de Oro Christmas parties.
- Allegation that Justice Lim solicited cash donations (not less than P50,000) from Gov. Zubiri at 2005 and 2006 Christmas parties for CA-Cagayan de Oro, creating a conflict or perception of impropriety.
- Allegation that Justice Lopez delayed resolution of a case presenting an amicable settlement and that he is susceptible to pressure from elective officials.
- Allegation that Atty. Cherry Hope Valledor-Ignes (Clerk of Court, 21st Division) functioned as a "TRO fixer":
- Specific claim that she arranged issuance of TROs by coordinating with lawyers and justices’ lawyers; cited example CEPALCO vs. Ferrochrome (CA-G.R. SP No. 00880) where CEPALCO allegedly obtained a TRO with her help.
- Claim that Atty. Ignes entered judgments in cases pending appeal in the Supreme Court (example given: Montessori de Oro).
- Anonymous writers asserted their anonymity was to avoid reprisals and promised to inform the Court of further transgressions.
Respondents’ Comments and Defenses — Atty. Cherry Hope Valledor-Ignes
- Atty. Ignes denied being a "TRO fixer" and explained her absence from the office during the relevant period:
- She designated assistant Cecilia Carbajosa to man the office while she was away assisting Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores in an administrative investigation/hearing in Davao City from March 6–10, 2006.
- She learned of the CEPALCO TRO only upon her return on March 10, 2006 when it was forwarded to her office for promulgation.
- She vouched for her assistant's integrity and denied being approached by CEPALCO counsel (though an in-house counsel for CEPALCO was her law school classmate).
- On the allegation of improper entry of judgments while appeals were pending (Montessori de Oro), she identified the specific case as CA-G.R. CV No. 79772, Montessori de Oro, Inc. v. First Malayan Leasing and Finance Corp., and explained:
- She acted on First Malayan’s motion for entry of judgment and issued an entry of judgment dated December 5, 2005 based on the Court’s October 24, 2005 certification by Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Judicial Records Office Teresita Dimaisip, certifying denial of Montessori de Oro’s motion for extension and absence of any petition for review on certiorari filed with the Supreme Court.
- She suggested the anonymous letter may have stemmed from disgruntled former court employees retaliating for disciplinary actions she had initiated.
Respondents’ Comments and Defenses — Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.
- Justice Lim characterized the anonymous letter’s allegation that he had been "sitting" on the Zamboanga employees’ case for over two years as grossly inaccurate and exaggerated:
- He explained the case (CA‑G.R. SP No. 86627, Gov. Aurora E. Cerilles vs. CSC et al.) was deemed submitted for decision on December 6, 2005 and due on or before December 6, 2006.
- He acknowledged a delay but quantified it as only six months and two days beyond the reglementary period, noting the case was decided on June 8, 2007.
- Justice Lim explained the reason for delay:
- He resolved 217 older cases (dating back to 1998) from December 5, 2005 to June 8, 2007, many of which had been pending before the Court of Appeals in Manila prior to creation of the Visayas and Mindanao Stations; he asserted substantial effort was devoted to resolving these cases.
- He denied any relationship with Gov. Cerilles or her father and stated that the case had been decided in favor of the rank-and-file employees (thus refuting the allegation of making "arrangements" to favor the governor).
- Regarding the Mayor Galario allegation and ties to Gov. Zubiri:
- He pointed out he in fact issued a Resolution dated October 10, 2006 in CA‑G.R. SP No. 01278‑MIN granting the TRO prayed for by Mayor Galario.
- He noted Gov. Zubiri was not a party