Title
Supreme Court
Re: Dolora Cadiz Khanna
Case
I.P.I. No. 15-227-CA-J
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2016
Khanna accused CA justices and judges of extortion over land dispute; SC dismissed claims against justices but ordered further probe into judges and sheriff.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-30894)

Allegations of Corruption and Extortion

Khanna filed a complaint alleging corruption and extortion against the respondents based on events that transpired following her purchase of land from Atty. Lucas Licerio. She alleged that she and her husband paid over ₱30,000,000 for these properties unaware that they were part of a reserved forest area. Following their possession and development of the property into a luxury resort, they faced harassment through legal actions initiated by Licerio.

Judicial Intervention and Alleged Demands for Money

After filing an injunction to stop Licerio’s alleged harassment, Khanna claims that Judge Exmundo demanded ₱300,000 for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and later requested ₱2,000,000 in exchange for a favorable judgment. Khanna asserts that she complied with these demands. When her property was forcibly taken again, she was told that Licerio had paid Judge Exmundo for a ruling in his favor, which she believed led to the denial of her injunction.

Complaints Against Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals

Subsequently, when Licerio filed a motion for execution pending appeal, Khanna contends that the CA justices ignored objections she raised. She alleged that they were involved in a scheme with Judge Gomez-Guillen and Sheriff Juan to solicit bribes in exchange for favorable rulings, revealing a demand for large sums of money, as recounted during a dinner meeting.

Responses from Respondents

In their responses, the respondents, including the justices of the Court of Appeals, denied all allegations of corruption and extortion, asserting that they have no knowledge of Khanna or any claims for bribes. Judge Exmundo denied any involvement in alleged demands for money and maintained that the complaints stemmed from Khanna’s dissatisfaction with his decision. He asserted that his judicial conduct was misrepresented.

Burden of Proof in Administrative Proceedings

The Supreme Court held that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the complainant. In this case, Khanna's allegations lacked substantial evidence; much depended on hearsay and second-hand information rather than direct proof of corrupt actions by the justices.

Findings and Conclusion

The Court ultimately found no substantial evidence supporting Khanna's claims against the associate justices of the CA, concluding that the allegations were unsubstantiated and appeared to stem from her dissatisfaction with the judicial rulings rather than any malfeasance by the justice system. Consequently, the administrative complai

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.