In Re Abesamis 102 Phil 1182
Subject: Basic Legal Ethics
FACTS
In 1988, the
Supreme Court ordered the lower court to order the restoration of the cockpit
to Flores. Judge Abesamis of the trial court however only received the mittimus
on April 13, 1988 and then the next 2 days, he received subsequent pleadings
from Flores and Ligon. Considering this, Judge Abesamis was only able to issue
an order favorable Flores on April20, 1988. But Ligon was able to secure a TRO
from the Court of Appeal enjoining Judge Abesamis from restoring the cockpit to
Flores on the ground of intervening events because apparently, Ligon was able
to buy the property from Flores’s lessors.
This was opposed
by Flores until it reached the Supreme Court where the Supreme Court noted that
such fact (of the supervening event) should be addressed by the trial court and
not the SC. From May 1989 to June 1989, Flores filed criminal and administrative
cases against Judge Abesamis, accusing him of partiality, evident bad faith,
and gross negligence, as well as of serious misconduct, inefficiency and
ignorance of the law, in deliberately delaying action on his motions to obtain
possession of the cockpit. The cases were dismissed for lack of merit. In
November 1989, Judge Abesamis issued a writ of execution ordering the
restoration of the cockpit to him, but this was again opposed by Ligon on the
ground of the supervening event which should be discussed by the trial court.
Judge Abesamis ruled in favor of Ligon. It was ruled by the trial court that
Ligon’s lawful acquisition of title to the cockpit and Flores’ continuing
failure to pay his debt of about P1.8 million to the former were supervening
events warranting Ligon’s retention of the cockpit and precluding its
restoration to Flores. This ruling was eventually affirmed by the Court of
Appeals and the Supreme Court. In 1993, Flores, however, again filed complaints
against Abesamis for serious misconduct but they were again dismissed for lack
of merit. In 1995, Flores once more filed in the Office of the Ombudsman a
complaint against Judge Abesamis, he accused Judge Abesamis of transgressing
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act “for alleged bias and prejudice in
granting a party’s motion which caused undue injury to complainant.”
The case was again dismissed. The Assistant
Ombudsman however ordered Flores to explain why he should not be cited forhe
should not be disciplinarily dealt with for willful disregard of the judgments
and orders of the Ombudsman and those of theCourt of Appeals; abuse of the
processes of the courts; and forum-shopping.
ISSUE
Whether or not
Flores is guilty of contempt of court.
RULING
Yes. Flores knew
that Judge Abesamis cannot restore the cockpit to him because of the TRO issued
by the Court of Appeals. He also knew that that the specific Orders of Judge
Abesamis upon which his criminal complaint was grounded had already been
sustained by higher courts, and consequently, his complaint was completely
devoid of merit. Flores actually resorted to administrative prosecution (or
institution of criminal actions) as a substitute for or supplement to the
specific modes of appeal or review provided by law from court judgments or
orders, on the theory that the Judges’ orders had caused him “undue injury.”
This is impermissible. Flores thus abused the processes of the court. He
resorted to the administrative procedure for disciplining Judges prescribed by
law, and even to criminal prosecution, notwithstanding that determination of
the correctness of the orders of Judge Abesamis. It would appear that improper
motives underlay the filing of his complaints: either to vent his wrath against
someone, anyone, because of his frustrations in his attempts to regain
possession of the cockpit, or to so intimidate the respondent Judges as to make
them more malleable in their subsequent actuations with respect to his future
motions. Finally, his initiation of the complaint was forum shopping of the
most blatant sort, a clear attempt to re-ventilate or re-litigate issues
already passed upon and definitively resolved by this Court, affirming action
on those same issues by the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court.
Flores is thus guilty of contempt; he was ordered to pay a fine by the SC.
No comments:
Post a Comment