J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0056: Re: VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND, INC. (REPRESENTED BY JOSEPH B. USITA) AGAINST COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES HON. DANTON Q. BUESER, HON. SESINANDO E. VILLON AND HON. RICARDO G. ROSARIO. (OCA IPI No. 12-204-CA-J, 26 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (INDIRECT CONTEMPT) (BRIEF TITLE: RE DISBARMENT OF AMA LAND INC AGAINST CA JUSTICES)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Court:

(1) ABSOLVES and PURGES Felizardo R. Colambo, Alberto L. Buenviaje and Garry de Vera of any act of contempt of court:

(2) DECLARES and PRONOUNCES Joseph B. Usita, Darwin V. Dominguez and Arnel F. Hibo GUILTY of INDIRECT CONTEMPT for degrading the judicial office of respondent Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, and for obstructing and impeding the due performance of their work for the Judiciary, and, ACCORDINGLY, metes on each of Usita, Dominguez and Hibo a fine of F20,000.00, the same to be paid within 10 days from notice of this resolution.

AMA Land, Inc., Joseph B. Usita, Darwin V. Dominguez and Arne! F. Hibo are WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely in the future.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

HOW WOULD THE POWER TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT BE USED?

MUST BE USED SPARINGLY, WITH CAUTION, RESTRAINT, JUDICIOUSNESS, DELIBERATION, AND IN DUE REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

CAN THE CORPORATION AND ITS OFFICERS AND AGENTS BE HELD LIABLE FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT?

YES. FOR DISOBEYING JUDGMENTS, DECREES, OR ORDERS OF A COURT OR FOR COMMITTING ANY IMPROPER CONDUCT TENDING, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, TO IMPEDE, OBSTRUCT, OR DEGRADE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

WHAT ARE SOME PRECEDENTS TO SERVE AS GUIDES IN DETERMINING THE PROPER AMOUNT OF FINE?

In Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, 14 the Court meted on the CO MEL EC Chairman and four COMELEC Commissioners a fine of P20,000.00 each for various actions, including issuing three resolutions that were outside of the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, for degrading the dignity of the Court, for brazen disobedience to the lawful directives of the Court, and for delaying the ultimate resolution of the many incidents of the party-list case to the prejudice of the litigants and of the country. It is notable that the Court prescribed a fine of PS,000.00 each on the two remaining Commissioners whose actions were deemed less serious in degree.

In Heirs of Trinidad de Leon Vda. de Roxas v. Court of Appeals,15 we imposed a fine of Pl0,000.00 on the corporate officer who had caused the preparation and filing of the unwarranted complaint for reconveyance, damages and quieting of title in the trial court, an act that tended to impede the orderly administration of justice.

In Lee v. Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 85,16 the corporate officers who had acted for the corporation to frustrate the execution of the immutable judgment rendered against the corporation by a resort to various moves merited the maximum fine of F30,000.00 for each of them.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0056-AMA LAND

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0000: MOMARCO IMPORT COMPANY, INC., Petitioner, -versus- FELICIDAD VILLAMENA, RESPONDENT (G.R. NO. 192477, 27 JULY 2016, BERSAMIN, J.) (REMEDY WHEN ONE IS DECLARED IN DEFAULT; DEFAULT JUDGMENT)  (BRIEF TITLE: MONARCO VS. VILLAMENA)

DISPOSITIVE:

 “WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari; AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on January 14, 2010; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

GIST OF FACTS:

DEFENDANT FILED AN ANSWER BUT LATE. RTC DECLARED THEM IN DEFAULT. DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT. RTC RENDERED DEFAULT JUDGMENT. DEFENDANT APPEALED RTC’S ORDER DECLARING THEM IN DEFAULT AND THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT. CA AFFIRMED. DEFENDANT FILED PETITION IN THE SUPREME COURT QUESTIONING CA DECISION. SC AFFIRMED CA DECISION.

PETITIONER CLAIM THAT THE PERIOD TO FILE AN ANSWER HAS NOT YET COMMENCED BECAUSE OF THE DEFECTIVE SERVICE OF SUMMONS. IS HIS CONTENTION CORRECT?

NO. BY FILING AN ENTRY OF APPEARANCE, PETITIONER IS DEEMED AWARE OF THE COMPLAINT FILED.

JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFENDANT BECAME VESTED IN THE RTC AND CURED ANY DEFECT IN THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS.

WHAT OTHER ACT OR OMMISSION WAS CONSIDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS DECISION DENYING THE PETITION?

DEFENDANT FAILED TO FILE A MOTION TO LIFT THE ORDER OF DEFAULT.

BUT DEFENDANT FILED AN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO DECLARE IT IN DEFAULT. IS THIS NOT SUFFICIENT?

NO. THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED A MOTION TO LIFT ORDER OF DEFAULT AS PROVIDED IN THE RULES.

THE COURT NOTED THAT IN THEIR OPPOSITION, DEFENDANT TENDERED NO SUBSTANTIATION OF WHAT WAS ITS MERITORIOUS DEFENSE, AND DID NOT SPECIFY THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF FRAUD, ACCIDENT, MISTAKE, OR EXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE THAT PREVENTED THE FILING OF THE ANSWER BEFORE THE ORDER OF DEFAULT ISSUED -THE CRUCIAL ELEMENTS IN ASKING THE COURT TO CONSIDER VACATING ITS OWN ORDER.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0054-MOMARCO 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.