J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2018-0043: LUIS JUAN L. VIRATA ET AL VS ALEJANDRO NG WEE ET AL (G.R. 220926, 27 MARCH 2018, VELASCO, JR. J.) AND RELATED CASES (G.R. 221058, 221109, 221135 AND  221218 )

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the following motions are hereby DENIED for lack of merit:

1. Motion for Partial Reconsideration filed by Luis Juan L. Virata;
2. Motion for Reconsideration ofMariza Santos-Tan;
3. Motion for Reconsideration of Manuel Estrella;
4. Motion for Partial Reconsideration of Alejandro Ng Wee;
5. Motion for Reconsideration of Simeon Cua, Vicente Cualoping, and Henry Cualoping;
6. Motion for Reconsideration of Anthony T. Reyes; and
7. Motion for Reconsideration of Westmont Investment Corporation.

No further pleadings or motions will be entertained.

Let entry of judgment be issued.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

“To emphasize, there were clear warning signs that Power Merge would not have been able to pay the almost P2.5 billion face value of its promissory notes. To Our mind, the Wincorp board of directors’ approval of the credit line agreement, notwithstanding these telltale signs and the above outlined circumstances, establishes the movant-directors’ liability to Ng Wee. For if these do not attest to their privity to Wincorp’s fraudulent scheme, they would, at the very least, convincingly prove that the movantdirectors are guilty of gross negligence in managing the company affairs. The movant-board directors should not have allowed the exclusion of Virata from the collection suit against Hottick knowing that he is a surety thereof. As revealed by their subsequent actions, this was not a mere error in judgment but a calculated maneuver to defraud its investors. Hence, the Court did not err when it ruled that Sec. 31 of the Corporation Code must be applied, and the separate juridical personality of Wincorp, pierced.

Moreover, the Court finds it highly suspect that the movant-directors, aside from Estrella, did not question why the case proceeded without the board chairman, John Anthony B. Espiritu (Espiritu). There were seventeen (17) named defendants in Civil Case No. 00-99006 with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39 in Manila, which included the entire composition of the Wincorp board of directors. If the movant-directors truly believed that they are on par with each other in terms of participation, then they should have instituted a cross-claim against Espiritu, or at least objected against his being dropped as a party defendant.”

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

SCD-2018-0043-LUIS JUAN L. VIRATA ET AL VS ALEJANDRO NG WEE ET AL

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 2018-0042: IN RE: DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012 IN OMB-M-A-10-023-A, ETC. AGAINST ATTY. ROBELITO* B. DIUYAN (02 APR 2018, DEL CASTILLO)  (BRIEF TITLE: IN RE DIUYAN)

DISPOSITIVE:

“THEREFORE, the Complaint against Respondent Diuyan ts DISMISSED for lack of ment.

SO ORDERED.”

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

 SCD-2017-0042-IN RE DECISION DATE SEPTEMBER 26 2012 IN OMB-M-A-10-023-A ETC. AGAINST ATTY. ROBELITO B. DIUYAN

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 2018-0001: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS JUDGE HECTOR B. SALISE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 7, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAYUGAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL SUR (A.M. NO. RTJ-18-2514 [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 16-10-387-RTC] 30 JAN 2018, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT/S: WHEN JUDGES ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE; MISCONDUCT; DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIMPLE MISCONDUCT AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT IN CASE OF JUDGES) (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS JUDGE SALISE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, THE COURT FINDS JUDGE HECTOR B. SALISE, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 6, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PROSPERIDAD AND EXECUTIVE JUDGE OF BRANCH 7, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BAYUGAN CITY, BOTH IN THE PROVINCE OF AGUSAN DEL SUR, GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AND HEREBY DISMISSES HIM FROM THE SERVICE WITH FORFEITURE OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS, EXCEPT LEAVE CREDITS, AND WITH PREJUDICE TO RE-EMPLOYMENT IN ANY BRANCH OR INSTRUMENTALITY OF THE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT DID JUDGE SALISE DO?

AMONG OTHER ACTS:

HE DECIDED THE CASE IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER DESPITE THE COURT’S LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT;

IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE RENDERED A PREMATURE DECISION IN CIVIL CASE NO. 1639 (FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE) GRANTING THE PETITION WITHOUT FIRST RULING ON THE PENDING MOTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

HE LIKEWISE DISMISSED CRIMINAL CASES ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE, SUPPOSEDLY “FOR PAUCITY OF PROOF ARID DEARTH OF EVIDENCE,” EVEN AFTER HE HAD ALREADY DETERMINED, EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE ACCUSED.

JUDGE SALISE ALSO DISMISSED CASES BASED ON FABRICATED GROUNDS.

MOREOVER, THERE WERE ALSO IRREGULARITIES IN THE MANNER BY WHICH JUDGE SALISE DISPOSED OF OR DISMISSED CRIMINAL CASES FOR VIOLATION OF R.A. 9165.

JUDGE SALISE ALSO DISMISSED SIMILAR CASES UNDER HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE CIRCUMSTANCES· AND WITHOUT DUE REGARD TO THE APPLICABLE PROCEDURAL RULES.

WHEN MAY A JUDGE BE HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE?

WHEN IT IS PROVEN THAT THE  ACTS WERE COMMITTED WITH FRAUD, DISHONESTY, CORRUPTION, MALICE OR ILL WILL, BAD FAITH, OR DELIBERATE INTENT TO DO AN INJUSTICE.

HOW ABOUT IF THE JUDGE IS SHOWN TO BE INEFFICIENT?

THE JUDGE CAN STILL BE HELD LIABLE ADMINISTRATIVELY WHEN THE INEFFICIENCY SPRINGS FROM A FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE SUCH A BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL RULE, LAW, OR PRINCIPLE, THE JUDGE IS EITHER TOO INCOMPETENT AND UNDESERVING OF THE POSITION AND TITLE VESTED UPON HIM, OR HE IS TOO VICIOUS THAT HE DELIBERATELY COMMITTED THE OVERSIGHT OR OMISSION IN BAD FAITH AND IN GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY.

MAY THE JUDGE BE ALWAYS SUBJECTED TO DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS FOR EVERY ERRONEOUS ORDER OR DECISION HE ISSUES?

NO. BUT THAT RELATIVE IMMUNITY IS NOT A LICENSE TO BE NEGLIGENT OR ABUSIVE AND ARBITRARY IN PERFORMING HIS ADJUDICATORY PREROGATIVES. IF JUDGES WANTONLY MISUSE THE POWERS GRANTED TO THEM BY THE LAW, THERE WILL BE, NOT ONLY CONFUSION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, BUT ALSO OPPRESSIVE DISREGARD OF THE BASIC REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LAW AND ESTABLISHED RULES.

IN THIS CASE FOR REPEATEDLY AND DELIBERATELY COMMITTING IRREGULARITIES IN THE DISPOSITION OF HIS CASES, THEREBY MANIFESTING CORRUPT INCLINATIONS, JUDGE SALISE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE MISUSED SAID POWERS.

DID JUDGE SALISE VIOLATE THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT?

INDUBITABLY, JUDGE SALISE VIOLATED THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT ORDERING JUDGES TO ENSURE THAT HIS OR HER CONDUCT, BOTH IN AND OUT OF COURT, MAINTAINS AND ENHANCES THE CONFIDENCE OF THE PUBLIC, THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND LITIGANTS IN THE IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDGE AND OF THE JUDICIARY.12 HE SIMPLY USED OVERSIGHT, INADVERTENCE, AND HONEST MISTAKE AS CONVENIENT EXCUSES. HE ACTED WITH CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE POSSIBLE UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES TO THE PARTIES INVOLVED.

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?

MISCONDUCT IS A TRANSGRESSION OF SOME ESTABLISHED AND DEFINITE RULE OF ACTION, MORE PARTICULARLY, UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOR OR GROSS NEGLIGENCE BY THE PUBLIC OFFICER.

TO WARRANT DISMISSAL WHAT KIND OF MISCONDUCT IS REQUIRED?

THE MISCONDUCT MUST BE GRAVE, SERIOUS, IMPORTANT, WEIGHTY, MOMENTOUS, AND NOT TRIFLING. THE MISCONDUCT MUST IMPLY WRONGFUL INTENTION AND NOT A MERE ERROR OF JUDGMENT AND MUST ALSO HAVE A DIRECT RELATION TO AND BE CONNECTED WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PUBLIC OFFICER’S OFFICIAL DUTIES AMOUNTING EITHER TO MALADMINISTRATION OR WILLFUL, INTENTIONAL NEGLECT, OR FAILURE TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE.

HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE GROSS MISCONDUCT FROM SIMPLE MISCONDUCT?

IN ORDER TO DIFFERENTIATE GROSS MISCONDUCT FROM SIMPLE MISCONDUCT, THE ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION, CLEAR INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW, OR FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULE, MUST BE MANIFEST IN THE FORMER. 13

WHEN TO HOLD A JUDGE ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE FOR SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OR INCOMPETENCE OF OFFICIAL ACTS IN THE EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES?

IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT HIS ACTS WERE COMMITTED WITH FRAUD, DISHONESTY, CORRUPTION, MALICE OR ILL WILL, BAD FAITH, OR DELIBERATE INTENT TO DO AN INJUSTICE.14 THE COURT HAS REPEATEDLY AND CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT THE JUDGE MUST NOT ONLY BE IMPARTIAL BUT MUST ALSO APPEAR TO BE IMPARTIAL AS AN ADDED (;1.SSURANCE TO THE PARTIES THAT HIS DECISION WILL BE JUST. THE LITIGANTS ARE ENTITLED TO NO LESS THAN THAT. THEY SHOULD BE SURE THAT WHEN THEIR RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED THEY CAN GO TO A JUDGE WHO SHALL GIVE THEM IMPARTIAL JUSTICE. THEY MUST TRUST THE JUDGE; OTHERWISE, THEY WILL NOT GO TO HIM AT ALL. THEY MUST BELIEVE IN HIS SENSE OF FAIRNESS; OTHERWISE, THEY WILL NOT SEEK HIS JUDGMENT. WITHOUT SUCH CONFIDENCE, THERE WOULD BE NO POINT IN INVOKING HIS ACTION FOR THE JUSTICE THEY EXPECT.15 JUDGE SALISE’S ACTS INDUBITABLY VIOLATED SAID TRUST AND CONFIDENCE, SERIOUSLY IMPAIRING THE IMAGE OF THE JUDICIARY TO WHICH HE OWES THE DUTY OF LOYALTY AND OBLIGATION TO KEEP IT AT ALL TIMES ABOVE REPROACH AND WORTHY OF THE PEOPLE’S TRUST.16

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

 SCD-2018-0001-Office of the Court Administrator Vs. Judge Hector B. Salise

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”.