EN BANC

A. C. No. 2756, November 12, 1987

PRUDENTIAL BANK, COMPLAINANT, !. "UD#E "O!E P.
CA!TRO AND ATT$. BEN"AMIN M. #RECIA,
RE!PONDENT!.
D E C I ! I O N
PER CURIAM%
On April 11, 1985, the late Pio Pedrosa, former President of complainant Prudential
Bank, filed this Administrative Complaint praying that udge ose P! Castro, former
Presiding udge of the "egional #rial Court in $ue%on City, Branch &'''(, )e
disciplinarily dealt *ith and that +is)arment proceedings )e instituted against
respondent Atty! Ben,amin -!.recia!
#his +ecision deals only *ith the +is)arment Case against "espondent .recia, the
Complaint as against respondent udge Castro having )een decided )y this
Court en )anc onune 5, 198/!
#he Complaint alleges, among others0
1222 222 222
34! 5n 196/, 1969 and 1984, -acro #e2tile -ills Corporation 7-AC"O for short8
applied for and *as granted credit facilities )y the )ank secured )y real estate
mortgages!
39! -AC"O having repeatedly defaulted on its o)ligations, the )ank finally applied for
e2tra,udicial foreclosure of its mortgages over #C# :o! ;/189;! #he sale *as
conducted, consummated and registered in the day )ook of the register of deeds and
annotated on the title itself!
35! On August ;, 1989, -AC"O through Atty! -ario <! (alderrama filed a complaint
for annulment of mortgage and to en,oin foreclosure!
3/! On August /, 1989, -AC"O through ne* counsel here respondent Ben,amin
-! .recia filed an amended complaint alleging and claiming P5=,===,===!== actual and
compensatory damages and P;=,===,===!== as value of the mortgaged property!
36! On the same day, August /, 1989, respondent udge ose P! Castro issued an
order restraining the register of deeds of $ue%on City >from acting on, and completing
)y affi2ing his signature on, the assailed registration of the sale at pu)lic auction of the
mortgage property descri)ed under #C# :o! ;/189; su),ect of this action1 ? 2 2 2
38! On the same day, August /, 1989, respondent udge ose P! Castro also issued
an order of attachment of the properties of the )ank 1to the value of the said demands
of costs of suit!@ 2 2 2!
1#he *rit of attachment having )een attempted to )e e2ecuted againt the )ank, the
)ank posted on August 1/, 1989 a P1= million )ond to discharge it and filed a motion to
discharge attachment *ithout pre,udice! "espondent ,udge never acted on said )ond
or motion!
19! On August 1=, 1989, the day scheduled for the hearing of
respondent -AC"OAs application for preliminary in,unction, the )ank filed a motion to
discharge restraining order and opposition to application for preliminary in,unction and
attachment! "espondent ,udge never resolved the motion nor approved the )ond!
11=! Bor the filing of the complaint, the clerk of court collected only the amount of
P;1=!== evidenced )y Official "eceipt :os! /4;8989 and /4;8/95 )oth datedAugust ;,
1989! 2 2 21
1Cince the original complaint interposed a P5= million claim for damages and sought the
annulment of mortgage over a property *orth several millions although its value *as
not stated and since the amended complaint increased the claim for damages to P6=
million and also sought the annulment of mortgage over a property no* stated to )e
*orth P;= million, the )ank filed a motion on August 15, 1989 to collect the proper
filing fees *hich at least should have )een P149,9==!==! +espite motions to resolve
dated August 16, Ceptem)er 4 and Octo)er ;/, 1989, respondent udge ose P! Castro
took no action *hatsoever!
111! "espondent udge ose P! Castro rendered on :ovem)er 1/, 1989 7notice
received :ovem)er ;/, 19898 summary ,udgment annulling the )ankAs mortgage and
ordering the )ank to pay P4= million as actual damages and P4 million as e2emplary
damages plus ;=D attorneysA fees for respondent Atty! Ben,amin -! .recia? despite
opposition! 2 2 21
1222 222 222
11;! On Be)ruary 6, 1985, respondent udge ose P! Castro issued an order denying
the )ankAs 19?page 7e2cluding affidavits8 motion for reconsideration as pro forma and
on Be)ruary 14, 1985 an order granting -AC"OAs motion for e2ecution of his summary
,udgment as final and e2ecutory on the ground that the allegedlypro forma motion for
reconsideration did not toll the running of the period of appeal!
1222 222 222
17)8 Ee issued that *rit of e2ecution not*ithstanding the timely filing )y petitioner of a
notice of appeal!
1#he )ankAs counsel having received notice of the order denying their motion for
reconsideration on Be)ruary 14, 1985, on that same day of their receipt of said notice,
the )ank filed their notice of appeal to the 5ntermediate Appellate Court ? though it still
had four 798 days left of its 15?day period of appeal!
17c8 Forse, the e2ecution of said *rit of e2ecution *as attempted on a Briday,
at 4055 P!-!, *ith a demand for the moneys of the )ankAs tellers rather than for other
assets!
1At 4055 P!-!, Briday, Be)ruary 15, 1985, the sheriff accompanied )y -AC"OAs Atty!
Ben,amin .recia 7respondent here8 and several other deputy sheriffs and men s*ooped
do*n on the )ankAs )ranches and principal office to enforce the *rit of e2ecution dated
Be)ruary 19, 1985! #hey demanded delivery to them of all availa)le cash money )ut, it
having )een closing hour, the tellers had already )rought their cash to the vaults *hich
*ere then closed! #hey thereupon took the )o2es and coin counters, adding machines,
type*riters, etc! and set them near the doors of the )ank! At past midnight, they left
*ith notice that they *ould resume e2ecution on -onday morning at the principal office
of the )ank and its )ranches!
1Fith those )o2es, coin counters, adding machines, type*riters, etc! seGuestered, the
)ank and its )ranches *ould not )e a)le to service depositors and clients ne2t -onday
? and feared that if it could not service its depositors and clients a ArunA might occur!
1Bortunately, the Cupreme Court in .!"! :o! /99=6 intervened that early -onday
morning *ith a restraining order!
1222 222 222
11/! Attached hereto as Anne2 1:1 hereof is a list of other cases involving other
parties *hich sho* a A,oint ventureA )et*een respondent udge ose P! Castro and
respondent Atty! Ben,amin -! .recia!
1FE<"<BO"<, it is respectfully prayed that the Cupreme Court order the investigation
of respondents udge ose P! Castro and Atty! Ben,amin -! .recia!1
H1I
Ans*ering the charge for dis)arment, "espondent .recia avers, inter alia0 718 that the
facts and proceedings alleged in the complaint do not constitute any of the recogni%ed
grounds for dis)arment )esides the fact that they are the very su),ect?matter of the
appeal taken to the Court of Appeals in AC?.!"! C( :o! =5/11 still pending thereat, so
that the complaint is improper and prematureJ 7;8 that the charge is purely and plainly
an unfounded grievance of a party *hich lost its case in the #rial Court against the
la*yer of the party *hich prevailed in that case and is intended merely to harass,
em)arrass and degrade him and to deprive him of his livelihoodJ 748 that the collection
of the docket fee is an act *ithin the province of the clerk of court *hich cannot )e
imputed to respondent nor serve as a ground for his dis)armentJ 798 that the 1list of
other cases involving other parties 2 2 2 sho* a >,oint ventureK )et*een respondents is
an empty and a gratuitous conclusion, an un,ust, improper and insupporta)le
accusation, *hich renders the complaint insufficient and, conseGuently dismissi)le1,
nine 798 out of the fourteen 7198 cases in the list )eing cases of other la*yers, and that
the proper parties to make the charge of a 1,oint venture1 )eing the parties in the
1other cases1J and 758 that in almost thirty 74=8 years of la* practice, respondent has
not once )etrayed his oath of office )ut has o)served 1photographic fidelity to the
Canons of &egal <thics1!
On -ay 8, 198/, "espondent .recia filed a -otion to +ismiss +is)arment Complaint
and for <arly "esolution of the Case on the ground that the +ecision of the Court of
Appeals promulgated on April ;4, 198/ in AC?.!"! :o! =5/11 7Case :o! $?9;499 of the
"#C of $ue%on City8 entitled 1-acro #e2tiles -ills Corp!, Plaintiff?Appellee vs! Prudential
Bank L #rust Co!, et al!, +efendants?Appellants1 1conclusively sustained and upheld the
facts involved and proceedings taken in Case :o! $?9;499J overruled the arguments
advanced )y the complainant )ank against said facts and proceedingsJ and *ith the
e2ception of a modification of the sums of damages and attorneyAs fees a*arded to
-acro, affirmed the decision of the trial court1!
On une 5, 198/, the Court en )anc rendered a Per Curiam +ecision as against
respondent udge ose P! Castro, *hich is Guoted in full )elo* in order to furnish the
proper )ackdrop to the +is)arment Case against "espondent .recia!
1Prudential Bank 7Complainant Bank8 instituted this administrative case on April 11,
1985, praying this Court to investigate "espondent udge ose P! Castro, presiding over
"egional #rial Court, :ational Capital udicial "egion, Branch &'''(, $ue%on City,
7"espondent udge8, and Atty! Ben,amin -! .recia 7"espondent.recia8, in connection
*ith their actuations in a civil case 7the "#C CAC<8, tried and decided )y "espondent
udge and *here plaintiff *as represented )y "espondent .recia!
1#he "#C CAC< *as entitled >-acro #e2tile -ills Corporation, Plaintiff, vs! prudential
Bank L #rust Co!, AMA #he Prudential Bank and Ben,amin Baens del "osario, :otary
Pu)lic for $ue%on City, +efendantsK! Plaintiff in the "#C CAC< shall hereinafter )e
referred to simply as -AC"O! 5t *as the registered o*ner of a 19,994 sG! m! lot
in $ue%on City, covered )y #C# :o! ;/189; 7the A-AC"O P"OP<"#NA8, alleged to have a
value of a)out P;= million!
1Fhat has )een prayed for )y Complainant Bank is the e2ercise )y this Court of its
po*er to discipline "espondent udge, and the initiation of proceedings for the
dis)arment or suspension of "espondent .recia!
1Based on documents su)mitted to this Court, the relevant facts upon *hich this
"esolution is )ased may )e stated as follo*s0
31! #he President and .eneral -anager of -AC"O is named .o Cun Oy! Ee is also a
partner of, or a signatory for, a partnership named .ala2y #ricot -anufacturing Co!
7.A&A'N, for short8!
3;! As of anuary ;9, 1984, -AC"O and .A&A'N, together, *ere inde)ted to
Complainant Bank in the principal sum of P9,51=,===!==!
34! On the said date of anuary ;9, 1984, -AC"O, through .o Cun Oy, e2ecuted a
mortgage over the -AC"O P"OP<"#N 71notari%ed1 on anuary ;/, 19848 in favor of
Complainant Bank to guarantee the then, as *ell as future, o)ligations of -AC"O
andPor .A&A'N in favor of the mortgage!
39! -ore than a year after, or on April 11, 1989, Complainant Bank sent a letter of
demand to -AC"OP.A&A'N demanding payment of their pending o)ligations in the
total sum of P11,/;9,5=4!9;, e2clusive of interest!
35! On uly 1;, 1989, Ben,amin Baens del "osario, as a :otary Pu)lic
for $ue%on City, issued a 1:otice of Cale By :otary1, scheduled for August /, 1989, for
the e2tra?,udicial foreclosure sale of the -AC"O P"OP<"#N!
3/! On August ;, 1989, -AC"O filed the complaint in the "#C CAC< through Atty!
-ario <! (alderama, alleging principally that .o Cun Oy had no authority to mortgage
the -AC"O P"OP<"#N and that his e2ecution of the mortgage *as due to fraudulent
manipulations of Complainant Bank! #he Complaint further stated that -AC"O *as
entitled 1to actual damages amounting to at least P5=,===,===!== as *ell as to
compensatory damages1! Preliminary attachment *as prayed for on >so much of the
properties of defendant Bank and defendant :otary as may )e sufficient to satisfy any
,udgment that may )e rendered against them!K
16! Bour days thereafter, or on August /, 1989, the Complaint *as amended over the
signature of "espondent .recia! #he amendments are of no su)stantial relevance to
this "esolution! #he same prayer for preliminary attachment *as reiterated!
18! On the same date of August /, 1989, "espondent udge, stating that the sale
had not taken place on that date, issued an Order temporarily restraining the "egister
of +eeds of $ue%on City from registering any +eed of Cale of the -AC"O P"OP<"#N!
19! "espondent udge then resolved the "#C CAC< through a summary ,udgment
rendered on :ovem)er 1/, 1989! 5n the +ecision, the mortgage of the -AC"O
P"OP<"#N *as declared null and void, and Complainant Bank and :otary Pu)lic del
"osario *ere ordered to pay -AC"O more than P44 million in damages plus ;=D
attorneyAs fees!
11=! Burther, paragraph ; of the dispositive part of the +ecision provided as follo*s0
1 >;! #he "egister of +eeds of $ue%on City to cancel immediately the registration and
annotation of the +eed of "eal <state -ortgage dated anuary ;/, 1984, as *ell as its
foreclosure, notice of sale and certificate of sale on the Original #ransfer Certificate of
#itle :o! ;/189;JK
1#he foregoing paragraph ; is of primary relevance to this "esolution! Fhat *ill )e
noted therein is that the o*nerAs duplicate of #C# :o! ;/189;, still in the possession of
Complainant Bank, *as not declared cancelled! #he continued e2istences of that
o*nerAs duplicate could prevent the registration of a sale of the -AC"O P"OP<"#N
*ithout it )eing surrendered to the "egister of +eeds as the la* reGuires the production
of the o*nerAs duplicate certificate *henever any voluntary instrument is presented for
registration 7Cec! 54, P!+! :o! 15;9, the Property "egistration +ecree8!
311! On +ecem)er 6, 1989, Complainant Bank filed a -otion for "econsideration of
the summary ,udgment!
31;! Fithout ruling on Complainant BankAs -otion for "econsideration,
"espondent udge, in an Order dated anuary 6, 1985, amended paragraph ; of his
+ecision, )y directing the "egister of +eeds of $ue%on City ?
3 >2 2 2 to cancel immediately the registration of the +eed of real estate mortgage
dated anuary ;9, 1984 on the )ack of #C# :o! ;/189; pursuant to the aforesaid
decision, and to issue in favor of the plaintiff another o*nerAs copy of said transfer
certificate
of title after said cancellation, in lieu of the copy in the possession of the defendant?
)ank*hich is here)y deemed cancelled!A
1#he amendment of paragraph ; ordered the cancellation of the o*nerAs duplicate of
#C# :o! ;/189;, in the possession of Complainant Bank, and the issuance of a ne*
o*nerAs duplicate of said #C# to
-AC"O! #hus, -AC"O *as placed in a position to dispose of the -AC"O P"OP<"#N!
314! 7a8 Ceven days thereafter, or on anuary 19, 1985, -AC"O sold the -AC"O
P"OP<"#N to Balconi -arketing and -anufacturing, 5nc! 7BA&CO:5, for
short8 forP/ million!
7)8 On anuary 15, 1985, #C# :o! ;/189; *as cancelled and #C# :o! 4;/69= *as
issued in the name of BA&CO:5!
319! On Be)ruary 6, 1985, "espondent udge denied Complainant BankAs -otion for
"econsideration >not only for )eing pro forma )ut also for lack of meritK! Opon receipt
of the corresponding Order on Be)ruary 14, 1985, Complainant Bank filed a notice of
appeal to the 5ntermediate Appellate Court!
115! ConseGuent to the denial of the -otion for "econsideration filed )y Complainant
Bank, "espondent udge, in his Order of Be)ruary 14, 1985, considered his +ecision in
the "#C CAC< to )e final and ordered the issuance of a Frit of <2ecution, *hich also
constituted a denial of Complainant BankAs appeal!
31/! 7a8 On Be)ruary 18, 1985, Complainant Bank came to this Court
on Mandamus/Certiorari 7.!"! :o! /99=68, asking that "espondent udge )e ordered to
allo* its appeal from the +ecision rendered in the "#C CAC< to the 5ntermediate
Appellate Court and to annul the Order and Frit of <2ecution he had previously issued!
7)8 Pro)a)ly )ecause of the Order of this Court restraining e2ecution of the +ecision in
the "#C CAC<, "espondent udge, on -arch 14, 1985, gave course to the appeal of
Complainant Bank to the 5ntermediate Appellate Court!
316! 7a8 On April 1, 1985, Complainant Bank caused a :otice of &is Pendens to )e
annotated on BA&CO:5As title!
7)8 5n .! "! :o! /99=6, this Court, on -ay 41, 1985, set aside the "esolution of
anuary 6, 1985 of "espondent udge!
7c8 On une ;/, 1985, the Acting "egister of +eeds of $ue%on City denied the reGuest
of Complainant Bank, invoking this CourtAs resolution in .!"! :o! /99=6, for the
cancellation of #C# :o! 4;/69= in the name of BA&CO:5!
7d8 Cometime in une, 1985, BA&CO:5 instituted a Complaint against Complainant Bank
and the "egister of +eeds of $ue%on City for the cancellation of the :otice
of &isPendens on its #C# :o! 4;/69=, *hich case is pending )efore the "egional #rial
Court of $ue%on City, Branch &'''(5!
7e8 On Ceptem)er ;4, 1985, this Court in .! "! :o! /99=6, ordered the "egister of
+eeds 7i8 to cancel the ne* o*nerAs +OP&5CA#< OB #C# :o! ;/189;J 7ii8 to restore the
old #C# :o! ;/189;, *ith the annotated mortgage lien in favor of Complainant BankJ
and 7iii8 to cancel #C# :o! 4;/69= in the name of BA&CO:5!
1:othing in this "esolution should )e construed as a determination of a factual issue in
the controversy )et*een Complainant Bank and -AC"O in the "#C CAC<, *hich is no*
pending )efore the 5ntermediate Appellate Court! #his "esolution deals only *ith the
steps taken )y "espondent udge in regards to the "#C CAC< *hen he *as still acting
on it! Considered in the light of the facts related a)ove, *e find he had committed
serious and grave misfeasance in connection *ith his actuations in the said "#C CAC<
in that0
7a8 5n )oth original and amended Complaints in the "#C CAC<, it *as apparent that
-AC"O *as suing for an amount of at least P5= million! On the very date of August /,
1989, *hen the Amended Complaint *as filed, *hich *as only four days after the
original Complaint *as instituted, "espondent udge *as already a*are, per his Order
of attachment, that -AC"O 1in its verified complaint and affidavit1, *as asking
defendants 1to pay the sum of P5=,===,===!== as actual and compensatory damages
*hich plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant in this case1!
15n the original and amended Complaints, the prayers did not ask for
damages specifically in the sum of more than P5= million, clearly in order to avoid
payment of filing fees of more than P1==,===!==! #he filing fee actually paid *as only
P;1=!==!
1Ordinarily, a #rial udge may )e e2cused from immediately noting a mistake made )y
the Clerk of Court in assessing filing fees! Eo*ever, considering "espondent udgeAs
reali%ation of the mistake, on August /, 1989, the date he issued his Order for
preliminary attachment, and his actuations thereafter in the "#C CAC<, his failure to
reGuire payment of the correct amount of filing fees indicated his partiality to*ards, not
to say confa)ulation *ith, -AC"O andPor its la*yers!
7)8 #he summary ,udgment *as ill?conceived! Bor one thing, the Amended Complaint
had charged Complainant Bank *ith fraud and deceit! Onder the la*, good faith is to
)e presumed, and the fraud and deceit imputed to Complainant Bank cannot )e other
than a Guestion of fact, *hich should have )een resolved after due reception of
evidence pro and contra! #here *as nothing in the Ans*er, and in its pleadings in
connection *ith -AC"OAs -otion for summary ,udgment, *hich could indu)ita)ly )e
deemed an admission, or proof, of Complainant BankAs alleged fraud and
deceit! "espondent udgeAs statements to the contrary are )ereft of veracity!
1Forse errors have )een committed )y #rial udges )ut, in the "#C CAC<, the
erroneous promulgation of the summary ,udgment indicates, in the light of the entire
scenario, that the error *as deli)erate in order to favor plaintiff, or that it *as in actual
confa)ulation *ith plaintiff and its la*yers!
7c8 #he issuance of the summary ,udgment *as )ad enough! #he grant therein of
damages in the amount of more than P44 million, plus ;=D attorneyAs fees, *hen the
property involved in the litigation *as alleged in the amended complaint 7Anne2 1B18 as
P;= million 7sold to BA&CO:5 for P/ million8 immediately raises the thought that
"espondent udge had really taken a stand of partiality in favor of -AC"O and its
la*yers!
7d8 #he Order of anuary 6, 1985 of "espondent udge also sho*s his partiality to, or
his confa)ulation *ith -AC"O and the latterAs la*yers!
1#he summary ,udgment *as rendered on :ovem)er 1/, 1989, and notice thereof *as
served on Complainant Bank on :ovem)er ;/, 1989! #he latter filed a -otion for
"econsideration on +ecem)er /, 1989! 5f, as "espondent udge has ruled, the -otion
for "econsideration *as pro forma, the summary ,udgment )ecame final on +ecem)er
11, 1989! "espondent udge, therefore, *ould no longer have authority to amend his
+ecision on anuary 6, 1985! Fhen the -otion for "econsideration *as denied on
Be)ruary 6, 1985, "espondent udge should also have set aside his Order of anuary 6,
1985 amending the summary ,udgment! 5t can no* )ecome clear that deferment of
action on Complainant BankAs -otion for "econsideration *as precisely for the purpose
of allo*ing amendment of the +ecision on anuary 6, 1985!
1#he Order of anuary 6, 1985 *as set aside in .!"! :o! /99=6! 5t is no* for us to
state herein that "espondent udge, in issuing such Order, clearly intended to favor
-AC"O )y allo*ing it to sell, as it did sell, the -AC"O property to BA&CO:5 on anuary
19, 1985!
7e8 "espondent udge, in his Order of -arch 14, 1985, gave course to the appeal of
Complainant Bank although he had already ruled that the latter had lost the right of
appeal! #hat Order of -arch 14, 1985 *as issued after Complainant Bank had
instituted .!"! :o! /99=6 on Be)ruary 19, 1985, asking that "espondent udge )e
ordered to allo* its appeal from the summary ,udgment! #he Order of -arch 14, 1985
*as clearly intended to render .!"! :o! /99=6 moot and academic! Caid Order *as
disrespectful of this Court! 5f at all, "espondent udge should have come to this Court
in said .!"! :o! /99=6, to ask for leave to allo* the appeal of Complainant Bank *ith
admission that he had reali%ed that his previous denial of the appeal *as
erroneous! And it may )e recalled that, in +e &eon vs! Castro, 1=9 CC"A ;91 719818,
this Court had occasion to state that "espondent udgeAs >su)mission of false certificate
of service under Cection 5 of the udiciary &a* is not e2cusa)leK!
1FE<"<BO"<, the Court "<CO&(<C0
11! "espondent udge is here)y ordered dismissed from the service, *ith forfeiture
of all retirement )enefits and pay and *ith pre,udice to reinstatement in any )ranch of
the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities! #his decision is
immediately e2ecutory!
1;! #he Complaint for dis)arment and suspension of respondent Atty! Ben,amin
-! .recia is here)y referred to the Colicitor .eneral for investigation, report and
recommendation! &et the relevant pleadings in this case in regards to "espondent
."<C5A, and relevant pleadings as *ell as the +ecision in .!"! :o! /99=6 )e furnished
the Colicitor .eneral for the purpose!
1CO O"+<"<+!1
H;I
Pursuant to paragraph ; of the dispositive portion of the +ecision a)ove?Guoted, the
+is)arment Case *as referred to the Colicitor .eneral for investigation, report and
recommendation!
On -arch 9, 1986, this Court received the Colicitor .eneralAs "eport recommending0
1FE<"<BO"<, for lack of evidence, it is respectfully recommended that the dis)arment
case against respondent )e dismissed!1
#he recommendation of dismissal *as predicated on the principal findings 18 that
complainant failed to prove *ith preponderant evidence that "espondent .recia and
udge Castro had an e2isting 1unholy alliance or ,oint venture1 in disposing of the -acro
Case in favor of -AC"OJ ;8 that )ased on the pleadings su)mitted )y complainant 1it
cannot )e definitely esta)lished that any deli)erate misrepresentation *as committed
much less *ho, specifically, had perpetrated it1 since 1the motion for summary
,udgment and the amended complaint involved *ere filed )y t*o colla)orating la*yers,
namely, respondent and Atty! -ario (alderrama1, *ho ho*ever, has not )een charged
1for unkno*n reasons1J and 748 1on the matter of the non?payment of the correct
amount of filing fees, no evidence *as presented )y complainant to prove that
respondent *as responsi)le for such omission or for that matter that he did not
encourage and compel his client to pay the right amount1!
#he Court resolves differently, ho*ever 7Cec! 9, "ule 1498! As pointed out in
the Per Curiam +ecision of this Court against respondent udge, partiality and
confa)ulation are clearly discerni)le from the actuations of respondents in the -acro
Case!
5n the original Complaint filed on August ;, 1989 )y Atty! (alderrama and in the
Amended Complaint filed on August /, 1989 over the signature of "espondent .recia in
the -acro Case, the prayers *ere silent as to the amount of damages )eing demanded,
clearly in order to avoid payment of filing fees of appro2imately P149,===!==! #he filing
fee actually paid *as only in the amount of P;1=!==! Complainant Bank filed a -otion
for the collection of the proper filing fees )ut "espondent udge denied the same only
on :ovem)er 19, 1989 after the summary ,udgment had )een rendered on :ovem)er
1/, 1989 and despite the three -otions to "esolve filed )y Complainant Bank on August
16, Octo)er ;/, and Ceptem)er 4, all in 1989!
H4I
#he reason for the denial *as that the
certification of the Clerk of Court as to the correct amount of the docket fee to )e paid
)y plaintiff *as not su)mitted and for 1lack of merit and for )eing moot and
academic!1
H9I
"espondent .recia filed the Amended Complaint on August /, 1989, and on the same
day "espondent udge issued an Order of Attachment! A P1=- )ond had to )e posted
)y Complainant Bank to discharge it accompanied )y a -otion to +ischarge
Attachment, *hich "espondent udge, resolved on August ;1, 1989!
#he summary ,udgment *as rendered )y "espondent udge on :ovem)er 1/, 1989
despite the allegation of fraud and deceit in the Complaint, there)y resulting in the
avoidance of trial and the presentation of *itnesses, and the Bank *as ordered to pay
P4=- as actual damages, P4- as e2emplary damages plus ;=D attorneyAs fees *hen
the property involved in the litigation *as alleged in the Amended Complaint as P;=-
7and *as sold to Balconi for P/-8!
Complainant Bank filed a -otion for "econsideration of the +ecision on +ecem)er 6,
1989 )ut "espondent udge did not rule on it and instead amended that ,udgment on
anuary 6, 1985 )y directing the "egister of +eeds of $ue%on City to issue another
o*nerAs copy of the transfer certificate of title in -AC"OAs favor in lieu of the o*nerAs
copy in the possession of Complainant Bank, *hich *as deemed cancelled! #here)y
-AC"O *as placed in a position to dispose of the mortgaged property, *hich it sold on
anuary 19, 1985 to Balconi -arketing and -anufacturing, 5nc!, for P/-!
"espondent udge denied the -otion for "econsideration only on Be)ruary 6, 1985 for
)eing pro forma! Complainant Bank filed a :otice of Appeal on Be)ruary 14, 1985! On
the same day, Be)ruary 14, 1985, "espondent udge considered the Cummary
udgment final and ordered the issuance of a Frit of <2ecution not*ithstanding the
timely notice of appeal filed )y Complainant Bank!
<2ecution *as implemented t*o 7;8 days thereafter, or on Be)ruary 15, 1985 at 4055
P!-!, *ith "espondent .recia included in the group, *hich *ent to the Bank premises
to enforce e2ecution, leaving said place 1at past midnight1!
Fith the issuance of the Frit of <2ecution, *hich also constituted the denial of the
appeal, "espondent udge had foreclosed Complainant BankAs right to appeal had it not
)een for the +ecision of this Court in .!"! :o! /99=6 promulgated on -ay 41, 1985
entitled 1Prudential Bank, et al! vs! Eon! ose P! Castro, -acro #e2tile -ills Corporation,
et al!,1 ordering "espondent udge to give due course to the appeal!
"espondentsA foregoing actuations reveal an 1unholy alliance1 )et*een them and a
clear indication of partiality for the party represented )y the other to the detriment of
the o),ective dispensation of ,ustice! Frits of Attachment and <2ecution *ere issued
and implemented *ith lightning speedJ the case itself *as railroaded to a s*ift
conclusion through a summary ,udgmentJ astronomical sums *ere a*arded as
damages and attorneyAs feesJ and topping it all, the right to appeal *as foreclosed )y
clever maneuvers!
#he Court also takes ,udicial notice of a strikingly similar modus operandi follo*ed in
1-anchester +evelopment Corporation, et al!, vs! Court of
Appeals, Cityland +evelopment Corporation, et als!, 7.!"! :o! 65919, -ay 6, 1986J
Civil Case :o! $?948/6, "#C $ue%on City8, *here the original complaint *as filed )y
the same Atty! -ario <! (alderramaand *as originally pending )efore "espondent
udgeAs Cala! #hus ? the staggering sum claimed in the Complaint of a)out P68- )ut
the clear attempt to limit the filing fees to P91=!== )y the simple e2pedient of limiting
the prayer to such sums of money as 1may )e duly proved during the trial1J the fraud
alleged in the complaintJ the issuance of a *rit of attachment )y "espondent udge the
day after the filing of the Complaint after the approval of a P1=- )ond issued )y
Ctronghold 5nsurance Co!, a company )lacklisted in$ue%on CityJ the immediate
implementation of the attachment the day after its issuance *ith the garnishment of
the operating funds of CitylandJ and the denial )y "espondent udge of the -otion to
Ctrike Out Complaint filed )y Cityland for the reasons that the insufficiency of the filing
fee is not a ground for dismissal citing -agaspi vs! "amolete 7115 CC"A 1948 and that
the action *as one for specific performance! 5f respondent udge *as una)le to see the
case to completion, and perhaps resolve it in the same manner as he did the -acro
Case, it *as only )y reason of the re?raffle ordered )y this Court of that case, *ith ;;
others, to all the "egional #rial Court udges of $ue%on City, 1*ith the e2ception of
"espondent udge1, in this CourtAs "esolution of une 18, 1985 in Adm! -atter :o! 85?
/?6899?"#C!
Fhile it *as Atty! (alderrama, *ho *as counsel of record in the -anchester case,
considering the striking similarity in the pattern of the cases he and
"espondent .reciahandled, signing either singly or as co?counsel 7as in the Amended
Complaint,
H5I
and in the Opposition to +efendantAs -otion for "econsideration in the
-acro Case8,
H/I
a close colla)oration )et*een them is evident! 5n actual fact, a ,oint
venture did e2ist )et*een -acro and -anchester kno*n as the -acro?-anchester
"ealty Corporation!
H6I
#he Court takes further ,udicial notice of other cases *here a similar modus operandi,
particularly in respect of astronomical sums claimed )ut minimal docket fees paid, is
apparent, *ith one of the parties represented )y either "espondent .recia or
Atty! (alderrama, and the common denominator )eing that the cases pended )efore
"espondent udge! A summary of those cases *as made in a "eport, dated Octo)er ;,
1985, to the Acting Court Administrator Arturo Buena su)mitted )y then <2ecutive
udge <rnaniCru% Pano in Case :o! A- 85?1=?865;?"#C as a conseGuence of a letter?
complaint of Atty! Antonio Bautista in connection *ith the -anchester case!
#hus, in Civil Case :o! $?45=94, "#C, $ue%on City, entitled 1Ocean Park +evelopment
Corporation vs! Mumho Construction L <ngineering, 5nc!1, *hich *as also pending
)efore "espondent udge, *ith counsel for plaintiff therein )eing "espondent .recia, for
1#respass or +estruction, 5llegal Occupation of "eal Property *ith +amages and Frit of
Attachment and 5n,unction1, the )ody of the complaint alleged that defendant therein
had inflicted damages on the plaintiff in the total sum of appro2imately P14-, )ut the
prayer merely asked for payment of 1such sums as may )e proved during the trial!1 #he
filing fee paid *as P;==!==!
5n Civil Case :o! $?91166, "#C, $ue%on City, entitled 1-anuel Chua Oy Po #iong vs!
Cun 5nsurance Office &td!1 7incidentally, the President of -anchester is the same
-anuel Chua Oy Po #iong8 for 1Cum of -oney, +amages *ith Frit of Preliminary
Attachment1 for alleged fraudulent cancellation of an insurance policy issued )y
defendant therein, the )ody of the complaint mentioned the damages suffered )y
plaintiff in the amount of around P4=-, )ut again the prayer asked for the payment of
1such amounts as may )e proved during the trial1 and the filing fee paid *as
P;==!==! #he original complaint *as filed )y Atty! (alderrama *hile
"espondent .recia filed the Amended Complaint therein! #he case *as )efore
"espondent udgeAs Cala!
5n Civil Case :o! $?91;;9, "#C, $ue%on City, entitled 1Mumho Construction L
<ngineering, 5nc! vs! Atty! (icente <! del "osario1 the )ody of the complaint claimed
damages in the sum of P4- )ut, true to form, the prayer asked for 1such sums as may
)e proved during the trial1 and the filing fee paid *as P;==!==! Counsel for Mumho *as
Atty! -ario <! (alderramaJ the Court )efore *hich the case *as pending *as that of
"espondent udge, *ho, )y the *ay, also rendered a summary ,udgment therein!
#he modus operandi in the foregoing cases, taken cogni%ance of )y this Court either
,udicially or administratively, reveal the hidden maneuvers of a nefarious net*ork, *ith
respondents as the prime movers! #hose cases sufficiently provide the )asis for the
determination of respondentsA administrative lia)ility *ithout need for further inGuiry
into the matter under the principle of res ipsa loGuitur! 7People vs! Eon! -anuel
(alen%uela, .!"! :os! &?/495=?/=, April 19, 1985, 145 CC"A 61;J "esolution, 5n #he
-atter Of Proceedings Bor +isciplinary Action Against Atty! Fenceslao &aureta, etc!, in
.! "! :o! /8/45, entitled 1<va -aravilla?llustre vs! Eon! 5ntermediate Appellate Court,
et al!1, -ay 19, 19868! #he imposition of disciplinary sanctions against respondents is
*arranted as *e *ere already constrained to do in respect of "espondent udge! #heir
Guestiona)le operations have )lotted the image of )oth Bench and Bar and have )een
inimical to pu)lic interest and *elfare! #heir unethical misdeeds call for the supreme
sanction! 5ndeed, those actuations *ould have passed unnoticed )ut for this
Administrative Complaint filed )y a highly respected mem)er of the )usiness
community, and the disclosure )y concerned colleagues in the profession appalled )y
respondentsA anomalous actuations in a string of cases!
"espondent .recia has )een proven to )e lacking in fidelity to his oath of office
essential to his continuance as an attorney?at?la*!
#he affirmance on April ;4, 198/ )y the Court of Appeals in AC?.!"! C( :o! =5/11Q of
the Cummary udgment rendered )y "espondent udge in the -acro Case, for *hich
reason, "espondent .recia had moved to dismiss this case against him on -ay 8, 198/
is not a ground for the dismissal of this +is)arment Case, the said +ecision not having
attained finality )esides the fact that the issue herein is the fitness of
"espondent .recia to continue in the practice of la*!
&'ERE(ORE, respondent Ben,amin -! .recia is here)y +5CBA""<+ for having proven
himself unfit to continue in the pursuit of the profession!
!O ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierre, Jr., Cru, !aras,
Feliciano, Ganca"co, !adilla, #idin, and Cortes, JJ., concur!
$armiento, J., no part, did not take part in the deli)erations!
H1I
%ollo, pp! 1?14!
H;I
Prudential Bank vs! udge ose P! Castro, et al!, Adm! Case :o! ;65/, une 5, 198/,
19; CC"A ;;4?;4;!
H4I
%ollo, pp! 4=8?414!
H9I
&'id!, p! 16;!
H5I
%ollo, p! 59, 7A- :o! ;65/8!
H/I
&'id!, p! 4=6!
H6I
+ecision, Court of Appeals, p! 9, AC?.! "! C( :o! =5/11, -acro #e2tile -ills
Corporation vs! Prudential Bank, et al!8!
Q Penned )y -r! ustice Cerafin A! Camilon and concurred in )y -essrs! ustices "amon
.! .aviola, r!, ose C! Campos, r!, and Bienvenido C! <,ercito!
OCurist!org