Garcillano vs. House of Representatives Committees on Public Information, G.R. No. 170338, 23 December 2008

Facts:

More than three years ago, tapes ostensibly containing a wiretapped conversation purportedly between the President of the Philippines and a high-ranking official of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) surfaced. They captured unprecedented public attention and thrust the country into a controversy that placed the legitimacy of the present administration on the line, and resulted in the near-collapse of the Arroyo government. The tapes, notoriously referred to as the "Hello Garci" tapes, allegedly contained the President’s instructions to COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to manipulate in her favor results of the 2004 presidential elections. These recordings were to become the subject of heated legislative hearings conducted separately by committees of both Houses of Congress.

In the House of Representatives (House), on June 8, 2005, then Minority Floor Leader Francis G. Escudero delivered a privilege speech, "Tale of Two Tapes," and set in motion a congressional investigation jointly conducted by the Committees on Public Information, Public Order and Safety, National Defense and Security, Information and Communications Technology, and Suffrage and Electoral Reforms (respondent House Committees). During the inquiry, several versions of the wiretapped conversation emerged. But on July 5, 2005, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director Reynaldo Wycoco, Atty. Alan Paguia and the lawyer of former NBI Deputy Director Samuel Ong submitted to the respondent House Committees seven alleged "original" tape recordings of the supposed three-hour taped conversation. After prolonged and impassioned debate by the committee members on the admissibility and authenticity of the recordings, the tapes were eventually played in the chambers of the House.

Alarmed by these developments, petitioner Virgilio O. Garcillano (Garcillano) filed with this Court a Petition for Prohibition and Injunction, with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction docketed as G.R. No. 170338 praying that the respondent House Committees be restrained from using these tape recordings of the "illegally obtained" wiretapped conversations in their committee reports and for any other purpose. He further implored that the said recordings and any reference thereto be ordered stricken off the records of the inquiry, and the respondent House Committees directed to desist from further using the recordings in any of the House proceedings. Without reaching its denouement, the House discussion and debates on the "Garci tapes" abruptly stopped.

After more than two years of quiescence, Senator Panfilo Lacson roused the slumbering issue with a privilege speech, "The Lighthouse That Brought Darkness." In his discourse, Senator Lacson promised to provide the public "the whole unvarnished truth – the what’s, when’s, where’s, who’s and why’s" of the alleged wiretap, and sought an inquiry into the perceived willingness of telecommunications providers to participate in nefarious wiretapping activities. On motion of Senator Francis Pangilinan, Senator Lacson’s speech was referred to the Senate Committee on National Defense and Security, chaired by Senator Rodolfo Biazon, who had previously filed two bills seeking to regulate the sale, purchase and use of wiretapping equipment and to prohibit the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from performing electoral duties.

In the Senate’s plenary session the following day, a lengthy debate ensued when Senator Richard Gordon aired his concern on the possible transgression of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 4200 if the body were to conduct a legislative inquiry on the matter. On August 28, 2007, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago delivered a privilege speech, articulating her considered view that the Constitution absolutely bans the use, possession, replay or communication of the contents of the "Hello Garci" tapes. However, she recommended a legislative investigation into the role of the Intelligence Service of the AFP (ISAFP), the Philippine National Police or other government entities in the alleged illegal wiretapping of public officials.

On September 6, 2007, petitioners Santiago Ranada and Oswaldo Agcaoili, retired justices of the Court of Appeals, filed before this Court a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, docketed as G.R. No. 179275, seeking to bar the Senate from conducting its scheduled legislative inquiry. They argued in the main that the intended legislative inquiry violates R.A. No. 4200 and Section 3, Article III of the Constitution.

As the Court did not issue an injunctive writ, the Senate proceeded with its public hearings on the "Hello Garci" tapes on September 7, 17 and October 1, 2007.

On November 20, 2007, the Court resolved to consolidate G.R. Nos. 170338 and 179275. The Court dismisses the first petition, G.R. No. 170338, and grants the second, G.R. No. 179275.

Issue:

Whether online publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing the Inquiries in the said case in aid of legislation is sufficient?

Held:

The Senate cannot be allowed to continue with the conduct of the questioned legislative inquiry without duly published rules of procedure, in clear derogation of the constitutional requirement.

Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that "[t]he Senate or the House of Representatives, or any of its respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure." The requisite of publication of the rules is intended to satisfy the basic requirements of due process. Publication is indeed imperative, for it will be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law or rule of which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. What constitutes publication is set forth in Article 2 of the Civil Code, which provides that "[l]aws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines."

The respondents in G.R. No. 179275 admit in their pleadings and even on oral argument that the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation had been published in newspapers of general circulation only in 1995 and in 2006. With respect to the present Senate of the 14^th Congress, however, of which the term of half of its members commenced on June 30, 2007, no effort was undertaken for the publication of these rules when they first opened their session.

Recently, the Court had occasion to rule on this very same question. In Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations, the Court said:

Fourth, we find merit in the argument of the OSG that respondent Committees likewise violated Section 21 of Article VI of the Constitution, requiring that the inquiry be in accordance with the "duly published rules of procedure." We quote the OSG’s explanation:

The phrase "duly published rules of procedure" requires the Senate of every Congress to publish its rules of procedure governing inquiries in aid of legislation because every Senate is distinct from the one before it or after it. Since Senatorial elections are held every three (3) years for one-half of the Senate’s membership, the composition of the Senate also changes by the end of each term. Each Senate may thus enact a different set of rules as it may deem fit. Not having published its Rules of Procedure, the subject hearings in aid of legislation conducted by the 14^th Senate, are therefore, procedurally infirm.

The invocation by the respondents of the provisions of R.A. No. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to support their claim of valid publication through the internet is all the more incorrect. R.A. 8792 considers an electronic data message or an electronic document as the functional equivalent of a written document only for evidentiary purposes. In other words, the law merely recognizes the admissibility in evidence (for their being the original) of electronic data messages and/or electronic documents. It does not make the internet a medium for publishing laws, rules and regulations.

Given this discussion, the respondent Senate Committees, therefore, could not, in violation of the Constitution, use its unpublished rules in the legislative inquiry subject of these consolidated cases. The conduct of inquiries in aid of legislation by the Senate has to be deferred until it shall have caused the publication of the rules, because it can do so only "in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure."

Very recently, the Senate caused the publication of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation in the October 31, 2008 issues of Manila Bulletin and Malaya. While we take judicial notice of this fact, the recent publication does not cure the infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. Insofar as the consolidated cases are concerned, the legislative investigation subject thereof still could not be undertaken by the respondent Senate Committees, because no published rules governed it, in clear contravention of the Constitution.

__________________________

Full case available at: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_170338_2008.html

Ang vs. CA and Sagud, G.R. No. 182835, 20 April 2010

Facts:

The evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Irish Sagud (Irish) and accused Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora Province. Rustan courted Irish and they became "on-and-off" sweethearts towards the end of 2004. When Irish learned afterwards that Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish broke up with him.

Before Rustan got married, however, he got in touch with Irish and tried to convince her to elope with him, saying that he did not love the woman he was about to marry. Irish rejected the proposal and told Rustan to take on his responsibility to the other woman and their child. Irish changed her cellphone number but Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages. Rustan used two cellphone numbers for sending his messages, namely, 0920-4769301 and 0921-8084768. Irish replied to his text messages but it was to ask him to leave her alone.

In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure (Exhibit A).  The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003.

After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text messages from Rustan. He boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her. And he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet. One of the messages he sent to Irish, written in text messaging shorthand, read:

"Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede ring send sa lahat ng chatter."

Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to the police. Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone numbers he used in sending the picture and his text messages. Irish asked Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora, and he did. He came in a motorcycle. After parking it, he walked towards Irish but the waiting police officers intercepted and arrested him. They searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone and several SIM cards.

After trial, the RTC found Irish’s testimony completely credible, given in an honest and spontaneous manner. The RTC observed that she wept while recounting her experience, prompting the court to comment: "Her tears were tangible expression of pain and anguish for the acts of violence she suffered in the hands of her former sweetheart. The crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of her charges with the verity borne out of human nature and experience." Thus, in its Decision dated August 1, 2001, the RTC found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

On Rustan’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA),  the latter rendered a decision dated January 31, 2008,8 affirming the RTC decision. The CA denied Rustan’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case.

Held:

Rustan argues that, since he was arrested and certain items were seized from him without any warrant, the evidence presented against him should be deemed inadmissible. But the fact is that the prosecution did not present in evidence either the cellphone or the SIM cards that the police officers seized from him at the time of his arrest. The prosecution did not need such items to prove its case. Exhibit C for the prosecution was but a photograph depicting the Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone that was used, which cellphone Rustan admitted owning during the pre-trial conference.

Actually, though, the bulk of the evidence against him consisted in Irish’s testimony that she received the obscene picture and malicious text messages that the sender’s cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan with whom she had been previously in communication. Indeed, to prove that the cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan, Irish and the police used such numbers to summon him to come to Lorentess Resort and he did. Consequently, the prosecution did not have to present the confiscated cellphone and SIM cards to prove that Rustan sent those messages.

Moreover, Rustan admitted having sent the malicious text messages to Irish. His defense was that he himself received those messages from an unidentified person who was harassing Irish and he merely forwarded the same to her, using his cellphone. But Rustan never presented the cellphone number of the unidentified person who sent the messages to him to authenticate the same. The RTC did not give credence to such version and neither will this Court. Besides, it was most unlikely for Irish to pin the things on Rustan if he had merely tried to help her identify the sender.

Also, Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).

But, firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, Exhibit A, for the first time before this Court. The objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection. Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.

Petition denied.

_______________________
Full text of the case available at: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_182835_2010.html

Geroy vs. Judge Calderon AM-RTJ-06-1982, 8 December 2008

Facts:

Before the Court is a letter-complaint dated June 13, 2007 filed by Eva Lucia Z. Geroy (complainant) charging Judge Dan R. Calderon (respondent) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Medina, Misamis Oriental, with gross immorality for having an extra-marital affair with her.

The complainant alleges the following:

1. She was introduced by her cousin Cesar Badilas (Badilas) to respondent in a Rotary Club dinner on November 30, 2002.  

2. Thereafter, respondent always communicated with her, visited her at her house and showered her with food and gifts, making her believe that he was single or separated as he acted like a bachelor towards her.  

3. They spent most of their time in his house in Upper Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City where complainant would sleep over during weekdays and spend entire weekends with respondent.  They would dine in public places, watch movies, go to malls, groceries and hear mass together.

4. Respondent lent her money and she ran errands for him such as making reservations for his trips and purchasing items for his house, encode decisions, pay bills and encash checks for him.  Respondent paid her tuition in a caregiver course and gave her a cell phone for an e-load business.

There were times, however, when complainant felt she was being abused by respondent, such as when he wanted to take a picture of them naked after they had sexual contact, when he asked her to buy abortive pills because his son impregnated his girlfriend, and when he (respondent) forced her to utter vulgar words during their intercourse.  In August 2005, complainant went to Xavier University where respondent was a professor, and respondent uttered hurtful words towards her.  

On December 24, 2005, complainant received a call from respondent and his wife degrading and threatening her.  She also received a text message from respondent on December 29, 2005 saying that she had made herself a “despicable disease.”  Respondent's wife and daughter also called complainant, confronting and threatening her. On March 21, 2007, complainant saw respondent in a restaurant with a woman and when she approached respondent, he cursed and looked angrily at her and asked the guard to drive her out.  Respondent then went to his car and locked the doors.  Complainant knocked at the window near the driver's seat but respondent arrogantly looked at her and maneuvered his car, nearly hitting her, as he sped past her.

Complainant avers that she was expecting that if her relationship with respondent would end, there should be a friendly talk and a peaceful closure between them, but none took place.  She further claims that respondent is in another relationship and she is filing the present case, not just to put an end to the immoral conduct of respondent, but to prevent other women from being victimized by him.

Attached to the complaint are transcripts of respondent's text messages to her from December 2002 to 2005, pictures of her taken inside respondent's house, pictures of complainant's diary, cellphones, gifts allegedly given to her by respondent, receipts showing the name of respondent, and a photocopy of a check showing that respondent lent her money.

In the Resolution dated November 26, 2007, the Court, upon recommendation of the OCA, re-docketed the complaint as a regular administrative matter and referred the same to the Executive Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro Station, for investigation, report and recommendation after a raffle of the case among the Justices.

In the Report which the Court received on July 31, 2008, Investigating Justice Rodrigo F. Lim found respondent guilty of immorality and recommended his suspension for six months without salary and other benefits.

Issue:

Whether respondent is guilt of immorality based on the evidence presented including the text messages made between the complainant and the respondent.

Held:

The Court finds the report and recommendation of the Investigating Justice to be well-taken.

           

The Court has not been sparing in its exhortation of judges that they should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. No position is more demanding as regards the moral righteousness and uprightness of any individual than a seat on the Bench; thus, their personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for they are, as they so aptly are perceived to be, the visible representation of law and of justice.  A judge traces a line around his official as well as personal conduct, a price he has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture.

As correctly found by the Investigating Justice, the complainant was able to support her charge of immorality against respondent and has shown that the latter had not exhibited the ideals and principles expected of a magistrate.  The disclosure by complainant of very intimate facts about respondent and respondent's own seemingly innocuous admissions clearly reveal the existence of an illicit affair. Complainant would not have known personal information about respondent, such as the skin tags in between his thighs, if they really did not have an intimate physical relationship. 

While respondent insists that his relationship with complainant is purely professional, the text messages which admittedly came from him are not of the kind an employer would ordinarily send an employee.  Try as he might, respondent's own admissions betray his claim of innocence.

Complainant related in detail her relationship with respondent and respondent could only offer general denials.  Even then, he could not completely deny some communications which transpired between him and complainant which betrayed his claim of a purely platonic relationship. As the Court has held, mere denial does not overturn the relative weight and probative value of an affirmative assertion.  Denial is an inherently weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and has no evidentiary value. 

The Court found the respondent guilty of immorality.

____________________

Full text of the case available at: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/decisions.php?doctype=Decisions%20/%20Signed%20Resolutions&docid=12295004701445203555

Narvasa vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 169449, 26 March 2010

Facts:

The instant case stemmed from three cases of sexual harassment filed separately against respondent by petitioner along with Mary Gay P. de la Cruz and Zenaida M. Gayaton, who are also employees of the LGU. 

In her affidavit-complaint, De la Cruz claimed that, sometime in February 2000, respondent handed her a note saying, “Gay, I like you.” Offended by respondent’s inappropriate remark, de la Cruz admonished him for giving her such a note and told him that she would give the note to his wife. Respondent then grabbed the note from her and tore it into pieces.  However, this first incident was followed by a message sent to De la Cruz sometime in March 2002 in which he said, “Ka date ko si Mary Gay… ang tamis ng halik mo.”

On the other hand, Gayaton narrated that, on April 5, 2002, respondent whispered to her during a retirement program, “Oy flawless, pumanaw ka met ditan” while twice pinching her upper left arm near the shoulder in a slow manner.

 A few days later, Gayaton received a text message while she was passing respondent’s car in front of the municipal hall. The message said, “Pauwi ka na ba sexy?” Gayaton later verified through respondent’s clerk, Alona Agas, that the sender of the message was respondent.

On or about April 22 to 25, 2002, Gayaton received several messages from respondent stating:

(1) “I like you”;

(2) “Have a date with me”;         

(3) “Don’t tell to (sic) others that I told that I like you because nakakahiya”;

(4) “Puso mo to pag bigay moto sakin, I would be very happy” and

(5) “I slept and dreamt nice things about you.”

Finally, as far as petitioner’s complaint was concerned, she asserted that, on November 18, 2000, during a field trip of officers and members of the St. Joseph Multi-Purpose Cooperative to the Grotto Vista Resort in Bulacan, respondent pulled her towards him and attempted to kiss her. Petitioner resisted and was able to escape the clutches of respondent to rejoin the group that they were travelling with. Respondent apologized to petitioner thrice regarding that incident.

Based on the investigation conducted by the LGU’s Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI), respondent was found guilty of all three charges by Municipal Mayor Marvic S. Padilla. For the offenses committed against De la Cruz and Gayaton, respondent was meted the penalties of reprimand for his first offense of light harassment and 30 days’ suspension for his first offense of less grave sexual harassment. His transgression against petitioner, however, was deemed to be grave sexual harassment for which he was dismissed from the government service.

Issue:

The core issue is whether the acts committed by respondent against petitioner (since the CSC resolution only touched upon petitioner’s complaint) constitute simple misconduct or grave misconduct.

 Held:

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be manifest.

Respondent’s acts of grabbing petitioner and attempting to kiss her were, no doubt, intentional. Worse, the incident occurred months after he had made similar but subtler overtures to De la Cruz, who made it clear that his sexual advances were not welcome. Considering that the acts respondent committed against petitioner were much more aggressive, it was impossible that the offensive nature of his actions could have escaped him. It does not appear that petitioner and respondent were carrying on an amorous relationship that might have justified his attempt to kiss petitioner while they were separated from their companions. Worse, as petitioner and respondent were both married (to other persons), respondent not only took his marital status lightly, he also ignored petitioner’s married state, and good character and reputation.

Petition granted.

_______________________
Full text of the case available at: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/169449.htm

Lihaylihay vs. Judge Canda, AM MTJ-06-1659, 18 June 2009

Facts:

On 25 February 2005, Sheriff IV Camilo Bandivas (Sheriff Bandivas) of the RTC retired from the service.  Lihaylihay alleged that Judge Canda asked Process Server Emmanuel Tenefrancia (Tenefrancia) of the RTC to apply for the position vacated by Sheriff Bandivas.  To the dismay of Judge Canda, a certain Jesus V. Alimpolo (Alimpolo) applied for the vacated position.  Judge Canda strongly opposed Alimpolo’s application.

Judge Canda was of the impression that Lihaylihay was assisting Alimpolo in his application for the position of Sheriff  IV.  On 5 January 2006, Judge Canda sent a text message to Lihaylihay stating, “Maayo tingali modistansya ka anang mga tawhana kay basin masabit ka, pakiusap lang ni.”  Taking the text message as a threat, Lihaylihay reported it to the police and requested that a blotter entry be made.  On 6 January 2006, Judge Canda sent another text message stating, “For maliciously causing it to appear as threatening in the police blotter of what is otherwise a very harmless text message of appeal I consider the same as declaration of war, don’t worry you will have your owned [sic] fair share of trouble in due time.” 

In a letter dated 9 January 2006 and addressed to Executive Judge Oscar D. Tomarong (Judge Tomarong) of the RTC, Judge Canda accused Lihaylihay of

(1) actively supporting Alimpolo;

(2) using the facilities of  the RTC in preparing Alimpolo’s medical certificate;

(3) being at the beck and call of Alimpolo;

(4) blatantly disregarding the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel;

(5) fraudulently scheming against the court;

(6) performing highly contemptuous acts;

(7) being unworthy of her position as Clerk III;

(8) failing to distance herself from Alimpolo;

(9) failing to stay neutral;

(10) having a distorted sense of values that deserves disciplinary action;

(11) being arrogant, insolent and cocky; and

(12) disrespecting him. 

In his 1st Indorsement dated 12 January 2006, Judge Tomarong directed Lihaylihay to comment on Judge Canda’s 9 and 11 January 2006 letters.  On 13 January 2006, before Lihaylihay could comment on the letters, Judge Canda gave a copy of the 11 January 2006 letter to the desk editor of the Mindanao Observer and asked that it be published in the newspaper. 

The 11 January 2006 letter was published in the 15 January 2006 issue of the Mindanao Observer.  The front page headline read, “Huwes miprotesta batok sa seksi nga docket clerk.”  The text of the letter was printed in the newspaper with the omission of words which were deemed unprintable.

In her comment dated 20 January 2006, Lihaylihay stated that:

(1) She did not participate in Alimpolo’s application for the position of Sheriff IV; (2) Judge Canda ridiculed, humiliated, and besmirched her reputation by publishing in the newspaper the 11 January 2006 letter describing her as a GRO and a whore;

(3) Judge Canda’s text messages threatened her; and

(4) she followed the office dress code.  Lihaylihay alleged that Judge Canda wanted Tenefrancia to apply for the position of Sheriff IV so that Tenefrancia’s position as process server would become vacant — Judge Canda’s son, Alejandro Canda, was qualified for the position of process server. 

Lihaylihay also alleged that, before the present case started, Judge Canda sent her several indecent text messages stating, “You’re sexy today,” “I missed your gorgeous face,” and “I missed your golden voice when you sing.”  Lihaylihay also alleged that she was shocked and disgusted when Judge Canda invited her to go out of town with him.

Lihaylihay filed a complaint dated 20 January 2006 with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Canda of (1) bullying her; (2) ridiculing, humiliating, and besmirching her reputation by publishing in the newspaper the 11 January 2006 letter describing her as a GRO and a whore; (3) sending her threatening text messages; and (4) sending her indecent text messages.  The case was docketed as MTJ-06-1659.

In its Report dated 24 August 2006, the OCA found that Lihaylihay and Judge Canda failed to preserve the good image of the judiciary.  The OCA stated that:

This Office is disappointed, nay, ashamed of the actuations of the complainant and respondent in this case.  Their disgraceful behavior adversely affects the good image of the judiciary. Their actuations degraded the image of the courts before the eyes of the public.

            In the instant case, respondent, although not directly responsible for the publication of her comment should have exercised prudence in dealing with the media considering the interest generated by the publication of the complaint against her by Judge Canda.  She should have known that the media would take advantage of the opportunity to sensationalize the case considering the personalities involved.

            Complainant Judge Canda, on the other hand, should not have caused the publication of his complaint against the respondent.  As a judge, complainant should have known that administrative proceedings before the Court are confidential in nature in order to protect the respondent therein who may later turn out to be innocent of the charges.  The public airing of his complaint unnecessarily exposed the Court to the eyes of the public.  No justifiable or unselfish purpose would be served by such media exposure of the complaint already filed in Court and therefore covered by the mantle of confidentiality, except to sensationalize the same and to defile the reputation of the respondent.

Issue:

Whether Judge Canda is liable for gross misconduct based on the allegations presented including the threatening text messages he sent to Lihaylihay?

Held:

The Court answered in the affirmative.

Judge Canda harassed and publicly humiliated Lihaylihay: (1) he asked her to stay away from Alimpolo; (2) when she reported the matter to the police, he took it as a “declaration of war” and warned her that she will have her “fair share of trouble in due time”; (3) indeed, three days after sending the threatening text message, he filed a complaint with Judge Tomarong accusing her of several things, asking that she be disciplined and removed from the service, and describing her as a “GRO,” “undignified,”     a “whore,” “disgusting,” “repulsive,” and “pakialamera”; (4) two days after filing the first complaint, he filed another complaint accusing her of violating office rules and describing her as “offensive,” “demeaning,” “inappropriate,” a “GRO,” “undignified,” “repulsive,” and a “whore”;       (5) still unsatisfied, he had his second complaint published in the newspaper; and (6) when she published her comment in the newspaper, he filed a criminal case for libel against her.   

Judges are required to be temperate in their language at all times.  They must refrain from inflammatory or vile language.  They should be dignified in demeanor and refined in speech, exhibit that temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint, and be considerate, courteous, and civil to all persons.  In Juan de la Cruz v. Carretas, the Court held that:

         A judge should possess the virtue of gravitas.  He should be x x x dignified in demeanor, refined in speech and virtuous in character.     x x x [H]e must exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-restraint.  x x x

[A] judge must at all times be temperate in his language.  He must choose his words, written or spoken, with utmost care and sufficient control.  x x x

[A] judge should always keep his passion guarded.  He can never allow it to run loose and overcome his reason.  He descends to the level

of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he utters harsh words [or] snide remarks x x x.  As a result, he degrades the judicial office and erodes public confidence in the judiciary.  (Emphasis supplied)

         In Re: Anonymous Complaint dated February 18, 2005 of a “Court Personnel” against Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Branch 12, Ormoc City,^[21]the Court held that:

[A] judge x x x ought to conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a high officer of the court.

           x x x x

           The Court has repeatedly reminded members of the bench to conduct themselves irreproachably, not only while in the discharge of official duties but also in their personal behavior every day.  x x x

           It bears stressing that as a dispenser of justice, respondent should exercise judicial temperament at all times, avoiding vulgar and insulting language.  He must maintain composure and equanimity.

           The judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a number of restrictions.  This is a price that judges have to pay for accepting and occupying their exalted positions in the administration of justice.  Irresponsible or improper conduct on their part erodes public confidence in the judiciary.  Thus, it is their duty to avoid any impression of impropriety in order to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary. (Emphasis supplied)

Judge Canda’s acts of (1) threatening Lihaylihay with her “fair share of trouble in due time”; (2) filing administrative complaints and a criminal case to harass her; (3) describing her as a “GRO,” “undignified,” a “whore,” “disgusting,” “repulsive,” “pakialamera,” “offensive,” “demeaning,” and “inappropriate”; and (4) publishing such foul remarks in the newspaper are very unbecoming a judge.  The image of the judiciary is reflected in the conduct of its officials and Judge Canda subjected the judiciary to embarrassment.

  

 The charges that Judge Canda sent Lihaylihay indecent text messages and that he failed to pay the required legal fees are unsubstantiated, thus, they must be dismissed.  In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, the allegations in the complaint.  The Court cannot rely on mere conjectures or suppositions.    

_______________________

Full text of the case available at: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/MTJ-06-1659.htm

Advincula vs. Atty. Macabata, AC 7204, 7 March 2007

Facts:

Sometime on 1st week of December 2004 complainant, Cynthia Advincula, seek the legal advice of the respondent, Atty. Macabata, regarding her collectibles from Queensway Travel and Tours. As promised, he sent Demand Letter dated December 11, 2004 to the concerned parties. 

On February 10, 2005, the two met at Zensho Restaurant in Tomas Morato, Quezon City to discuss the possibility of filing the complaint against Queensway Travel and Tours because they did not settle their accounts as demanded. After the dinner, respondent sent complainant home and while she is about to step out of the car, respondent hold her arm and kissed her on the cheek and embraced her very tightly.

Again, on March 6, 2005, at about past 10:00 in the morning, she met respondent at Starbucks coffee shop in West Avenue, Quezon City to finalize the draft of the complaint to be filed in Court. After the meeting, respondent offered again a ride, which he usually did every time they met. Along the way, complainant was wandering why she felt so sleepy where in fact she just got up from bed a few hours ago. At along Roosevelt Avenue immediately after corner of Felipe St., in San Francisco Del Monte, Quezon City when she was almost restless respondent stopped his car and forcefully hold her face and kissed her lips while the other hand was holding her breast. Complainant even in a state of shocked succeeded in resisting his criminal attempt and immediately manage to go out of the car.

In the late afternoon, complainant sent a text message to respondent informing him that she decided to refer the case with another lawyer and needs to get back the case folder from him. The communications transpired was recorded in her cellular phone and read as follows:

Sent by complainant At 5:33:46 pm	- forget the case. I decided to refer it with other lawyer
replied by respondent at 6:16:11 pm	- "does this mean I can not c u anymore" (Does this mean I cannot see you anymore)
sent by complainant at 6:17:59 pm	- I feel bad. I can’t expect that u will take advantage of the situation.
Follow-up message Sent by complainant At 6:29:30 pm	- wrong to kiss a girl especially in the lips if you don’t have relationship with her.
Replied by respondent At 6:32:43 pm	- "I’m veri sri. It’s not tking advantage of the situation, 2 put it rightly it s an expression of feeling. S sri" (I’m very sorry. Its not taking advantage of the situation, to put it rightly it is an expression of feeling)
Follow up message by respondent at 6:42:25 pm	- I’m s sri. Il not do it again. Wil u stil c me s I can show u my sincerity" (I’m so sorry. I’ll not do it again. Will you still see me so I can show you my sincerity)

On the following day, March 7, 2005 respondent sent another message to complainant at 3:55:32 pm saying "I don’t know wat 2 do s u may 4give me. "Im realy sri. Puede bati na tyo." (I don’t know what to do so you may forgive me. I’m really sorry. Puede bati na tayo).

Respondent replied "talk to my lawyer in due time." Then another message was received by her at 4:06:33 pm saying "Ano k ba. I’m really sri. Pls. Nxt ime bhave n me." (Ano ka ba. I’m really sorry. Please next time behave na ko), which is a clear manifestation of admission of guilt.

In his answer, respondent admitted that he agreed to provide legal services to the complainant; that he met with complainant on 10 February 2005 and 6 March 2005, to discuss the relevant matters relative to the case which complainant was intending to file against the owners of Queensway Travel and Tours for collection of a sum of money; that on both occasions, complainant rode with him in his car where he held and kissed complainant on the lips as the former offered her lips to him; and, that the corner of Cooper Street and Roosevelt Avenue, where he dropped off the complainant, was a busy street teeming with people, thus, it would have been impossible to commit the acts imputed to him.

By way of defense, respondent further elucidated that: 1) there was a criminal case for Acts of Lasciviousness filed by complainant against respondent pending before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City; 2) the legal name of complainant is Cynthia Advincula Toriana since she remains married to a certain Jinky Toriana because the civil case for the nullification of their marriage was archived pursuant to the Order dated 6 December 2000 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Maburao, Occidental Mindoro; 3) the complainant was living with a man not her husband; and 4) the complainant never bothered to discuss respondent’s fees and it was respondent who always paid for their bills every time they met and ate at a restaurant.

A hearing was conducted by the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) at the IBP Building, Ortigas Center, Pasig City, on 26 July 2005. On 30 September 2005, Investigating Commissioner Dennis A. B. Funa submitted his Report and Recommendation, recommending the imposition of the penalty of one (1) month suspension on respondent for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Thereafter, the IBP passed Resolution No. XVII-2006-117 dated 20 March 2006, approving and adopting, with modification, the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner.

Issue:

Whether respondent committed acts that are grossly immoral or which constitute serious moral depravity that would warrant his disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

Held:

The Court citing the text messages come to the conclusion that because right after the complainant expressed her annoyance at being kissed by the respondent through a cellular phone text message, respondent immediately extended an apology to complainant also via cellular phone text message. The exchange of text messages between complainant and respondent bears this out.

Be it noted also that the incident happened in a place where there were several people in the vicinity considering that Roosevelt Avenue is a major jeepney route for 24 hours. If respondent truly had malicious designs on complainant, he could have brought her to a private place or a more remote place where he could freely accomplish the same.

All told, as shown by the above circumstances, respondent’s acts are not grossly immoral nor highly reprehensible to warrant disbarment or suspension.

Complaint for disbarment is dismissed but respondent is reprimanded to be more prudent and cautious in his dealing with his clients.

________________________________
Full text of the case available at: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/A.C.%20No.%207204.htm

Aznar vs. Citibank NA (Philippines), G.R. No. 164273, 28 March 2007

Facts:

Emmanuel B. Aznar (Aznar) is a holder of a Preferred Master Credit Card (Mastercard) bearing number 5423-3920-0786-7012 issued by Citibank with a credit limit of PhP50,000.00. As he and his wife, Zoraida, planned to take their two grandchildren, Melissa and Richard Beane, on an Asian tour, Aznar made a total advance deposit of PhP485,000.00 with Citibank with the intention of increasing his credit limit to PhP635,000.00.

With the use of his Mastercard, Aznar purchased plane tickets to Kuala Lumpur for his group worth PhP237,000.00. On July 17, 1994, Aznar, his wife and grandchildren left Cebu for the said destination.

Aznar claims that when he presented his Mastercard in some establishments in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, the same was not honored. And when he tried to use the same in Ingtan Tour and Travel Agency (Ingtan Agency) in Indonesia to purchase plane tickets to Bali, it was again dishonored for the reason that his card was blacklisted by Citibank. Such dishonor forced him to buy the tickets in cash. He further claims that his humiliation caused by the denial of his card was aggravated when Ingtan Agency spoke of swindlers trying to use blacklisted cards. Aznar and his group returned to the Philippines on August 10, 1994.

On August 26, 1994, Aznar filed a complaint for damages against Citibank, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-16474 and raffled to RTC Branch 20, Cebu City, claiming that Citibank fraudulently or with gross negligence blacklisted his Mastercard which forced him, his wife and grandchildren to abort important tour destinations and prevented them from buying certain items in their tour. He further claimed that he suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, besmirched reputation and social humiliation due to the wrongful blacklisting of his card. To prove that Citibank blacklisted his Mastercard, Aznar presented a computer print-out, denominated as ON-LINE AUTHORIZATIONS FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, issued to him by Ingtan Agency (Exh. "G") with the signature of one Victrina Elnado Nubi (Nubi) which shows that his card in question was "DECL OVERLIMIT" or declared over the limit.

Citibank denied the allegation that it blacklisted Aznar’s card. It also contended that under the terms and conditions governing the issuance and use of its credit cards, Citibank is exempt from any liability for the dishonor of its cards by any merchant affiliate, and that its liability for any action or incident which may be brought against it in relation to the issuance and use of its credit cards is limited to PhP1,000.00 or the actual damage proven whichever is lesser.

To prove that they did not blacklist Aznar’s card, Citibank’s Credit Card Department Head, Dennis Flores, presented Warning Cancellation Bulletins which contained the list of its canceled cards covering the period of Aznar’s trip.

On May 29, 1998, RTC Branch 20, Cebu City, through Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos, rendered its decision dismissing Aznar’s complaint for lack of merit. The trial court held that as between the computer print-out presented by Aznar and the Warning Cancellation Bulletins presented by Citibank, the latter had more weight as their due execution and authenticity were duly established by Citibank.

Issue:

Whether the lower court is correct in saying that the list of cancelled card presented by Citibank has more weight than what Aznar presented under the Rules on Electronic Evidence?

Held:

It is basic that in civil cases, the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to establish his case based on a preponderance of evidence. The party that alleges a fact also has the burden of proving it.

In the complaint Aznar filed before the RTC, he claimed that Citibank blacklisted his Mastercard which caused its dishonor in several establishments in Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, particularly in Ingtan Agency in Indonesia where he was humiliated when its staff insinuated that he could be a swindler trying to use a blacklisted card.

Aznar puts much weight on the ON-LINE AUTHORIZATION FOREIGN ACCOUNT ACTIVITY REPORT, a computer print-out handed to Aznar by Ingtan Agency, marked as Exh. "G", to prove that his Mastercard was dishonored for being blacklisted. On said print-out appears the words "DECL OVERLIMIT" opposite Account No. 5423-3920-0786-7012.

As correctly pointed out by the RTC and the CA, however, such exhibit cannot be considered admissible as its authenticity and due execution were not sufficiently established by petitioner.

The prevailing rule at the time of the promulgation of the RTC Decision is Section 20 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. It provides that whenever any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by (a) anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

Aznar, who testified on the authenticity of Exh. "G," did not actually see the document executed or written, neither was he able to provide evidence on the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of Nubi, who handed to him said computer print-out.

Even if examined under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, which took effect on August 1, 2001, and which is being invoked by Aznar in this case, the authentication of Exh. "G" would still be found wanting.

Pertinent sections of Rule 5 read:

Section 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule.

Section 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means:

(a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same;

(b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or

(c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge.

Indeed, Aznar failed to demonstrate how the information reflected on the print-out was generated and how the said information could be relied upon as true.

Petition denied.

_______________________

Full text of the case available at: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/mar2007/gr_164273_2007.html