Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51679:gr-171008-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:53:29+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 171008 - CARMELITA FUDOT v. CATTLEYLA LAND, INC.
CARMELITA FUDOT, Petitioner, v. CATTLEYLA LAND, INC., Respondent.
In another meeting on 26 September 2007, Mr. Chan told Atty. De La Serna that there would no more negotiations for the purchase of Fudot's rights and he had already given P10 Million to Justice Tinga. By way of consuelo de bobo, Mr. Chan offered De La Serna a legal retainer of P200,000.00 down and a monthly fee of P15,000.00 to act as his lawyer in Bohol.10 A day later, or on 27 September 2007, as De La Serna notes, in a bid to tie the loose ends of his tale, the decision in this case was mailed at the Central Post Office, 11 a copy of which was received by him on 10 October 2007.
III. THE DECISION OF JUSTICE TINGA IN THE CASE REEKS OF BRIBERY. HE HAS REPUDIATED ALL THE DOCTRINES HE HAS SUMMARIZED AND ENUNCIATED IN LIM v. JORGE, A DECISION HE PENNED ONLY IN 2005.
Only two years ago, in Lim v. Jorge, (G.R. No. 161861, March 11, 2005) Justice Dante Tinga made a learned treatise when he summarized and further expounded on all the long-established doctrines on the law and jurisprudence governing the Torrens System of land titles in the Philippines. It was indeed a brilliant anthology worthy of publication into a book.
In this instant Decision however, Justice Tinga has swallowed all the noble doctrines he has enunciated so brilliantly, and instead repudiated and contradicted everything he has said just to accommodate JOHNNY CHAN and all his cohorts and his money.
If this is not a CLEAR CASE OF BRIBERY, then we don't know what is.
Yet, in this instant case, TWO (2) YEARS is all it took for Justice Dante Tinga to come up with a favorable Decision for JOHNNY CHAN.
Where is equity? Where is the justice? IF THIS IS NOT BRIBERY, THEN THE SUN RISES EVERY MORNING FROM THE WEST.
This case must have been plucked out from underneath a stack of older cases which have been prioritized for resolution. There could be no other explanation.
There is a difference of some 20,000 intervening cases between Oppus and Fudot. WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE REASON WHY THIS INSTANT CASE WAS SELECTED AND PLUCKED OUT FROM UNDERNEATH 20,000 OTHER CASES, AND DECIDED IN LESS THAN TWO (2) YEARS?
In a resolution dated 14 April 2008, the Court set the hearing on the charge of indirect contempt on 18 June 2008.19 In the hearing, Atty. De La Serna, together with his son Atty. Victor De La Serna, Jr., Mr. Chan, Atty. Petralba and Atty. Alex Monteclar (Atty. Monteclar) of Cattleya appeared.
Well, we end-up, he was kind of unhappy.
I don't know; maybe angry.
Because my offer to him for the amicable settlement still stands for Four Million.
Well, he said Ten and I said that's too much.
"September 27, 1007, Monday, lunch at office; OrdoÃ±ez of tour organizers came to my office; went to GBH for meeting; from GBH returned to office, conference with another client; then went to BF tennis court, played one game and gave birthday blow out - inom for my group: Ernie, Glen, Roy, etc., etc; had short chat with Junior de la Serna, 5:00 p.m." This is how it transpired, Your Honor.
Okay that was September 17, four days after the promulgation of the decision. September 13 was the date the decision was made.
So he would have told you to forget about paying anything we won already.
So your offer to meet again your offer on September 17 to meet again would be irrational because you won already had that money been given really.
Exactly, Your Honor, and in fact the meeting on September 25 would have been an absurd meeting.
If your client really paid Ten Million, he would be the first to know right away.
And on September 25, he would not have agreed to a meeting anymore.
We find Atty. De La Serna guilty of indirect contempt.
An accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove, the complainant must present panoply of evidence in support of such an accusation.49 It will take more than the uncorroborated and independent statements of Atty. De La Serna to cast an aura of credibility to his accusations.
We reviewed the records of the case and find that the decision was made in accordance with law and established jurisprudence. The principles enunciated in Lim v. Jorge,50 now being invoked by Atty. De La Serna, simply do not find application in this case. His insistence that Justice Tinga repudiated and contradicted everything he enunciated in the Lim case "just to accommodate Mr. Chan and all his cohorts and his money" 51 is not only groundless, it is also downright contemptuous.
I did not, Your Honor.
mailed at the Central Post Office, implying that if not for the fact that Mr. Chan paid for the decision, he would not have known of the outcome of the case even before the decision was released on 27 September 2007.
It would be easier, Your Honor, because once a compromise agreement is signed, we submit it to the Court. In fact, I can already advise my client, even if the Court has not resolved the compromise agreement, go ahead construct because the compromise agreement will then bind the other party. It's much easier, Your Honor. It's much more logical.
He said his price is Ten Million.
G.R. No. 150186; a case which he previously handled, claiming that accused Oppus continues to languish in jail because the Supreme Court had not resolved his appeal even after the lapse of more than ten (10) years.60 De La Serna's plaint is baseless and non sequitur.
Section 15 (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all lower courts.
The instant petition was filed on 6 March 2006. Respondent was required to file its comment thereon, which it submitted on 1 June 2006. The Court thereafter required petitioner to file her reply, and petitioner filed one on 11 September 2006. Her reply was noted on 13 November 2006. Thus, as of 13 November 2006, the case was deemed submitted, there being no other pleading required by the Court. From that point on, it is but logical to assume that a decision would be forthcoming.
As for the Oppus case, it appears from the records that De La Serna used to be Oppus's lawyer, but he was replaced upon Oppus's motion. Moreover, the case was already deemed closed and terminated as of 15 October 2007, when the Court granted Oppus's Motion to Withdraw Petition/Appeal filed on 19 September 2007. Contrary to De La Serna's claim, the case is no longer pending as it was already been disposed of. Moreover, the Oppus case was assigned to another ponente, not Justice Tinga. The period during which the Oppus case was pending cannot serve as sound basis for comparison with this case.
In addition, Atty. De La Serna's assumption that the instant case was decided ahead of 20,000 other cases is preposterous. Deducting the General Register Number ( G.R. No.) of the Oppus case from the instant case would lead one to infer that 20,000 cases are still pending, which is not the case, since as pointed out by Justice Carpio, there are no more than ten thousand cases pending in the Supreme Court at any one time.61 Besides, in between the G.R. No. of the Oppus case (G.R. No. 171008) and that of this case (G.R. No.150186), are thousands of cases.
As part of the machinery for the administration of justice, a lawyer is expected to bring to the fore irregular and questionable practices of those sitting in court which tend to corrode the judicial machinery. Thus, if he acquired reliable information that anomalies are perpetrated by judicial officers, it is incumbent upon him to report the matter to the Court so that it may be properly acted upon. An omission or even a delay in reporting may tend to erode the dignity of, and the public's trust in, the judicial system.
reconsideration dated 20 October 2007. For this, he offers the lame pretext that adverted bribery is a mere "extraneous matter (that) is not relevant as far as the legal issues are concerned in this case," and because his request for inhibition dated 4 November 2007, where the matter was mentioned for the first time, "at least does not have a deadline."65 While admitting that he did not even verify from other sources if Mr. Chan's statement had any factual basis, De La Serna offers another feeble explanation for his delayed reaction in that he could not just go to the Supreme Court and request for investigation, as he could not even pass through the guards.66 A lawyer of De La Serna's caliber and experience would know that there is a proper way of lodging a formal complaint for investigation, including sending it by registered mail.
up the issue of bribery after an unfavorable decision was issued makes the allegation all the more a contrived afterthought, a hastily concocted story brought to cast doubts on the integrity not only of Justice Tinga, but also of the entire Supreme Court.
receipt of this Resolution and WARNED that a repetition of a similar act will warrant a more severe penalty.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to Atty. De La Serna's personal record in the Office of the Bar Confidant and copies thereof furnished the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
The IBP is ordered to submit with DISPATCH its Report on the investigation in Gabriel T. Ingles v. Atty. Victor De La Serna, docketed as A.C. No. 5763.
This Resolution is immediately executory.
1 Pursuant to the Rules of Court, Rule 71, Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
2 On 13 September 2007, the Court promulgated its decision in this case, denying the petition filed by Carmelita Fudot. Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration dated 20 October 2007 was denied on 6 February 2008. The decision became final and executory on 4 March 2008.
3 Request for the Inhibition of Justice Dante O. Tinga on the Ground of Credible Allegations of Bribery of P10 Million dated 4 November 2007; rollo, pp. 117-126.
4 De La Serna refers to our 13 September 2007 decision wherein we upheld the title of Cattleya, Land, Inc. over that of Fudot, Atty. De La Serna's client.
13 G.R. No. 161861, March 11, 2005.
15 Id. at 124-125. The case referred to is Ignacio Oppus v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 150183.
20 Id. at 338, TSN dated 18 June 2008.
23 Id. at 359. Aside from the purchase of the adjacent property, Mr. Chan and Cattleya also entered into an "Exclusive Option to Purchase," whereby for P1,000,000.00, Belle South Pacific Property, Inc., represented by Johnny Chan was granted the exclusive option to buy the property subject of the case in the event that the property will be finally adjudicated to Cattleya. Id. at 556-558.
30 Id. at 559-560. Justice Carpio Morales, after inspecting the diary, observed that the entries found therein bear a patina of authenticity;TSN, id. at 455.
33 Rollo, p. 423. TSN dated 18 June 2008.
34 TSN, id. at 417-419.
"When it turned out that Tecson had already sold Lot 2-A to Fudot TCT -17402 in 1986, Cattleya can blame only its lawyers, Atty. Federico Cabilao and Atty. Gabriel Ingles. Apparently, these lawyers were themselves fooling Cattleya so that they can get their commission and overprice immediately. x x x (Underscoring supplied).
This case has been remanded to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for further proceedings per the Court's Resolution dated 3 December 2002.
38 Rollo, p. 480, TSN dated 18 June 2008.
40 Id at 372 and 476.
42 Resolution dated 18 June 2008, id. at 127-128.
43 Id. at 561-562. Incidentally, on 8 July 2008, the Court received Atty. De La Serna's Petition for En Banc Review of the decision in this case, citing as grounds therefor the alleged repudiation of long established doctrines and the bribery charges against Justice Tinga. The petition was denied on 06 February 2008. Id. at 161.
46 Abad v. Somera, 187 SCRA 75, cited in Industrial and Transport Equipment, Inc. v. NLRC, 348 Phil. 158, 163 (1998).
47 Guerrero v. Villamor, G.R. NOS. 82238-42, 13 November 1989, 179 SCRA 355, 359.
49 CastaÃ±os v. EscaÃ±o, Jr., Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-955, 251 SCRA 174, 184-185, 191.
50 G.R. No. 161861, 11 March 2005.
52 As stated by Justice Quisumbing, id. at 354; TSN dated 18 June 2008.
53 TSN, id. at 371-374; TSN dated 18 June 2008.
54 Id. at 394-395; TSN dated 18 June 2008.
62 Lualhati v. Albert, 57 Phil. 86, 92 (1932).
63 Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, No. L-27072, 9 January 1970, 31 SCRA 1, 16-17.
64 In Re: Published Alleged Threats Against Members of the Court in the Plunder Law Case Hurled by Atty. Leonard De Vera, 434 Phil. 503, 510 (2002).
67 Tiongco v. Hon. Aguilar, 310 Phil. 652 (1995).
68 Id. at 661 citing In re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 562.
69 In Re: Almacen, supra note 73 at 576-580.
70 12 March 1987, 148 SCRA 382.
72 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 71, Sec. 7.
73 De Guia v. Guerrero, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-93-1099, 1 August 1994, 234 SCRA 625, 630.
74 Mercado v. Security Bank Corporation, G.R. No. 160445, 16 February 2006, 482 SCRA 501, 518-519.
75 Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr., G.R. No. 152072, 12 July 2007, 527 SCRA 446, 464.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.