Garrido v. Quisumbing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Joaquin G. Garrido was a respondent in G.R. No. 75787, which involved an appeal from a Court of Appeals decision concerning the mismanagement of Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. and damages. This Court modified the Court of Appeals' decision, increasing exemplary or corrective damages to P600,000.00 and affirming other aspects, finding the original award of P100,000.00 insufficient given the simulated nature of an 'accommodation loan' and the scheme to divest SEF of its interests. Procedural History: The judgment in G.R. No. 75787 became final and executory on March 23, 1991. Subsequently, Garrido filed G.R. No. 100770 seeking to set aside the judgment in G.R. No. 75787. This was dismissed by the Third Division on August 5, 1991, on the grounds of res judicata, failure to comply with Circular No. 1-88, and lack of merit. Notice of this resolution was sent by registered mail but was returned unclaimed, with notices issued on August 22, 29, and September 10, 1991. Garrido's counsel failed to claim the letter, thus he was deemed duly served. The Petition: The present complaint, filed by Garrido, is viewed as another attempt to re-litigate issues already resolved in G.R. No. 75787 or to frustrate its enforcement. The complaint raises several causes of action concerning alleged improprieties in the intervention of Sociedad Europea de Financiacion (SEF), lack of authority of attorneys, falsifications, improprieties in calling a stockholders' meeting, acts as presiding officer and secretary, a deed of assignment of shares, and the alleged ousting of owners. Garrido also made allegedly untruthful statements in his verified complaint regarding the pendency of G.R. No. 100770 and the majority stockholder of Capital Insurance.
Issue(s)
Whether the present complaint constitutes an attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in G.R. No. 75787 or to frustrate its enforcement. Whether Garrido's allegations regarding SEF's intervention, attorneys' authority, falsifications, improprieties in corporate actions, deed of assignment, and ousting of owners are meritorious. Whether Garrido made untruthful statements in his verified complaint, exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth; and the duty to protect lawyers from unjust accusations.
Ruling
The Court Resolved to DISMISS the complaint for utter lack of merit and to administer the SEVEREST CENSURE on the complainant for his 'reckless disregard of the truth.'
Ratio Decidendi
On the attempt to re-litigate and frustrate enforcement: The Court found that the present complaint was indeed another attempt by Joaquin Garrido to ventilate and re-litigate issues already raised and resolved, or which could have been raised and resolved, in G.R. No. 75787, or to frustrate attempts at its enforcement. The complaint alleged facts occurring prior to or subsequent to the judgment in G.R. No. 75787, with dispositions clearly intended to set at naught the prior judgment. Such stratagems were deemed impermissible. On the merits of Garrido's allegations: The Court systematically addressed each of Garrido's seven causes of action and found them to be without foundation and contrary to the facts on record. Specifically, the issue of SEF's intervention and the authority of its attorneys had already been resolved in Garrido v. Quisumbing, 28 SCRA 614 (1969). Allegations of falsification and improprieties in corporate actions were found to be unsupported by evidence and contradicted by findings in prior proceedings and by law. The claim regarding the deed of assignment was deemed to be made pursuant to the Court's judgment in G.R. No. 75787, with no legal impediment. The final cause of action was viewed as another attempt to negate the Court's judgment. On Garrido's untruthful statements and the duty to protect lawyers: The Court found that Garrido had trifled with the truth and exhibited a cavalier attitude regarding his obligation to be accurate. He falsely stated in his verified complaint that G.R. No. 100770 was still pending when it had already become final and executory. This was despite his counsel being deemed duly served with the resolution. The Court presumed that Garrido was aware of the status of the case, and his averment indicated disrespect for the truth or indifference to making allegations without verification. Furthermore, Garrido made another wilful falsehood regarding the majority stockholder of Capital Insurance, contradicting his own admissions and other evidence on record. Citing Arcadio v. Ilagan and Santos v. Dichoso, the Court reiterated that while lawyers are disciplined for failing their duties, they are protected from unjust accusations. Litigants may not use the courts to vent their rancor on members of the Bar. The Court also cited Albano v. Coloma for the principle that severe censure is called for when a counsel's good name is traduced by an accusation made in reckless disregard of the truth. Based on the lack of merit in all causes of action and the complainant's conduct in making untruthful statements, the Court concluded that the complaint must be dismissed and the complainant censured.
Main Doctrine
Complainants who make untruthful statements in their sworn complaints, exhibiting a reckless disregard for the truth and disrespect for the judicial process, may be subjected to the severest censure.