People v. Gomez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Aurelia S. Gomez sought the issuance of certiorari and mandamus to annul a decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a criminal case, a resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA), and a resolution of the Supreme Court (SC). She also sought to compel the CA to give due course to her appeal. Procedural History: The CA initially dismissed Gomez's appeal for failure to file an appellant's brief. Despite this, the CA accepted her memorandum, and the Office of the Solicitor General filed an appellee's brief. The CA later affirmed with modification the RTC decision, finding Gomez guilty of libel and sentencing her to imprisonment and damages. Gomez's motion for reconsideration was denied. Her subsequent petition for review on certiorari to the SC (G.R. No. 108331) was initially denied for non-compliance with circulars, reinstated, but ultimately denied for being factual and lacking reversible error. Her motions for reconsideration were denied with finality, and an entry of judgment was made. The SC also denied her petition to set aside the RTC's denial of her application for probation. Upon the prosecution's motion, the trial court issued a warrant of arrest for execution of the judgment. The Petition: The instant petition sought to annul the SC's final resolution in G.R. No. 108331. The SC required petitioner's attorneys to show cause why they should not be disciplined for impeding the execution of the judgment and misusing procedural rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the attorneys for the petitioner should be disciplined for impeding the execution of the judgment and misusing the rules of procedure. Whether the petition for certiorari to annul a final judgment of the Supreme Court is a proper remedy. Whether the attorneys' explanation for filing the petition, including alleged suppression of facts and difficulty in obtaining records, is sufficient.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to CENSURE Attorneys Alvin C. Go, Fernando C. Cojuangco, Vigor D. Mendoza, II, and Antonio A. Ligon, warning them that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court found their explanation unsatisfactory and their justification flimsy. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the disciplinary action against petitioner's attorneys: The Court found that the attorneys for the petitioner had breached their duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility. They were found to have misused the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice and impede the execution of a judgment. The Court noted that the petition was filed one year, four months, and nineteen days after the entry of judgment in G.R. No. 108331, which was long after the jurisprudentially established "reasonable time" for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. This was deemed a clever ploy to further delay the execution of the judgment. On the propriety of the petition for certiorari: The Court reiterated that a special civil action for certiorari will not lie against a final judgment of the Supreme Court. Even if it were granted for argument's sake, the petition failed due to the excessive delay in its filing, far exceeding the reasonable time prescribed for such a remedy. On the attorneys' explanation for filing the petition: The Court rejected the claim that the attorneys were candid in their presentation of facts. The suppression of vital facts, as exposed by the Office of the Solicitor General, was not due to unavailability or difficulty in obtaining them. The Court found that the attorneys had unhampered access to the records of the cases before the CA and the SC, and could have easily obtained information from the trial court. The concealment was considered a stratagem to give the petition a semblance of a valid grievance. The Court found the allegation that Atty. Pactolin refused to surrender records untenable. It noted that attorneys do not claim he unreasonably refused, and he could have legitimately retained them for unpaid fees. Furthermore, the attorneys had access to the records of the CA and SC, and could have requested information from the Clerk of Court of the trial court. The annexes attached to the petition itself demonstrated that the requisite information could have been obtained without undue effort.
Main Doctrine
Attorneys who misuse the rules of procedure to defeat the ends of justice, suppress vital facts, and unduly delay the execution of a judgment, thereby impeding the administration of justice, are subject to disciplinary action for breach of their duties under the Code of Professional Responsibility.