Pefianco v. Diy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a letter-complaint filed by Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco against Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, and Ramon Paul L. Hernando of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City Station. The complainant alleged that the respondent-Justices violated Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct concerning impartiality and Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, which pertains to causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the discharge of their judicial functions. Procedural History: The letter-complaint was forwarded to the Office of the Chief Justice and docketed as IPI No. 14-222-CA-J. The respondent-Justices were required to file their comments, which they subsequently did. The core of the complaint stemmed from a January 17, 2013 resolution by the respondent-Justices, as members of the CA Twentieth (20th) Division, which summarily dismissed a petition for review filed by Atty. Pefianco's clients in CA G.R. CEB SP No. 06984. The dismissal was based on several procedural grounds, including the failure to submit duplicate original or certified true copies of decisions, the absence of a resolution denying a motion for reconsideration, the lack of a Special Power of Attorney for the counsel to sign the verification and certification of non-forum shopping, and a defect in the notarial certificate. The Petition: Atty. Pefianco, as counsel for the petitioners in CA G.R. CEB SP No. 06984, alleged that the respondent-Justices were biased and actively sought to dismiss the petition by finding fault with it, disregarding the prayer for the authentication of annexes. He claimed this dismissal was an attempt to favor the opposing party. The Supreme Court, however, found the allegations of partiality to be unfounded, emphasizing that bare allegations are insufficient and that bias must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, stemming from an extrajudicial source. The Court noted that the dismissal was based on clear procedural infirmities as mandated by the Rules of Court, specifically Section 7 of Rule 43, and that the complainant failed to provide any justifiable reason for non-compliance or to rectify the defects. The Court also noted that the complainant had previously been suspended from the practice of law and questioned his authority to file the motion for reconsideration and the administrative complaint. Consequently, the administrative complaint was dismissed for lack of merit, and the complainant was required to show cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt, with the case also referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for investigation regarding his alleged violation of his suspension.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent-Justices committed violations of Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 by allegedly showing partiality in dismissing the petition for review. Whether the dismissal of the petition for review was justified based on the procedural infirmities cited by the CA.
Ruling
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint against Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, and Ramon Paul L. Hernando for being devoid of legal and factual merit. The Court required Atty. Mariano R. Pefianco to show cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt and referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant for investigation regarding his alleged violation of his suspension from the practice of law.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that bare allegations of partiality are insufficient to sustain a claim against judges or justices. The complainant bears the burden of proving that the conduct was clearly indicative of arbitrariness and prejudice, with evidence of bias or prejudice being clear and convincing. Furthermore, the alleged bias must stem from an extra-judicial source, meaning a basis other than what the judge learned from participation in the case. In this case, the complainant failed to present sufficient evidence to convince the Court that the respondent-Justices were partial in issuing their dismissal resolution. The dismissal was based on procedural grounds discussed in their resolution, not on any extra-judicial bias. On Issue 2: The Court found that the dismissal of the petition for review was justified by applicable jurisprudence and the Rules of Court. The CA's January 17, 2013 resolution cited four specific procedural infirmities: (1) the assailed DENR decision was not a duplicate original or certified true copy; (2) a resolution denying a motion for reconsideration was not attached; (3) the complainant lacked a Special Power of Attorney to sign the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping; and (4) the notarial certificate failed to state the notary public's office address. Section 7, Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly states that failure to comply with requirements is sufficient ground for dismissal. The Court also noted that while procedural rules may be relaxed, this requires persuasive and meritorious grounds and a reason for non-compliance, which the complainant failed to provide. The complainant's insistence on an order to elevate records did not cure the fatal procedural infirmities.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court dismissed an administrative complaint against Court of Appeals Justices for alleged partiality and violation of R.A. No. 3019. The Court held that bare allegations of partiality are insufficient to sustain a claim; the evidence must be clear, convincing, and stem from an extra-judicial source. Procedural rules, while relaxable, require persuasive grounds and a reason for non-compliance, which were absent in the complainant's case. The Court also noted that the complainant's failure to attach required documents, lack of authority to file the verification, and non-compliance with notarial rules were sufficient grounds for dismissal. The Court further required the complainant to show cause why he should not be punished for indirect contempt for filing baseless administrative charges and referred his case to the Bar Confidant for violation of his suspension from the practice of law.