A.M. No. RTJ-92-863 and A.C. No. 3815
PER CURIAM:
"Atty. Enrique S. Chua as counsel for the complainants and also as their principal witness declared in his Affidavit that when criminal cases nos. 10010 and 10011 were raffled to RTC, Br. 50, Bacolod City, presided by the respondent, he was heartened because the respondent was among the few judges he was comfortable with. Consequently, Atty. Chua allegedly approached the respondent in his chambers and apprised him of the background of the cases and requested that the warrants of arrest be held in abeyance because of the irregularity in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. That the respondent accordingly instructed the docket clerk not to release the warrants of arrest. After the clerk left, the respondent allegedly said, ‘Ike, don't worry too much, anyway, that is not your personal problem. They are just cases of your clients. What is important is that you are assured of your attorney's fees. Why, how much is your fee there? P50,000.00? Make it-double, so that I can have a share there and I will take care of everything' (.Affidavit of Atty. Chua; Exh. 'H').Atty. Chua further declared that after he delivered the P20,000.00 to Judge Abastillas, the latter told him that the accused (in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011) could see the Judge at the forthcoming convention of Philippine Judges' Association to be held at the Quezon City Sports Center.
Atty. Chua then apprised his client Johnson Lee of what happened and told him not to worry but at the same time informed him 'that the judge is asking for P50,000.00 to take care of everything. Johnny K.H. Uy advised Atty. Chua that they are willing to give P50,000.00 to the respondent because of their sad experience with the Department of Justice and insisted that the amount be given over the objections of Atty. Chua. That Mr. Uy sent a check in the amount of P20,000.00 to Atty. Chua, which the latter should in turn give to respondent as initial payment for the bribe. In the meantime, Atty. Chua deposited the check in his account.
Sometime in the second week of April, 1991, the criminal docket clerk of the respondent informed Atty. Chua that the bail bond for his clients was increased from P18,000.00 to P100,000.00 each, upon ex-parte motion filed by the private prosecutor. Aware of the adverse development, Johnny Uy blamed Atty. Chua for not giving the money yet to the respondent; Atty. Chua again went to the chambers of the respondent where accordingly he was advised by the latter to file a motion to strike out the ex-parte motion for the reduction of the bail and at the same time moved for the reduction of the bail provided it shall be in cash. The motion was filed and the respondent granted it the following day. The respondent instructed Atty. Chua that the bail bond should be in cash to facilitate the collection of his attorney's fees so that both of them can receive their respective compensation for their efforts (Exh. 'H', par. 9).
Again, in his Affidavit Atty. Chua stated that on May 2, 1991 at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon he delivered P20,000.00 to the respondent and before he left the chambers, the respondent jestingly said where will they celebrate that evening.
Moreover, he indicated therein that on January 29, 1992, Johnson Lee and Atty. Chua appeared before the Judicial and Bar Council and briefly related the delivery of the P20,000.00 to the respondent where he was rebuked by Dean Palma for allowing himself to be used as a conduit for illegal and immoral act. Dean Palma asked Atty. Chua if he was not guilty as the respondent (Affidavit, par. 16).
During the cross examination of Atty. Chua, he affirmed, that his first meeting with the respondent was between April 10 to 15, 1991 in his chambers when the criminal docket clerk was instructed not to release the warrants of arrest (p. 52, TSN, Sept. 16, 1993; p. 41, TSN, Sept. 15, 1993). He further testified that it was also at that time when the respondent solicited P50,000.00 when he said, ‘Why, how much is your fees there? You double it.' (p. 54, TSN, Sept. 16, 1993). The second meeting was when Atty. Chua discussed the reduction of the bail bond which he said could be on April 17, 18 and 19, 1991, but most probably on the 18th (pp. 85, 86, TSN, Sept. 15, 1993), and the: third meeting was when he delivered the P20,000.00 which he said was on May 2, 1991 but which he rectified during cross examination that he withdrew the amount or. May 2, 1991 and the delivery of P20,000.00 to the respondent was on May 3, 1991 at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon (pp. 63-64, TSN, Sept. 15, 1993).
"In the Memorandum filed by Atty. Chua on Dec. 28, 1993, he pointed out the following facts which were either admitted or undisputed and which he believes established the misconduct and the impropriety of the respondent as follows:
a) Respondent Judge's admission that he met complainant Lee ahead of witness Johnny Uy, whom he tagged as the 'financier' of the herein complainants on May 29, 1991; 'while he met Uy only on October 7, 1991' (p. 11, Comment dated September 28, 1992 of respondent).
b) Respondent Judge's admission that, indeed, on May 29, 1991, he and complainant Lee saw each other at the Quezon City Sports Center, during the meeting of the Philippine Judges' Association (p. 11, Comment, supra).
c) As to witness Uy, respondent Judge admitted that 'it is true that respondent met with Johnny K.H. Uy on October 7, 1991 at the residence of respondent at Unit A-2, 157 Katipunan Road Quezon City x x x' (p. 7, Comment, supra).
Atty. Chua is of the opinion that the meeting of the respondent with the accused who were charged with two (2) criminal cases before his sala will render him liable for gross misconduct or conduct unbecoming of (sic) a magistrate."
"Q Now, we go back to your allegation that sometime either on May 2 or the next day, you delivered P20,000.00 to Judge Abastillas?"A Yes. Correct."Q Can you please be a little bit more specific. Was it May 2 or May 3?"A Because as far as I can recall, when I appeared before the JBC I had then with me my old bank passbook. I traced the deposit and withdrawal in that passbook. There was a withdrawal on May 2, 1991 of the sum of P20,000.00. So most probably, it's either on that very same day or immediately the next day that I delivered the money."A I think most probably it would be May 3 because if I am not mistaken, the next day is either a non-working, day or a Saturday and I remember that. Yes, yes. Correct. When I placed the P20,000.00 in my attache case, I remember my kid commenting that 'Papa, you have so much money in your attache case'. So the money stayed overnight with me. Yes. Correct. It was May 3." (TSN, p. 11, .Sept. 15, 1993.)'
"23. It is true that Lee attended the dinner which I and my wife had with my cousin and his wife, Mr. and Mrs. Arturo Sena, at the Manila Hotel on the evening of June 7, 1991. He was a gatecrasher on that occasion. What happened was this: My cousin and I agreed to a foursome at the Manila Hotel on June 7, 1991. When my wife and I were already on our way to the Manila Hotel, Atty. Simbulan called me up and said he wanted to see me. I told him that I was going to a dinner at the Manila Hotel. He insisted in seeing me; and I had an inkling it was because of the above-mentioned criminal cases, so I told him, I was willing to see him as long as he did not bring along either or both Lee or Moreno. (Prior to this, he informed me that Lee and Moreno were clients of his partner, Atty. Pineda), and I made this condition because I did not want to meet Lee and/or Moreno outside of the court and especially not during a social occasion; I was willing to see Atty. Simbulan because his brother is a friend of mine, and he was my counsel for one of my brothers-in law (‘bilas – husband of my wife’s sister). Atty Simbulan agreed that he would not take with him either of his clients, so I told him to join us at the Manila Hotel. Much to my surprise and anger, Lee was at the Manila Hotel Lobby, when he reached the place. So, when I saw Atty. Simbulan, I asked him: 'Bakit ba nandito iyan?' (Why is that person here?). Atty. Simbulan answered: ‘Ewan ko ba diyan. Pasensiya ka na; Huwag ka nang magalit. Hayaan mo na siya' (I don’t know. Please be patient; don’t get angry. Let him join us). I contained my irritation. My cousin and his wife, and my wife were civil and hospitable. We, Filipinos, are a hospitable people. Unlike Americans, we tolerate gatecrashers, as in this instance of gatecrashing by Johnson Lee, who is a very pushy person, as indeed he also gatecrashed during the Judges' Convention. Furthermore, as indicated by their attempts to see and talk to Justice Alfredo Lagamon, the Investigating Justice in this proceeding.Again, Judge Abastillas did not deny that Johnson Lee, one of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011, went to his residence at Quezon City on October 7, 1991. But the visit, according to Judge Abastillas, was not at his own initiative and the amount of $5,000.00 was never discussed on that occasion. This is his version of the meeting:
"24. During the dinner, altho my wife, my cousin and his wife tried to be cordial to Lee, I showed my displeasure by not addressing him. It is not true that I told him I will take care of the two criminal cases." (At pp. 13 and 14.)
"25. It is not true that on October 7, 1991 that I asked for $5,000.00 from Johnny Uy. He did come to my residence on that date, but that was not on my initiative. Prior to October 7, 1991, I had been getting word from our maid and from my son, that a certain Mr. Uy had been calling up asking for me, but refused to leave any message. And then on October 7, 1991, just as I was preparing to go out for a luncheon meeting, our maid informed me a certain Mr. Uy wanted to talk to me over the phone. When I answered the phone Johnny Uy introduced himself and insisted that I let him come over to my house; he said he wanted to talk to me and explain his S.E.C. Case where his sister Banhua is opposing party. He did not say outright that he was going to discuss the Criminal Cases against Lee and Moreno; if he had, I would have-refused to see him, because I did not want to talk with or about Lee, at this time, I was getting fed up with the pushiness and aggressive behavior of Uy, who plainly wanted to establish a close relationship with me. Uy was very insistent that I see him, so just to accommodate him, I agreed to see him. And he came to my house on said date, October 7, 1991. He did talk about the S.E.C. case and also about Commissioners. I never asked him for $5,000.00. I never asked him for money, Philippine or American currency, on that occasion, or over the phone. Uy was lying when he testified, that when he came to see me at home, I asked for $5,000.00 from him and/or Lee. He was likewise lying when he said that in a telephone conversation with me on October 16, 1991, said $5,000.00 was discussed. That is not true. It is possible I may have talked with him over the phone, but I categorically declare that I have never mentioned, nor have we ever discussed $5,000.00. Also, I have never consented to the taping of any conversation, with him, or with anybody else." (Sworn Statement, Exh. "27", pp. 14 and 15.)Evidence in Adm. Case No. 3815.
In the course of the joint hearing of the administrative cases, Judge Abastillas expanded his charges against Atty. Chua to include the following:
- 1. ‘And at the risk of incurring the ire of the Court, defense counsel regrets to say that in denying the six (6) incidents in the manner above-described, the Court acted no better than a pre-school kid who murmurs a favorite nursery rime (sic)' (Page 3, par. 5 of the Motion).
- 2. 'To put it bluntly, accused have the feeling that these cases are being railroaded against them' (Page 5, 2nd par. of the Motion).
- 3. 'Inasmuch as this motion not only seeks to reconsider the various palpable erroneous actuations of the Court, which have gone so far out of hand, but also cries for prompt extraordinary remedies or corrective disciplinary sanctions urgently required, so as to restore order and sanity in the entangled situations created by the series of plainly and outrageously, if not maliciously, erroneous orders of His Honor, which are highly prejudicial to the rights of the accused and injurious to the administration of justice and in effect, constitute a desecration of our entire judicial system, which have therefore rendered the President Judge RENATO E. ABASTILLAS unfit to continue wearing the judicial robe and sitting any second longer in the Bench, a copy of this Motion is made under oath and furnished the Supreme Court thru the Hon. Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa; Judicial and Bar Council and the Court Administrator, without prejudice to the impending formal administrative complaint the accused will in due time institute with the Supreme Court (Page 12, No. (7) of the Motion)."
B. Atty. Chua violated the provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as follows:
- 1. He admitted during cross-examination that in his conspiracy with Lee, Moreno and Uy, he committed the crime of bribery which is penalized in Articles 210 and 212 of the Revised Penal Code;
- 2. He has been charged with the crime of Falsification of Public Document in People of the Philippines versus Enrique S. Chua, docketed as Criminal Case No. 12036 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 53, Bacolod City;
- 3. An administrative case has been filed against him in Adm. Case No. 1425, entitled "J. Bautista Rabago vs. Atty. Enrique S. Chua;"
- 4. Atty. Chua committed perjury in conspiracy with Lee, Moreno and Uy, by testifying in the proceedings under oath that he gave P20,000.00 as a bribe to Judge Abastillas on May 3, 1991, when he knew that he never gave any bribe money to Judge Abastillas; and that Atty. Chua also made other false statements in the proceedings to harass Judge Abastillas.
Atty. Chua categorically testified on cross-examination during the proceedings before Justice Lagamon that he gave P20,000.00 as bribe to Judge Abastillas. Thus:
- 1. Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02 for falsely testifying under oath that he gave P20,000.00 bribe money to Judge Abastillas on May 3, 1991;
- 2. Canon 8, Rule 0.01 for using abusive and offensive language in his pleadings and memoranda against Undersecretary Bello of the Department of Justice;
- 3. Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03, for not only by perjuring himself in declaring that he gave P20,000.00 bribe money to Judge Abastillas, but also by offering false evidence in the form of a taped conversation, indicating lack of candor, fairness and good faith with the Court, and which acts of Atty. Chua violate his duties not to do any falsehood to mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice; and
- 4. Canon 12, Rule 12.04 for advising his clients - the two (2) accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 not to attend the scheduled arraignment.
"Q In this particular case, with a solicitation bribe allegedly made by Judge Abastillas, what was your advise to your clients?
“A I admonished them that the defense in these two cases are intrinsically rneritorious. So I do not see any reason, giving money or bribing any Judge. And that I am not in the habit doing that.“Q Did you agree with your clients that you would not give the bribe?“A That is what I told them.“Q What did your client tell you?“A They are so insistent and finally they prevailed upon me. Because their reason is the sad experience they had undergone with the Dept. of Justice. And according to Mr. Uy he told me, he said you just cannot underestimate my sister Banua and perhaps you do not know her. And he said giving of money is not in reality a bribe because we are in effect buying justice. And he told me I have to be practical about the whole thing.“Q So you were convinced by your clients that this was not really a bribe but you were only ‘buying justice.’“Q I still have reservation. Actually, up to this date I do not as a way of life approach such practice but I really do not know why I gave in to their constant persistent pleadings.“Q Was it because as you said you emotionally identified yourself to your clients?“A Partly maybe.“Q So you agreed that you are going to give what Judge Abastillas was allegedly asking from you?"A That was the effect because finally I delivered P20,000.00 to him.” (TSN, Oct. 27, 1993, pp. 7-3.)
“Then in (sic) October 7, 1991 in the morning, our aforesaid maid Beth informed me that Mr. Johnny Uy wanted to talk to me. When respondent answered the phone, Mr. Uy introduced himself and asked that he be allowed to see respondent in his house. Respondent demurred because he was in a hurry because he had a 2 p.m. appointment in the Court of Appeals. But Uy was very insistent, so, just to get rid of him, respondent agreed to see Uy for a few minutes. So Uy went to see respondent at the latter's house. After introducing himself, Uy started discussing the criminal cases against complainants herein.
"'What respondent repeatedly told Uy is that he (Uy) should rely on the counsel of Lee and Moreno to do all that need to be done in the case." (pp. 6-7.)
"2. The circumstances as narrated by respondent Judge under which he first met complainant Lee by way of his justification in meeting the said Complainant, should be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak. Respondent Judge seems to heap the blame on his fellow Judges Ponferrada and de la Rosa, as being instrumental in paving the way for his meeting complainant Lee, but neither of these two judges was presented by him to substantiate his version. Worse, if respondent was able to secure the affidavit of Judge Ponferrada (Annex '4' of his sworn affidavit dated 27th October, 1993) to support the fact that on May 3, 1991, he was in Roxas City, then, there is no reason why he cannot at least secure a similar affidavit from Judge Ponferrada to bolster the circumstances under which he met complainant Lee.The three (3) meetings by Judge Abastillas with interested parties who had a stake in the outcome of Criminal Cases Nos. 10010 and 10011 and the recorded telephone conversation where said cases were discussed manifested Judge Abastillas' willingness, nay, propensity to enter into deals with motivations incongruous to the merits of the cases pending before him. Judge Abastillas committed serious misconduct no less.
Hence, that respondent Judge and complaint Lee met under mutually conducive and cordial circumstances which subsequently led to the latters (sic) solicitation of bribe from witness Uy, is very probable.
3. Moreover, the pretension of the respondent Judge that after the meeting of May 29, 1991 with complainant Lee at the Judges’ convention, he ‘did not give him the opportunity to see respondent again’ and that ‘he took all steps necessary so that he could not have to talk again to Lee’, is a pure lie, and thus cannot be believed, because when respondent Judge, without his slightest expectation, was confronted with a calling card (EXH. 'D') of his own cousin Mr. Arturo Sena, given by said Mr. Sena to complainant Lee, in the presence of respondent. Judge and his wife, at a dinner at the Manila Hotel on June 7, 1991 or barely a week after respondent Judge, realizing that he could no longer pretend to be that 'resolute' in avoiding complainant Lee, vainly set up the pretext that complaint (sic) Lee was a gatecrasher on that occasion'. This, by itself, is extremely difficult to believe.
Even respondent Judge's explanation about the presence of complainant Lee at that Manila Hotel dinner is silly, if not childish and ridiculous. According to respondent Judge, he already 'had an inkling' on what was in Atty Simbulan's mind when the latter 'insisted in seeing him' at the time he and his wife were already on their way to the Manila Hotel for a 'foursome' dinner. That 'inkling' according to respondent Judge, are the two criminal cases where complainant Lee is one of the accused, but respondent Judge nonetheless willingly allowed Atty. Simbulan to join them in the dinner, notwithstanding the fact that, in his own words, 'prior to this, he (Atty. Simbulan) informed me that Lee and Moreno were clients of his partner, Atty. Pineda'. Thus if indeed respondent Judge is so determined in not seeing complainant Lee again and so resolute in avoiding at all costs complainant Lee as what he wants to impress upon the Investigating Justice, then, he could, have easily set up an alibi to mislead Atty. Simbulan.
Thus, there was indeed a prior understanding on where and when to meet Lee again after their meeting at the Judge's convention.
Besides, why did not respondent call on his own cousin Mr. Sena to prove that complainant Lee was really a 'gatecrasher' or request Atty. Simbulan to substantiate his version that Lee was the most unwanted guest during that Manila Hotel dinner. Worse, respondent Judge did not offer an explanation regarding Lee's having his calling card (EXH. 'C'), which witness Uy subsequently used in calling him up by telephone prior to their seeing each other on October 7, 1991 at the residence of respondent Judge."
"The undersigned finds nothing irregular when the Court issued an Order of Arrest when the accused Johnson Lee and Sonny Moreno failed to appear during the scheduled arraignment on Sept. 26, 1991. Atty. manifested that he instructed his clients not to appear in Court because a day before the date set for arraignment he allegedly filed a consolidated motion to quash which he requested that the same be heard on Oct. 11, 1991. Both accused and counsel were duly notified of the arraignment. They should have displayed their respect for the Court by appearing personally and prayed for the deferment of the arraignment. There was nothing that could have prevented the Court from orally denying the motion to quash and proceeding with the arraignment. It appears that the motion which was filed only one day before the scheduled date of hearing was intended to delay and derail the speedy trial of the case, taking into account that the Sept. 16, 1991 date of arraignment was originally agreed in open court in the presence of Atty. Chua as early as August 5, 1991 and set for Sept. 3, 1991 but reset to Sept. 26.Findings in Adm. Case No. 3815.
The undersigned finds nothing untoward in the proceedings of People vs. Espinos (Crim. Cases 8846 and 8847) where the respondent ordered that the firearms involved in the case be delivered to the custody of the Court for proper disposition.
The complainants maintain that the respondent treated the cases in a favored manner just because counsel for the accused Atty. Roger Z. Reyes is close to him. Accordingly, a 'full-blown trial type hearing' was conducted in a motion to quash and, eventually, the case was dismissed. Whereas, in the cases of the complainants the accused were ordered arrested upon their failure to appear on Sept. 26, 1991 arraignment notwithstanding the pendency of a motion to quash. It is our observation that the two cases cannot be equated because in the first place the complainants failed or refused to appear in court notwithstanding notice to them and counsel. In the Espinos case the accused consistently appeared in court. Moreover, the Order of the Court directing the delivery of the firearms in the custody of the police is properly and in order. , We are fully aware of the evil practice of irresponsible policemen who hold on to the possession of the firearms for their personal use. The Court, therefore, has to issue an Order for the delivery of the firearms for proper disposal. In fact, Atty. Chua is guilty of deliberately misquoting the Order of the Court changing the phrase 'to this Court' to 'to him', thereby creating an implication that the respondent entertained personal interest in the firearms.
The records show that the public prosecutor also moved that the firearm in question be delivered to the court and after an Order of Forfeiture be forwarded and deposited with the Firearms and Explosives Unit, PC Headquarters, Bacolod City (Exh. '15', p. 143, records).
The charge that the respondent failed to decide Civil Case No. 2423 (Susana Lim vs. Lim) within 90 days cannot be given much consideration taking into account the Certification issued by the Clerk of Court of the branch to the effect that the case was partially tried by the respondent and that the stenographer who took down the stenographic notes left for the United States without transcribing the same. There is, therefore, a need for the retaking of the testimonies of the witnesses.
The failure of the respondent to resolve the motion to disqualify private prosecutor dated April 20, 1991 as well as the motion for reinvestigation dated July 3, 1991 which were resolved in open court only on February 5, 1992 is rather a minor violation in the face of the series of motions filed by Atty. Enrique S. Chua. Respondent lost track of what motions are due for resolution until he was reminded on January 20, 1992 through a supplemental motion filed by Atty. Chua, however, sixteen days thereafter the pending motions were all resolved.”