COMPLAINT OF MR. AURELIO INDENCIA

Content type

User Generated

Type

Study Guide

Uploaded By

Nffvtazragrkcreg96

Pages

Rating

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC. June 9, 2005]

COMPLAINT OF MR. AURELIO INDENCIA ARRIENDA AGAINST

JUSTICES REYNATO S. PUNO, SANTIAGO M. KAPUNAN (RET.),

BERNARDO P. PARDO (RET.) AND CONSUELO YNARES-

SANTIAGO, SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE PRESBITERO J.

VELASCO, JR., COURT ADMINISTRATOR, JUSTICES BENNIE

ADEFUIN-DELA CRUZ AND PERLITA TRIA-TIRONA, COURT OF

APPEALS.

R E S O L U T I O N

CORONA, J.:

This administrative case was spawned by the November 10, 2003

affidavit of complaint filed by complainant Aurelio Indencia Arrienda with the

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In his complaint, the complainant

accused Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Santiago M. Kapunan,

[1]

Bernardo P. Pardo

[2]

and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago of this Court, Court

Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Associate Justices B.A.

Adefuin-de la Cruz

[3]

and Perlita Tria Tirona of the Court of Appeals (CA), of

graft and corruption.

[4]

In particular, the complainant charged the respondent justices for

“wilfully, maliciously and arbitrarily” rendering allegedly unjust decisions in

(RTC) Civil Case No. Q-53060, CA-G.R. CV No. 48737 and G.R. No.

137904 which were filed by complainant and his family against

the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Crispina de la Cruz.

He also charged them with “wilfully, maliciously and arbitrarily” suppressing

evidence and resorting “to a modus operandi or the so-called ‘1-2-3’ to

swindle or defraud” him and his family “by simply issuing ‘

minute’

resolutions based on technicalities without having passed upon the

unresolved issues and those other issues that were resolved contrary to

laws, rules on evidence, etc.”

[5]

The complainant outlined the alleged “1-2-3” modus operandi or

swindling scheme as follows:

1. Then Judge now CA Associate Justice Tirona, as presiding Judge

of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 102, in

her December 2, 1984 decision in Civil Case No. Q-53060

dismissed the complaint for annulment of contract, reconveyance

and damages filed by the complainant and his co-plaintiffs against

the GSIS and de la Cruz.

2. The Eleventh Division of the CA, with then CA Associate Justice

now Court Administrator Velasco as ponente, in the October 30,

1988 decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 48737, affirmed the decision of

the RTC in toto. Then CA Associate Justice Ynares-Santiago, now

a member of this Court, and CA Associate Justice Adefuin-de la

Cruz, now retired, concurred in the decision.

3. The First Division of this Court, through Justice Puno, denied the

petition for review of the complainant and his co-petitioners and

affirmed the decision of the CA in the October 19, 2001 decision

in G.R. No. 137904 entitled vda. de Urbano v. Government

Service Insurance System.

[6]

The decision was concurred in by

the other members of the First Division, namely, Chief Justice

Davide as chairman, and Justices Kapunan and Pardo.

[7]

The complainant accused the respondent justices of acting on the basis

of “personal considerations” when they decided the case against him and

his family. He alleged that they acted like the lawyers of GSIS and de la

Cruz. He described the adverse decisions as acts of betrayal of public trust.

[8]

The complainant branded the respondent justices as “Crooks in Robes”

and “Swindlers in Robes” who “gypped” him and his family of their right to

due process. He also labeled them as “corrupt justices…. who were only

sowing ‘judicial terrorism.’ ”

[9]

Not content with his tirades against the respondent justices, the

complainant next trained his guns on Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. He

claimed that the Chief Justice “failed to uphold the rule of law and had

given license to Justice Puno ‘to take whatever action the Division may

deem appropriate’ to the extent of committing a miscarriage of justice,”

instead of taking “a direct positive and favorable action” on his letters of

appeal. The complainant also criticized the Chief Justice for his “weak

leadership as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

[10]

End of Preview - Want to read all 11 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

EN BANC [A.M. No. 03-11-30-SC.? June 9, 2005] COMPLAINT OF MR. AURELIO INDENCIA ARRIENDA AGAINST JUSTICES REYNATO S. PUNO, SANTIAGO M. KAPUNAN (RET.), BERNARDO P. PARDO (RET.) AND CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO, SUPREME COURT, JUSTICE PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR., COURT ADMINISTRATOR, JUSTICES BENNIE ADEFUIN-DELA CRUZ AND PERLITA TRIA-TIRONA, COURT OF APPEALS. R E S O L U T I O N CORONA,?J.: This administrative case was spawned by the November 10, 2003 affidavit of complaint filed by complainant Aurelio Indencia Arrienda with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In his complaint, the complainant accused Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Santiago M. Kapunan,[1]?Bernardo P. Pardo[2]?and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago of this Court, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., and Associate Justices B.A. Adefuin-de la Cruz[3]?and Perlita Tria Tirona of the Court of Appeals (CA), of graft and corruption.[4] In particular, the complainant charged the respondent justices for "wilfully, maliciously and arbitrarily" rendering allegedly unjust decisions in (RTC) Civil Case No. Q-53060, CA-G.R. CV No. 48737 and G.R. No. 137904 which were filed by complainant and his family against the?Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Crispina de la Cruz. He also charged them with "wilfully, maliciously and arbitrarily" suppressing evidence and resorting "to a?modus operandi?or the so-called '1-2-3' to swindle or defraud" him and his family "by simply issuing '?minute' resolutions based on ...
Purchase document to see full attachment