Guialani, Beja lose cases against CA

By NITZ ARANCON
Correspondent

IT’S a double whammy — the final arbiter has spoken: former Taglimao barangay chairman William Guialani and Puntod barangay chairman Marvin Beja were wrong in questioning the rulings of the Court of Appeals pertaining to their cases against Mayor Oscar Moreno.

In separate decisions, the Supreme Court trashed the cases filed by Guialani and Beja against the appellate court over their rulings in favor of Moreno.

First to be dismissed was Guialani’s administrative case against CA Associate Justices Henri Jean Paul Inting, Pablito Perez, Oscar Badelles, Perpetua Atal-Paño, and Edgardo Camello.

Guialani and his associate Clemente Atoc assailed the CA’s temporary restraining order and subsequent writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of the Office of the Ombudsman’s dismissal and perpetual disqualification rulings against Moreno and the then city treasurer Glenn Bañez in connection with the controversial city hall-Ajinomoto Philippines tax settlement.

The former barangay chairman accused the CA justices of gross ignorance of the law, and gross violation of the lawyer’s oath, code of professional responsibility, code of judicial conduct, professional ethics and code of judicial ethics, grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct, manifest partiality, and gross violation of RA 6713  and RA 3019.

The SC en banc trashed Guialani’s case in its decision dated Nov. 29, 2016, a copy of which was made available only yesterday.

Signing the nine-page decision were Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and Justices Jose Portugal Perez, Antonio Carpio, Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, Bienvenido Reyes, Marvic Leonen, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa, Presbitibo Velasco Jr., Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Catral Mendoza, Estela Perlas Bernabe, and Francis Jardeleza.

Next to be denied was the petition for review on certiorari filed by Puntod barangay chairman Beja who questioned the CA’s Oct. 6, 2016 order to stop the implementation of a six-month suspension order against Moreno, city budget officer Percy Salazar and city accountant Beda Joy Elot.

The suspension order by the Office of the Ombudsman was due to Beja’s case for grave misconduct against the officials over the lease of former provincial board member Jimmy Caiña’s house in Macasandig that was used by boxers who received training under city hall’s sports program.

The 3rd division of the SC rejected Beja’s petition in the decision dated Feb. 1, 2017, a copy of which was shown to this paper yesterday.

In the Beja case, SC 3rd division deputy clerk of court Misael Domingo Battung III stated that Beja failed to show how the CA erred in its Oct. 6, 2016 resolution that stopped the ombudsman and the interior department from serving the six-month suspension of Moreno, Salazar, and Elot.

In the case, Beja alleged that Moreno, Salazar and Elot caused the lease of the Macasandig property of Caiña without the city council’s go-ahead.

The officials appealed the ombudsman’s decision, and assailed it before the CA. The appellate court subsequently stopped the implementation of the suspension order, a ruling questioned by Beja before the SC.

Battung said Beja did not follow rules on civil procedures on appeals by certiorari to the SC.

In the Guialani-Atoc case, the SC en banc ruled that the CA justices violated no law, and the administrative complaint lacked merit.

The SC en banc said the CA justices poperly exercised their judicial functions when they issued the temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction against the implementation of the ombudsman’s dismissal and disqualification order against Moreno and Bañez.

“There were no evidence presented to show any wrongdoing or bad faith on the part of the respondent Associate Justices. We have settled the rule that a judge may not be administratively sanctioned from mere errors of judgment in the absence of showing of any bad faith, fraud, malice, gross ignorance,  corrupt purposes or a deliberate intent to do an injustice on his/her part,” reads part of the SC en banc ruling.

It added: “Judicial officers cannot be  subjected to administrative disciplinary actions for their performance of duty in good faith…”

“There was no proof presented to show that they were moved by ill-will or malice to violate the law and extend favor to a party. In fact, their findings were thoroughly discussed in the ratio decidendi of the resolution.”