These were Chief Justice Renato C. Corona’s strongly-worded statements to his fellow Supreme Court Justices, Courtofficials and employees as he bared the “Oust the CJ Plot”during the flag raising ceremony at the Supreme Court groundsin the morning of December 12, 2011. Later that same day, 188members of the House of Representatives, despite a reportedmajority having yet to read the impeachment complaint, votedto impeach the chief magistrate.

In his address, Chief Justice Corona cautioned the generalpublic “to remain ready and vigilant” as he revealed the reportsconfirming “the mobilization of a secret plan to oust [him] fromhis office, by any means fair or foul.”

Chief Justice Corona said he was earlier “content to let thingspass in the spirit of Christmas” despite being unjustly and criticizedin public by President Benigno S. Aquino III during the first dayof the Justice Sector Coordinating Council sponsored 1st NationalCriminal Justice Summit at the historic Manila Hotel held onDecember 5-11, 2011.

“My silence does not mean anything more than caution andpatience. Let no one mistake my silence as a sign of weakness…Ihave been quietly preparing and will be ready to take moredetermined steps in the coming days,” Chief Justice Corona said.

Chief Justice Corona underscored that he will fight all forcesseeking to destroy democracy and the very independence ofthe Judiciary. “I want all of you to know that your Chief continuesto be in command and will lead the fight against any and all whodare to destroy the Court and the independence of the Judiciary.We do not want to see a constitutional crisis befall our democracy,but if we are challenged to defend our independence, we shallnot meekly walk away,” he stressed.

While stressing the need for the public to “keep our guardotherwise the enemies of the Court will surely take advantage ofour good faith,” Chief Justice likewise advised all Judiciary officialsand employees to continue with uninterrupted dedication to theirwork and prove all critics and detractors wrong. He rallied themto “not do anything that will encourage division or dissension inthe Court.” He said: “Stay at your posts and keep theadministration of justice going. Maintain fidelity to your duty torender efficient and impartial public service. Do your jobs andstick to your principles, to our principles.”

“I assure you, I do not intend to leave them to do as theyplease. I do not intend to leave you to fight this battle alone. Wehave great plans for the Court, and promises to keep to theFilipino people. Ours, however, are not borne of electoral

“I am here. I am not going anywhere. I am your defender and most of all, I am your Chief Justice. Together,we will face these challenges and fight all who dare to destroy the Court and our system of justice under

the Constitution.”campaigns or the quest for publicity, but demanded by ourprinciples and our sworn duty to uphold and defend theConstitution. Ours is a chosen life committed to principles wemust adhere to without complaint, without rest, for God and forcountry,” stressed Chief Justice.

OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT Prominent legal groups and various judges and court

employees associations as well as individuals have rallied behindChief Justice Renato C. Corona to condemn what they see as therailroading of the impeachment complaint against the chiefmagistrate.

In separate statements, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines(IBP), the Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA),the Supreme Court Assembly of Lawyers-Employees, Inc.(SCALE), the Philippine Association of Court Employees,the Judiciary Employees Association (JUDEA), and the LasPiñas City Judges Association (LPCJA), the SheriffsConfederation of the Philippines, Inc. (SCP), the JudiciaryAssociation of Clerks of the Philippines ( JACOPHIL),Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tacloban City judges, clerksof court and employees, and the Clerks of Court of the CebuCity Regional Trial Court called for the upholding of the Ruleof Law.

Through its National President Atty. Roan I. Libarios, theIBP cautioned that by impeaching the Chief Justice based ondecisions issued by the High Court, “the House is in effectarrogating unto itself the power to interpret the law over andabove the Supreme Court. Such an impeachment hastransformed the House of Representatives as the higherinterpreter of what law is, a clear encroachment on theprerogatives exclusively vested by the Constitution in theSupreme Court itself.”

“If the exercise of judicial review by the Supreme Court topass upon the acts of other departments of government and tointerpret the applicable laws could warrant congressionalimpeachment – despite the absence of any allegations of financialor illegal consideration – then the great constitutional doctrinesof separation of powers and judicial supremacy on matters ofinterpretation of the law would completely crumble and fall apart,”said the IBP in a strongly-worded statement.

The IBP said it considers “the breakneck and high-handedimpeachment delivered by the House as a menace and anopen subversion of the constitutional prerogatives of theSupreme Court as the final interpreter of the law and the arbiterof rights.”

The IBP underscored said that “the impeachment has placedon trial not only the Chief Justice but the entire Supreme Court. Itstressed that of the SC decision being cited in the impeachmentcomplaint, the record shows that the Chief Justice was not theponente but merely concurred in the majority or minority opinionnor did the Chief Justice flip-flop or change his position in any ofthe cases. All decisions were reached by the High Court pursuantto its processes and subjected to reconsideration proceedingsand involved interpretation of what the law is.

The PHILCONSA recently held a meeting where it deploredand lamented the turn of events in the filing of the impeachmentcomplaint.

PHILCONSA Vice-Chair Dean Froilan Bacungan said: “Themanner in which the House of Representatives exercised its powerof impeachment is a classic example of premeditated violation ofdue process of law and a denial of equal protection.

PHILCONSA Chair Manuel Lazaro said that the impeachmentcomplaint was not properly verified, hence, fatally flawed andshould be treated as an unsigned pleading which produces nolegal effect.

“Consequently, it’s as if the Impeachment Complaint was notverified and, therefore, the Senate is not duty-bound under theConstitution to proceed with the trial,” Lazaro said.

For its part, the SCALE affirmed its trust and confidence in theintegrity and independence of the Judiciary and in the latter’sloyalty to its sworn duty of upholding the Constitution and Rule ofLaw as it expressed its full support in the leadership of Chief JusticeCorona.

“We firmly believe that despite the trying times and challenges,the Judiciary will remain steadfast in performing its sacred task ofadministering justice and will continue to be the stronghold ofdemocracy and the guardian of human rights…We, therefore,reiterate our commitment to be of assistance in all the programsand initiatives of the Chief Justice as the steward of the PhilippineJudiciary,” the SCALE said.

The PACE echoed the sentiments of SCALE: “The lowercourt employees honestly believe in the integrity of the HonorableChief Justice, so much so when he did not react to the personalattack as delivered. This is a proof of his competence as head ofthe Judiciary. And such gesture is commendable for a public officiallike him.”

For its part, the JUDEA lamented what it said was Malacañang’sorchestration of the filing of impeachment complaint against Chief

By Jay B. Rempillo

Con’t. on page 3

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona addresses his fellow Supreme Court Justices as well as Court officials, and employees during the flag raising ceremony at the Supreme Court grounds on December 12, 2011.

22222

Reports

The Supreme Courthas upheld the Court of TaxAppeals (CTA’s) dismissalof the claim of thePhilippine National Bank(PNB) for a tax refundamounting to P445,578.92against the Bureau ofInternal Revenue (BIR).

In a 17-page decision penned by JusticeTeresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, the Court’s FirstDivision denied for lack of merit the petitionfor certiorari filed by PNB which sought thereversal of the January 27, 2006 and April 19,2006 resolutions of the CTA en banc dismissingPNB’s petition for review for having been filedfour days after the 15 days earlier granted withinwhich to file the said petition, among others.

PNB filed a petition for review before theCTA en banc seeking the review andmodification of the August 11, 2005 decisionof the CTA’s Second Division which haddisallowed the amount of P445,578.92 fromPNB’s total claim of P6,028,594 tax refundrepresenting creditable taxes withheld fromits sale of real property, rental income,

Court Denies PNB’s P445K‘Late’ Tax Refund PetitionBy Anna Katrina M. Martinez

commission, and management fees for theyear 1998.

The CTA en banc, however, dismissedPNB’s petition for review for having been filed“four days late on December 27, 2005, thereglementary deadline for the timely filing ofsuch petition being December 23, 2005,” fornot having been accompanied by the duplicateoriginal or certified true copies of the assailedAugust 11, 2005 decision, and for not includingan Affidavit of Service.

In denying PNB’s petition, the SupremeCourt agreed with the CTA en banc and ruledthat PNB has not demonstrated any cogentreason for the Court to take an exception andexcuse PNB’s blatant disregard for the basicprocedural rules in a petition for review,underscoring “that the PNB failed to complywith not just one, but three procedural ruleswhen it filed its petition for review with theCTA en banc.”

“PNB has not offered any meritorious legaldefense to justify suspension of the rules in itsfavor,” ruled the Court. It added: “The CTADivision explained why it disallowed theremaining balance of P445,578.92 in its Decisiondated August 11, 2005. When PNB moved toreconsider this decision, it did not offer the CTAany other evidence or explanation aside fromthe ones the CTA Division had alreadyevaluated. Nevertheless, the CTA carefullyconsidered and deliberated anew PNB’sgrounds, albeit they found them lacking inmerit. Thus, it cannot be said that PNB wasdeprived of its day in court, as in fact, it wasgiven all the time it had asked for.” (GR No.172458, Philippine National Bank v. Commissionerof Internal Revenue, December 14, 2011)

The Supreme Court has denied a flightattendant’s claim of illegal dismissal against SaudiArabian Airlines, finding that the stewardess’resignation was not forced by the airline butwas instead a voluntary act by the employee.

In a decision penned by Justice Leonardo J.Leonardo-De Castro, the Court’s First Divisionupheld the rulings of the Court of Appeals andthe National Labor Relations Commissionwhich had found that Ma. Joy Teresa O. Bilbaowas not illegally dismissed by Saudi ArabianAirlines (Saudia) and was thus not entitled tomoral and exemplary damages.

The Court ruled that Bilbao’s resignationletter, receipt of separation pay, educationalattainment, and the circumstances surroundingthe filing of complaint for illegal dismissal takentogether prove that Bilbao’s resignation wasvoluntary.

The Court held that Bilbao, who has beenworking for Saudia as flight attendant since 1986,failed to prove that her resignation letter wasvitiated by force or intimidation from Saudia asnone of the requisites under the law for consentto be vitiated were present. These requisitesare that (1) the intimidation caused the consentto be given; (2) the threatened act be unjust orunlawful; (3) the threat be real and serious, withan evident disproportion between the evil andthe resistance which all men can offer, leadingto the choice of the contract as the lesser evil;and (4) it produces a reasonable and well-grounded fear from the fact that the person fromwhom it comes has the necessary means orability to inflict the threatened injury.

The Court also noted that Bilbao’s use ofwords of appreciation and gratitude in herresignation letter negates the notion that shewas forced and coerced to resign by Saudia. It

SC Clears Saudi Arabian Airlinesof Illegal Dismissal ChargesBy Jen T. Tuazon

added that the resignation letter was hand-written by Bilbao on a Saudia form and was inEnglish, a language she is conversant in. Thuseven assuming that Saudia prepared the formin which Bilbao wrote her resignation letter,the Court found it “highly improbable that withher long years in the profession and hereducational attainment, she could be trickedand forced into doing something she does notintend to do.”

It was also noted how, instead ofimmediately filing a complaint for illegaldismissal after she was allegedly forced toresign, Bilbao executed an Undertaking in favorof Saudia, wherein she declared that shereceived her full and complete end-of-serviceaward with final settlement. Bilbao even waitedfor more than 10 months after her separationfrom Saudia before filing a complaint for illegaldismissal, the Court noted.

In 2004, Saudia ordered the transfer of 10flight attendants from its Manila Office to its JeddahOffice “due to operational requirements.” Bilbao,who was one of the said flight attendants,complied with the transfer order. But a week later,she tendered a resignation letter. She also laterexecuted and signed an Undertaking wherein sheacknowledged receipt of a sum of money as“full and complete end-of-service award with finalsettlement and have no further claims whatsoeveragainst Saudi Arabian Airlines.” Bilbao,however, later filed with the NLRC a complaintfor reinstatement and payment of full backwages;moral, exemplary, and actual damages; andattorney’s fees, alleging that she was forced bySaudia to sign the resignation letter and that hertransfer to the Jeddah office was a prelude to hertermination due to her age. The Labor Arbiterruled in Bilbao’s favor, but the NLRC reversedthe ruling. (GR No. 183915, Bilbao v. SaudiArabian Airlines, Dec. 14, 2011)

In a unanimous vote, the Supreme CourtEn Banc once again upheld the constitutionalityof RA 9335, the Attrition Act of 2005, enacted tooptimize the revenue-generation capability andcollection of the Bureau of Internal Revenue(BIR) and the Bureau of Customs (BOC).

RA 9335 also intends to encourage BIR andBOC officials and employees to exceed theirrevenue targets by providing a system ofrewards and sanctions through the creation of aRewards and Incentives Fund and a RevenuePerformance Evaluation Board. The said lawcovers all BIR and BOC officials with at least sixmonths of service, regardless of employmentstatus.

In a 24-page decision penned by JusticeMartin S. Villarama, Jr., the Court dismissed forlack of merit the petition for certiorari andprohibition of the Bureau of CustomsEmployees Association (BOCEA).

“It must be noted that this is not the first timethe constitutionality of RA No. 9335 and its IRRare being challenged. The Court already settledthe majority of the same issued raised byBOCEA in our decision in Abakada, whichattained finality on September 17, 2008. As such,our ruling therein is worthy of reiteration inthis case,” the Court held.

The Court ruled that RA 9335 “read andappreciated in its entirety, is complete in all itsessential terms and conditions, and that itcontains sufficient standards as to negate

SC Upholds Attrition Act of 2005 AnewBy Jay B. Rempillo

BOCEA’s supposition of undue delegation oflegislative power to the Board.”

Regarding the argument that RA 9335violates the equal protection clause, the Courtreiterated its jurisprudence in Abakada where itheld: “With respect to RA 9335, its expressedpublic policy is the optimization of the revenue-generation capability and collection of the BIRand the BOC. Since the subject of the law is therevenue-generation capability and collectionof the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/orsanctions provided in the law should logicallypertain to the said agencies….Both the BIR andthe BOC are bureaus under the [Department ofFinance] DOF. They principally perform thespecial function of being the instrumentalitiesthrough which the State exercises one of itsgreat inherent functions – taxation. Indubitably,such substantial distinction is germane andintimately related to the purpose of the law.Hence, the classification and treatment accordedto the BIR and the BOC under RA 9335 fullysatisfy the demands of equal protection.”

Likewise, the Court reiterated that RA 9335does not violate the security of tenure ofofficials and employees of the BIR and the BOC.The Court ruled that a BIR or BOC official oremployee in this case cannot be arbitrarilyremoved from the service without accordinghim his constitutional right to due process asno less than RA 9355 in accordance with the1986 Constitution guarantees this. (GR No.181704, Bureau of Customs Employees Associationv. Sec. Teves, December 6, 2011)

The renewal of a lease contract on the solewill of the lessee is not violative of the principleof mutuality of contracts.

Such was the central issue resolved in a 26-page decision penned by Justice Teresita J.Leonardo-De Castro. The Court’s First Divisionunanimously upheld the ruling of the Court ofAppeals which sustained the lower court’sdecision in favour of respondent Ding VelayoSports Center, Inc. (Velayo Sports), orderingpetitioner Manila International Airport Authority(MIAA) to renew its lease contract with theformer, among others.

The Court, citing Allied Banking Corporationv. Court of Appeals, affirmed that “[a]n expressagreement which gives the lessee the soleoption to renew the lease is frequent and subjectto statutory restrictions, valid and binding onthe parties...The fact that such option is bindingonly on the lessor and can be exercised onlyby the lessee does not render it void for lack ofmutuality. After all, the lessor is free to give ornot to give the option to the lessee.” The Courtadded that “the exercise by respondent of itsoption to renew the lease need no longer besubject to negotiations,” as the option was anintegral part of the consideration for thecontract.

It was likewise settled that the renewed leasecontract between MIAA and Velayo Sportsshould be based same terms and conditions as

SC Upholds Renewal of Lease ContractOver Manila Airport PropertyBy Josefina A. Guzman

the original contract of lease, seeing that therewere no specified terms and conditions forthe new contract. Reiterating the findings ofthe lower court, the Court said that “the partiesreally intended a renewal for the same term asit was then the usual practice of CAA [MIAA’spredecessor] to have the term of leases onlands where substantial amount will beinvolved in the construction of theimprovements to be undertaken by the lesseeto give a renewal.”

The Court also found no violations byVelayo Sports to justify MIAA’s revocation orrefusal to renew the lease contract. For one,the contractual prohibition against subleasingonly pertained to the property itself and not tothe improvements introduced by Velayo Sportswhich the latter owns. Since “respondent isnot leasing the improvements from petitioner,then it is not subleasing the same to third parties,”the Court concluded. Second, MIAA’sallegation of irregularity of Velayo Sports’performance of the contract, i.e., theincompleteness of the improvementsintroduced, was likewise found wanting by theCourt as the same was belatedly raised. Lastly,Velayo Sports’ alleged deficient payment of rentwas also rejected by the Court as theadministrative orders increasing the rental rateswere declared legally invalid for failure tocomply with the requisite publication. (G.R. No.161718, MIAA v. Ding Velayo Sports Center, Inc.,December 14, 2011)

Volume XII • Number 12DECEMBER 2011

3

Justice Corona. It said that the impeachmentcomplaint was not really a move towardsmaking former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo accountable but rather part of analleged grand scheme of the Aquinoadministration to maintain its high popularityratings.

The judges of Las Piñas City manifestedtheir support for Chief Justice Corona, sayingthey are “united in [our] stand to express [our]full support to [Chief Justice Corona] in thesetrying times.”

The LPCJA said that Chief Justice Corona“has been a true defender of the rights of thecourt to independence and autonomy.”Hence, the LPCJA “cannot let political groupscontinue to bash [our] institution withoutexpressing our utmost concern over such arelentless onslaught to [our] judicial system.”

For its part, the SCP said that it “take[s]exception to [the] continuous attack on theSupreme Court and the Judiciary. Thepressures being exerted so that the courts, athird and co-equal branch of the government,

kowtow to the wishes of the chief executive,first through the budget, then by verbal abuseand now by impeachment is very disheartening.We support Chief Justice Renato Corona in hisfight to resist these efforts aimed at underminingthe integrity and independence of the courts.”

The JACOPHIL expressed its “heartfeltsupport for and commitment” to Chief JusticeCorona. It stressed that “all freedom loving,law abiding Filipinos are duty bound to respectthe mandates of a co-equal branch ofgovernment.”

The judges, clerks of court and employeesof the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, TaclobanCity issued a manifesto stating, among others,“that the Supreme Court as a co-equal branch ofgovernment must be accorded due respect fromall sectors of the society, as one of the pillars ofdemocracy.” The Clerks of Court of the CebuCity Regional Trial Court made a similarmanifesto.

Various individuals, including lawmakers,have also voiced support for the chiefmagistrate.

Executive Judge Rowena Apao-Adlawan of the Tagum City, Davao del Norte also wrotean open letter expressing her full support for Chief Justice Corona. She said that “the callouscall for [Chief Justice Corona’s] impeachment is not just an affront against [him], but ratheragainst the integrity of an institution called upon by the Constitution as a final arbiter of legalissues in the land, the bulwark of democracy.”

Alliance for National and Democracy Partylist Rep. Pastor “Jun” M. Alcover, Jr. said thatANAD “is seriously disturbed with the recent turn of events” as the Judiciary has been “thefavorite target of a sinister campaign of vilification and insults from no less than the President.”

I am not Going anywhere, from page1

A woman was found guilty of violating theIntellectual Property Code (IP Code) for theunauthorized use of the trademark “Marlboro” inselling cigarettes.

The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of theManila Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court ofAppeals which had found that Gemma Ong, a.k.a.Ma. Teresa Gemma Catacutan, committedinfringement under Sec. 155 of the IP Code for sellingcounterfeit Marlboro cigarettes in Sta. Cruz, Manila.The SC also upheld the penalties imposed by theRTC of two-year imprisonment, a fine of P50,000,and indemnification of US$4,069.12 to Philip MorrisPhilippines, Inc. (PMPI), the private complainant.

The Court reiterated its ruling in McDonald’sCorporation and McGeorge Food Industries, Inc. v. L.C.Big Mak Burger, Inc., that to establish trademarkinfringement, the following elements must be shown:(1) the validity of plaintiff’s mark; (2) the plaintiff’sownership of the mark; and (3) the use of the markor its colorable imitation by the alleged infringerresults in “likelihood of confusion, stressing that ofall these elements, it is the element of likelihood ofconfusion that is the gravamen of trademarkinfringement.”

SC Finds Trader Guiltyof Infringement for SellingFake CigarettesBy Jen T. Tuazon

The Court held that it was sufficiently establishedthat the trademark “Marlboro” was a valid mark underthe law for aside from being neither generic nordescriptive, it was exclusively owned by PMPI asevidenced by the certificates of registration issuedby the Intellectual Property Office of the Departmentof Trade and Industry. Under the IP Code, a mark isvalid if it is distinctive and not barred from registration.Once registered, not only the mark’s validity, butalso the registrant’s ownership of the mark is primafacie presumed, the Court held.

The Court also ruled that the counterfeitcigarettes seized from Ong’s possession wereproven to be intended to confuse and deceive thepublic as to the origin of the cigarettes intended tobe sold, as they not only bore PMPI’s mark, butthey were also packaged almost exactly as PMPI’sproducts.

The Court also rejected Ong’s defense ofmistaken identity, arguing before the Court that sheis not the “Gemma Ong” accused in the case asshown by the discrepancies in the prosecutionwitnesses’ affidavits. In dismissing her claim, theCourt stressed the long established principle thatbetween an affidavit executed outside the court anda testimony given in open court, the latter almostalways prevails. Here, the prosecution witnesseshad positively identified Ong as the person whoinitially refused the search team entrance, then lateracquiesced to the search operations. The Courtupheld the RTC’s ruling that “it is highly unlikely thata person of her stature and educational attainmentwould be so meek and timid that she failed to protestagainst her being wrongly identified, accused,arrested, and potentially imprisoned. If what she sayswere true, she would not have agreed to post bailor to be arraigned without at the very least, bringingup the fact that she was not the Gemma Ong thepolice officers were looking for.” (GR No. 169440,Ong v. People, November 23, 2011)

The Supreme Court, voting 7-7, hasdismissed for lack of merit the government’spetition that sought to overturn a Sandiganbayanresolution denying the admission of thedeposition of Maurice V. Bane as part of itsevidence in the ill-gotten wealth case (Civil CaseNo. 0009) against former President FerdinandMarcos and his wife Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos andseveral others in connection with the purchaseof the major shareholdings of Cable andWireless Limited in EasternTelecommunications Philippines, Inc. (ETPI),among others.

Because of the tied vote both in theDecember 6 and 13, 2011 En Banc sessions ofthe Court, the Sandiganbayan ruling is deemedsustained.

In the 61-page decision penned by JusticeArturo D. Brion, the Court held that “the petitionmust ultimately fail as the Bane deposition is notadmissible under the rules of evidence.”

Bane was former director and treasurer-in-trust of ETPI. His testimony was taken inLondon, England on October 23 and 24, 1996by way of deposition by petitioner governmenton oral examination before Consul GeneralErnesto Castro of the Philippine Embassy inLondon, England. This was done during thependency of an incident in Civil Case No. 0130involving the government’s urgent petition toincrease ETPI’s authorized capital stock (GRNo. 107789). In resolving GR No. 107789, theSandiganbayan considered the Bane deposition.

Although Civil Case No. 0009 was filed in1987, it was only in 1996 and 1997 that the firstpre-trial conference was scheduled andconcluded. In its pre-trial brief, the governmentoffered to present Bane, among its witnesses.In 1998, the Sandiganbayan denied thegovernment’s motion to adopt the Banedeposition as evidence because only VictorAfrica cross-examined Bane. Mr. Africa was notimpleaded in Civil Case No. 0009, although hislate father Jose was among the originalrespondents. Aside from Jose Africa, alsonamed as original respondents were theMarcoses, Manuel H. Nieto, Jr., Roberto S.Benedicto, Juan Ponce Enrile, Ferdinand R.Marcos, Jr., and Potenciano Ilusorio.

Petitioner Republic did not question the1998 resolution and instead made its formal offerof evidence on December 14, 1999, and theBane deposition was not included as part of itsoffered exhibits. In 2000, the Sandiganbayan

SC Affirms Sandiganbayan’s Disallowanceof Bane Deposition in ETPI CaseBy Jay B. Rempillo

promulgated a resolution denying thepetitioner’s second motion to admit Bane’sdeposition. In 2002, the anti-graft court denieda third motion.

In April 1993, upon petitioner’s motion, theSandiganbayan consolidated Civil Case No.0009 with 11 other cases, including Civil CaseNo. 0130, a petition filed by Victor Africa, asan ETPI stockholder, that sought a temporaryrestraining order on the twin orders of thePresidential Commission on GoodGovernment directing him, among others, toaccount for his sequestered ETPI shares and tocease and desist from exercising voting rightson the sequestered shares in the specialstockholders’ meeting in 1991.

In its ruling, the High Court refused toentertain petitioner’s argument that judicialnotice should be taken of Bane’s depositionbecause of the consolidation of Civil CaseNo.0009 with Civil Case No. 0130: “It is theduty of the petitioner, as a party-litigant, toproperly lay before the court the evidence itrelies upon in support of the relief it seeks,instead of imposing that same duty on the court.”It held that the consolidation of Civil Case No.0009 with Civil Case No. 0130 was merely onefor trial and hence the admission of the Banedeposition must comply with the requisites ofRule 130, sec. 47. However, as required by thesame, petitioner was unable to prove that thewitness was unavailable and the requisiteopportunity to cross-examine the deponent. TheCourt also ruled notice of deposition-taking,which had been objected to by Enrile, is notsufficient to conclude that respondents in CivilCase No. 0009 had waived their right to cross-examination and due process.

Concurring with Justice Brion were ChiefJustice Renato C. Corona and Justices DiosdadoM. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. DelCastillo, Jose Portugal Perez, and Jose CatralMendoza.

Joining Justice Antonio T. Carpio’s dissentwere Justice Roberto A. Abad, Martin S.Villarama, Jr., Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno,Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.joined Justice Carpio’s opinion “with thequalification that the Bane deposition cannotbe used against respondent Juan Ponce Enrilebecause of his opposition hereto.”JusticeTeresita J. Leonardo-de Castro took no part.(GR No. 152375, Republic v. Sandiganbayan,December 13, 2011)

Saying that the issue is “ultimately one offairness,” the Supreme Court has recently ruledthat an accused, whom it had found guilty of alesser offense than for what he had beenconvicted of by both the trial and appellatecourts, may apply for probation as his reducedsentence is probationable.

In a 14-page decision penned by JusticeRoberto A. Abad, the Court upheld theconviction of Arnel Colinares by both theRegional Trial Court of San Jose, Camarines Surand the Court of Appeals but of the lesser offenseof attempted, not frustrated, homicide, andaccordingly sentenced him to suffer anindeterminate penalty from four months of arrestomayor, as minimum, to two years and fourmonths of prision correccional, as maximum,among others.

As held in the 2005 ruling in Francisco v.Court of Appeals, the Probation Law requires thatan accused must not have appealed hisconviction before he can avail himself ofprobation. This requirement “outlaws theelement of speculation on the part of theaccused—to wager on the result of his appeal—that when his conviction is finally affirmed onappeal, the moment of truth well-nigh at hand,and the service of his sentence inevitable, henow applies for probation as an ‘escape hatch’thus rendering nugatory the appellate court’saffirmance of his conviction.”

SC Allows Probation for Convict Whose Sentence BecameProbationable on AppealBy Gleo Sp. Guerra

In this case, however, the Court noted thatColinares did not appeal from a judgment thatwould have allowed him to apply for probationas he did not have a choice between appeal andprobation. Moreover, in appealing his case,Colinares raised the issue of correctness of thepenalty imposed on him. He claimed that theevidence at best warranted his conviction onlyfor attempted, not frustrated, homicide, whichcrime called for a probationable penalty.

The Court also clarified that even if it allowshim to apply for probation because of thelowered penalty, it is still up to the trial judge todecide whether or not to grant him the privilegeof probation, taking into account the fullcircumstances of his case. (GR No. 182748,People v. Colinares, December 13, 2011)

Volume XII • Number 12 DECEMBER 2011

4

FROM THE BENCH

Hon. Renato C. CoronaCHIEF JUSTICE

COURT WATCH

My family and I join the Filipino nation as the entire Christian world celebrates with great joy thebirth of a baby in a manger in Bethlehem more than 2,000 years ago.

As we remember the first Christmas when angels appeared and sang, “Glory in the heights above toGod, and upon earth peace among men of goodwill,” we, too, must commemorate the real essence ofthis Nativity scene and reflect the season’s message of peace, sharing and love.

The enduring story of Christmas tells of a Messiah King who left the glory of Heaven and came toearth to live as a humble man because of His eternal love for mankind. May this serve as an inspirationto all our people from across sectors to serve our fellowmen with love, compassion and humility andhelp realize the common aspiration of many, especially those who have less in life, to have a better anddignified place in society. Together, let us join hands to defeat poverty and build a just, humane andpeaceful Philippines.

Isang maligaya at mapagpalang Pasko sa buong sambayanang Pilipino!

Manila, December 25, 2011.

Volume XII • Number 12DECEMBER 2011

Crafting, Caring, Giving, and Sharing:OCJ Christmas Outreach ActivityBy Carol L. Ramos

What could be more appealing andheartwarming to children and children-at-heartthan engaging in crafts and games as a form ofsharing and giving this Christmas season?

In keeping with this year’s Christmas themeKorona ng Biyaya at Pagpapala: Ibahagi saKapwa, the Office of the Chief Justice cluster(composed of the OCJ, the Public InformationOffice, the Project Management Office, theInternal Audit Division, and the FinancialServices Division) spent a half-day of interactiveand fun-filled activities with select students ofthe Sisters of Mary Girlstown and Boystown inSilang, Cavite on December 9, 2011.

Recognizing the need to share and showcompassion for other people, this year ’sChristmas outreach activity veered away fromwhat is “traditional.” It was one that is closer tothe heart, being an activity of love and care forour brethren. Material gifts were paired off withpersonal investment of time and talent.

HANDMADE PAPERMAKINGAND PAPER PROJECTS

The short outreach program started with ahandmade papermaking and paper projectactivity. The activity reflected the Court’sadvocacy to protect the environment.

Prior to the activity, the Office of the ChiefJustice held free training sessions on handmadepapermaking using shredded office paper. Thosewho participated in the training, in turn,facilitated the papermaking process to the Sistersof Mary students.

On the day of the activity, everyone in theOCJ cluster team became personally involvedin mentoring. Exercising their creative juices,the students were able to come up with cards,

bookmarks, and cellular phone holders out ofthe recycled paper they themselves had made.The finished projects of the students were laterawarded special prizes and certificates for theircreativity and ingenuity. The excess materialsused in the handmade papermaking activity weredonated to the school. Priceless as they were,the paper products, handmade with love inkeeping with the spirit of the season, were latergiven to the Chief Justice as the students’Christmas presents.

FUN GAMESThe students of the Sisters of Mary

Girlstown and Boystown also took part in amini sportsfest with Court officials andemployees. With their elders supervising them,they played board games such as Chess,Scrabble, and Word Factory.

Cheers and jeers also filled the multi-purpose hall when it was time for the ball relays.Atty. Peng Largoza-Cantero (OCJ, CourtAttorney VI), Col. Alexander Arevalo (ActingChief, Management Information SystemsOffice), and Court Administrator Jose MidasMarquez (who is also Chief, Public InformationOffice) led their respective teams in theshooting, volleying, and passing the ball in thefastest time possible.

A simple awarding ceremony capped themini sportsfest with the formal turnover of thegifts (board games and various balls) led byCourt Administrator Marquez, Chief JudicialStaff Head Atty. Jon Elarmo, and Col. Arevaloto the officials of the Sisters of Mary Schoolled by its Principal, Sister Amelia Luces.

MOMENTS OF GIVING AND SHARINGThese are the moments where we

experienced care and love, as well as themoments we shared care and love, showing

what it means to be a person for others. An outreach activity is an opportunity to reachout with love and care. It neither has to be expensive nor tangible and grand. Rather, itshould be a moment of self-sacrifice: a sharing of time, talent, and passion. Every momentis an opportunity to share and love. The mission is to love and serve others intoexcel lence.

(Editor’s Note: Ms. Carol L. Ramos, Executive Assistant V at the Office of the Chief Justice, is a MedicalTechnologist and educator by profession. An arts-and-crafts and baking-and-cooking hobbyist, sheoccasionally conducts sustainable livelihood training programs to out-of-school youth and housewivesin Gawad Kalinga, Molave Street, Brgy. Payatas, Quezon City. This former Ateneo High SchoolEnglish teacher and Ateneo Alumni Association Executive Director’s passion for teaching and handicraftshas earned her and her former students a St. Ignatius Award for Excellence in Group Projects.)

Editor’s Note: This message was published in the Manila Bulletin’s Christmas issue.

December 2/SAPANG BAYAN: PIO/OCJ, OAJ, OCC/JRO, Printing, Library, MCLE, Clinic, JBC • FRANCES:PHILJA • MEYTO: OCAT, MISO, OBC, Reporters • PANDUCOT: FMBO • December 7/SAN MIGUEL: OAS •MEYSULAO: OCA • December 9/SISTERS OF MARY BOYSTOWN AND GIRSTOWN (Cavite): OCJ Cluster

5

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, JusticeSecretary Leila M. De Lima, and InteriorSecretary Jesse M. Robredo have inked theircommitment to justice reform during the JusticeSector Coordinating Council-sponsored 1st

National Criminal Justice Summit at the historicManila Hotel on December 5-11, 2011.

In the Declaration for Justice Reform, all threecommitted to “work together, respecting theindependence while acknowledging the inter-dependence of the three branches ofgovernment and the constitutional bodies, inthe pursuit of a just and peaceful society.” Inparticular, they committed to

· design a criminal justice framework that iscoherent, logical and sensible;· legislate a simple, modern and truly Filipinocriminal code;· craft rules and procedures that will enhanceaccess to justice and improve justiceadministration;· channel resources to justice sector agencies;and· select, appoint, and retain men and women inthe justice sector who are of the highest ethicaland intellectual standards, of knowncompetency in law and management and whowill exercise exemplary leadership qualitiesbeyond the call of duty.

During the Summit, Secretaries De Limaand Robredo welcomed the delegates, with DeLima underscoring the urgent need for closecooperation and coordination among allgovernment agencies, and Robredoemphasizing the focal role of law enforcers inthe fight against crime. Chief Justice Corona,Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, HouseSpeaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr. then eachgave a message.

Chief Justice Corona discussed theJudiciary’s Enhanced Justice on Wheels (EJOW)Program and Judgment Day, which help expeditethe release of eligible inmates anddecongestion of jails. The EJOW Program is aSupreme Court initiative geared towardsimproving our people’s access to justice and

JSCC Holds 1st National Criminal Justice SummitBy Jay B. Rempillo

established to bring justice closer to the poor.Under the EJOW Program, mobile courts goto various parts of our country to decongestjails and courts with heavy caseloads, initiatemobile court-annexed mediation, and bring alegal aid clinic for underprivileged litigants.The EJOW Program also provides free medicaland dental aid and facilitates informationdissemination drives on the justice system andthe pertinent laws for barangay officials andmembers of the community, includingindigenous peoples. Basically hewing to theEJOW Program but without use of the mobilecourt bus, the Judgment Day effectivelypromotes the speedy resolution of criminalcases and awareness of the justice system.

Senate President Enrile underscored theneed to update our penal laws to address theevolving nature of criminality, while HouseSpeaker Belmonte committed the leadership ofthe House of Representatives to consider andaccommodate the JSCC’s proposals forlegislative reform.

President Benigno S. Aquino III keynotedthe event where he reiterated his call for greateraccountability in the government, while Vice-President Jejomar C. Binay gave the closingremarks.

Individual presentations were also made bySC Justice Roberto A. Abad, Court of AppealsEduardo B. Peralta, Justice Assistant SecretaryGeronimo L. Sy, Bureau of Jail Managementand Penology Director Rosendo M. Dial,Bureau of Corrections Director Gaudencio S.Pangilinan, former Budget Secretary SalvadorM. Enriquez, Jr., Government CorporateCounsel Raoul C. Creencia, Quezon CityRegional Trial Court Judge Maria Filomena D.Singh.

SC Public Information Office Chief andCourt Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez andProsecutor General Claro A. Arellano bothgave a summary at the end of the presentations.Mr. Paul Schafer of the Hanns SeidelFoundation also gave a message.

Volume XII • Number 12 DECEMBER 2011

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona hasauthorized the release of the Additional Cost ofLiving Allowance (COLA) under the JudiciaryDevelopment Fund (JDF) for November 2011as an additional benefit to qualified court officialsand personnel.

The Chief Justice granted the release of theadditional COLA to qualified court officials andpersonnel, pursuant to Memorandum Order No.45-2011, dated December 6, 2011, for

Chief Justice Corona Grants Release of JDFBy Sheena Mae T. Dagum

November 2011 in amounts ranging fromP2,100 to P2,300, depending on one’s salarygrade.

The additional benefit under the JDF is givento all qualified employees and officials of theJudiciary pursuant to and by virtue of the authorityvested upon the Chief Justice under PD 1949.The said allowance is taken from the eighty percentum (80%) allotted for the purpose from theincome of the JDF from November 1-30, 2011.

The Supreme Court, through the PhilippineJudicial Academy, the Supreme Court–Committee on Security, and the Office of theCourt Administrator, and in coordination withthe National Bureau of Investigation, conductedthe Personal Security Training for Judges held fromDecember 6 to December 8, 2011 at the EastAsia Royale Hotel and at the Camp Fermin G.Lira, Jr. Firing Range in General Santos City.

Forty-four first- and second-level judgesfrom the 11th and 12th Judicial Regions were

SC Holds 14th Personal Security Training for Judgesin General Santos CityBy Anna Katrina M. Martinez

oriented during the three-day training-seminaron threats assessment, crime prevention, factsregarding firearms, and personal securitymeasures, among others, for them to develop aclear understanding of the basic precepts ofsafety and security precautions.

The training-seminar was the 14th of itskind since the signing of the Memorandumof Agreement on Judicial Security betweenthe Supreme Court and the NBI in January2008.

Polomolok, South Cotabato Regional Trial Court, Branch 39 Presiding Judge Hon. Eddie R. Rojas (left) is taught by security consultant and resourceperson from the National Bureau of Investigation Mr. Samson S. Macariola the basics of proper handling of firearms during the second day of thePersonal Security Training for Judges in General Santos City, South Cotabato.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona delivers a message in behalf of the Judiciary during the 1st National Criminal Justice Summit, organized by the Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC), at the Centennial Hall, Manila Hotel, Manila on December 5, 2011. The JSCC is composed of the SC, Departmentof Justice (DOJ), and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). In his message, the Chief Justice pledged that the “judicial branch will continue to support the projects of your agencies, and have your goals in mind as it continues to uphold the strong tradition of the rule of law.”Also in photo are (from left) Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr., Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr., Justice Secretary Leila M. De Lima, and Interior and Local Government Secretary Jesse M. Robredo.

Last December, the Supreme Court,through the Office of the Court Administrator,held a photo contest dubbed “Ready, Aim,Shoot” featuring scenes that best depict the joysSC officials and employees have shared withthe recipients of its outreach activities inCalumpit, Bulacan.

“Hulog ng Langit,” an entry by Rodel A.Gombio of the Office of AdministrativeServices (OAS) bested all other entries.Accompanying the photo of a boy looking upto the heavens after receiving his gift packageis Gombio’s photo caption that read, “TheSupreme Court is committed to being a‘blessing’ to this country, most especially intimes of adversity. As the last bulwark ofdemocracy, it is united with the Filipino peoplein their aspirations for a better country.”

“Baha” by Mary Angeline V. de Jesus ofthe Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc wonthe second prize. The photo she submittedshowed how Typhoon Pedring has inundatedCalumpit, Bulacan.

“Bespren,” a photo of two elderly womenengaged in lively conversation after receivingtheir SC outreach packages by Jonel M.Candelaria of the Office of AdministrativeServices was adjudged the third prize winner.Candelaria said the photo “shows what theJudiciary is and aims to be – a friend of theFilipino, a friend whom they can rely on a friendin good and bad times, a best friend.”

Jonathan G. Evangelista of the PhilippineJudicial Academy for his part bagged theViewers’ Choice Award for his photo showing aman (Kuya Ephraim) “in a heartfelt show of

AIM, POINT, SHOOT: SC Outreach Photo Contest WinnersBy Annie A. Laborte

gratitude and appreciation” saluting SC-PHILJAemployees after receiving his gift.

The entries were judged based on subject,composition, use of color, and relevance tothe theme. The grand prize winner was adjudgedon its impact among all other entries. The Boardof Judges was composed of Deputy CourtAdministrator Raul Bautista Villanueva, Atty.Dominadoranne I. Lim (Public InformationOffice), and Maybelle Anne C. Perez (Officeof DCA Villanueva).

The grand prize winner received P5,000,while the second and third placers receivedP3,500 and P2,500 in cash prizes. The Viewer’sChoice Award winner received PhP3,000.

6 Volume XII • Number 12DECEMBER 2011

The Supreme Courthas recently ordered thedropping of formerPresident GloriaMacapagal-Arroyo asparty-respondent in thepetition for writ of amparoinvolving the 2008disappearance of James

Balao of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance.

In a 34-page decision penned by JusticeMartin S. Villarama, Jr., the Court En Banc, onappeal by both sides, held, among others, thatthen President Arroyo was enjoying immunityfrom suit when the petition was filed and thatmoreover, the petition was bereft of anyallegation as to what specific presidential act oromission violated or threatened to violateprotected rights of petitioners, James Balao’ssiblings.

The Court also reversed the finding of theRegional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet,Branch 63, granting the privilege of the writof amparo. “Assessing the evidence on record,we find that the participation in any manner ofmilitary and police authorities in the abductionof James has not been adequately proven. Theidentities of the abductors have not beenestablished, much less their link to any militaryor police unit. There is likewise no concreteevidence indicating that James is being heldor detained upon orders of or withacquiescence of government agents.Consequently, the trial court erred in grantingamparo reliefs by ordering the respondentofficials (1) to disclose where James Balao isdetained or confined, (2) to release him fromsuch detention or confinement, and (3) to ceaseand desist from further inflicting harm uponhis person. Such pronouncement ofresponsibility on the part of public respondents

SC Drops GMAas Party-Respondentin Amparo PetitionBy Gleo Sp. Guerra

cannot be made given the insufficiency ofevidence,” the Court ruled.

The Court, however, held that thatrespondent police and military authorities failedto discharge the burden of extraordinarydiligence in the investigation of James’abduction and directed them to complete theirinvestigation within six months with periodicreports to the trial court. The trial court in turnwas directed to make a full report to the Courtthereafter for the latter’s final action.

The Court also upheld the denial by thetrial court of interim reliefs, i.e., the issuanceof inspection and production orders as the samewere predicated on petitioners’ bareallegations. “Nonetheless, the trial court is notprecluded, as further evidence warrants, togrant the above interim reliefs to aid it inmaking a decision upon evaluation of the act,”it held.

It therefore remanded the case to the trialfor continuation of proceedings for thepurposes of monitoring compliance with theabove directives and determining whether,in the light of any recent reports orrecommendations, there would already besufficient evidence to hold any of the publicrespondents responsible, or, at least,accountable. (GR No. 186050, Balao v.Arroyo; GR No. 186059, Arroyo v. Balao ,December 13, 2011)

REYNALDO M. ARGUELLESClerk III / Office of the CourtAdministrator-Officeof Administrative Services

After 44 years of beinga public servant, Reynaldofinally has the time to relaxand smell the proverbialroses.

This native ofBatangas City joined government service asEmergency Laborer at the Senate ElectoralTribunal in June 1967. He had a short stint as Driverin July 1969, and back as Emergency Laborer inOctober of the same year until 1971. He wasappointed as Janitor on a permanent capacity inNovember of the same year.

He was again Laborer in March 1972. In May1973, he made a lateral transfer to theCommission on Elections. In July 1974, he joinedthe Supreme Court, where he was successfullypromoted to Laborer-Watchman, Messenger,Court Messenger II, Court Aide III, and finally, ClerkIII, a position he held until his retirement onDecember 8, 2011.

PEDRO B. JOROLAN, JR.Statistician III / Office of theCourt Administrator-Officeof Administrative Services

This Bachelor of Arts,Major in Economicsgraduate of Philippine LawSchool has served theSupreme Court for 26years. He was appointedCourt Aide I in 1985.

Later, he would be promoted to Court Aide II,Clerk II, Clerk III, Clerk IV, Statistician II, and finallyStatistician III in 2003.

Born in Lo-oc, Dumaguete City to Visayanparents on December 11, 1946, Pedro pursuedhis college studies in 1975, when he was 29, orafter 11 years since he graduated from vocationalcourses, particularly on arts and trades.

December 2011 RetireesBy Annie A. Laborte

MILA T. BALLICUDExecutive Assistant II / Officeof the Court Administrator-Docket and ClearanceDivision

This native of Bobon,Northern Samar has to hercredit more than 42 yearsof dedicated public service.

Mila started out as Clerk Stenographer in 1969in her hometown. She was soon promoted toCourt Clerk Stenographer I and to ClerkStenographer. In June 1986, she joined theSupreme Court as Court Messenger I. Later shewould be promoted to Conference StenographerI, Conference Stenographer II, and then CourtStenographer IV. In 1991, she was promoted toExecutive Assistant II.

BUENAVENTURADC DE KEYSERUtility Worker II / Officeof the Clerk of CourtEn Banc

Born on December 24,1946 in Caloocan City,“Mang Benny” had 20 yearsof driving experience –three years with San Miguel

Corporation and the rest as family driver – beforehe joined government service.

In 1982, he joined the Court of Appeals as anEmergency Labor, and later as Appellate CourtConfidential Driver until July 1985. In August 1985,he transferred to the Supreme Court as Utility ManI. He was promoted to Utility Worker II in 1989,and to Chauffer II in 1992.

In 1994, Mang Benny was Court StenographerIII. He became a casual employee of thePresidential Electoral Tribunal in 1995. Later0,and still later as Utility Worker I. He was back atthe Supreme Court as Chauffeur II in 1998, untilhis reappointment, this time, as Utility Worker IIin 2005. Mang Benny’s service to the SC wasextended for three months, or until his actualretirement on March 23, 2012.

‘God bless, Nimfa,and enjoy eternal life.’

In the mid-morning ofDecember 15, 2011,my wife NimfaCuesta Vilchesreturned to God.

That nightbefore Nimfa leftus, I was at peacein my sleep. Mysister Liza was at

the intensive care unit the whole timekeeping an eye on her. That night, Idreamt of Nimfa. She, in her hospitalgown, was in a wheelchair and withoutall the tubes that connected her to themachines in the ICU. She came to me,smiling, andgesturing playfullywith her hands. Itwas my Nimfabidding goodbye tome, telling me notto worry becauseshe was happy andat peace.

Many things have been said aboutNimfa in her public life. In a nutshell,as a public figure, she did a lot in theservice of whoever needed her help.Most of this service was quiet. Away fromthe public eye, she lived simply butgenerously as a wife to me, andmother to Steve and Nicole.She made time forfamily despite herb u s yschedule.

A Memoir: Nimfa Away from the Public EyeBy Zaldy Vilches

She would take Steve and Nicole with herin her trips abroad so that even if shewas busy with her professional duties,she could still enjoy the company of herchildren. I stayed behind most of thetime, except for that family trip we madeto Hong Kong and Macau a few years ago.Our closeness as husband and wife wasmarked by aspects of married life otherthan long plane rides, which she knew Idisliked. At the end of a long day, wewould sometimes just drive to a nearbycoffee shop and unwind, or to a resto tohave a beer. We would jog around theoval in UP in the early morning and enjoybreakfast together afterwards. Werelished traveling together as a family

on long car ridesfor a weekendin Baguio or inIlocos, forexample, andbond as afamily.

Nimfa wasthe level-headed, objective, and calmperson. I am the emotional one. Butduring her illness, she became anemotional person. She often cried whenmembers of the family came to visit. Shealways wanted me by her bedside. Shewould stretch out her arms to reach out,wanting to be held close. There weretimes when she managed to say, althoughin a stutter, “I love my family.”

I say goodbye to Nimfa in this life butalso say, “God bless, Nimfa, and enjoyeternal life. Till we meet in heaven. We– Steve, Nicole, and I – love you very much.Thank you, Mama, for everything you havebeen to us all.” (Editor ’s Note: NimfaCuesta-Vilches previously served as SCCourt Attorney, Regional Trial Court Judge,Assistant Court Administrator; and wasat the time of her passing, Deputy CourtAdministrator.)

Reports

7Volume XII • Number 12 DECEMBER 2011

Can you imagine working in the office inthe dark or without desks and chairs, or atelephone line or a functioning air conditioningunit? Thanks to the SC Office of AdministrativeServices-Maintenance Division, the SupremeCourt Justices, officials, and employees, do nothave to.

Responsible for the upkeep and repair of allbuildings and equipment in the Supreme Courtpremises, the 44-strong Maintenance Divisionperforms major and minor repairs or renovationsof offices, including those of fabricating workstations, cabinets, tables, and the like.

The Maintenance Division’s tasks arebasically classified into three: electrical,mechanical, and civil. Electrical works includedefunct light bulbs, faulty electrical connections,and requests for extension cords, among others.Mechanical works, on the other hand, includetaking care of problems with air conditioningunits and motor pumps. It also does carpentry,masonry, painting, and plumbing services aspart of its civil tasks.

Indeed, the members of the SC MaintenanceDivision have a lot on their plate. Theirs isessentially a 24/7 job, being literally on callanytime, any day of the week. Thus, even atnight or on weekends, with one call concerninga necessary repair anywhere in the SC premises,a member from its unit is dispatched to fix theproblem.

In addition to responding to equipmentconcerns of SC offices, the SC MaintenanceDivision also drafts electrical plans and preparesbills of materials and cost estimates for Courtprojects. It also conducts regular inspection onall electrical installations, lights/fixtures,telephone services, and the condition of thedifferent buildings and grounds of the Court.The office is also in charge of safekeeping oftools and the inventory, delivery, and issuanceof maintenance stock and office supplies. It alsoassists in the audio and video needs of the Court.The SC Maintenance Division is also tappedfor the construction and maintenance of stagesand other similar structures on specialoccasions such as the SC Anniversary andChristmas Parties.

The Division also oversees serviceproviders, or those who have been contractedby the SC for specific equipment such as airconunits, drinking fountains, generator sets, andelevators. It is the SC Maintenance Divisionwhich coordinates with these service providerson any concerns regarding the said equipment.

Stewards of Court Property: THE SC MAINTENANCE DIVISIONBy Jen T. Tuazon

Chief Judicial Staff Officer Engr. BernarditoR. Bundoc, who has been with the SupremeCourt for 17 years, says it is hard to quantify thetasks their office gets every day. After all, thenature of their work encompasses a lot of needsof all the offices within the SC. Each task alsovaries in the length of time required and thelevel of difficulty involved, hence oftentimesMaintenance personnel are swamped withurgent and pending tasks all at the same time.

Among the assignments the SCMaintenance Division has handled, Engr. Bondocparticularly recalls the completion of the majorand minor renovations of different offices in theSC New Building – from the design proper to itsimplementation. For the new year, their office isproposing the following as its main projects:replacement of the roofing of the SC Main Annexbuilding; construction of ramps in differentlocations within the SC compound; rehabilitationof the SC Skywalk; and the preparation of theterms of reference, lay-out and budgetaryestimates for the proposed construction of a newseven-story building.

So how does one avail of the servicesof the SC Maintenance Division?According to Engr. Bundoc, any SCemployee can report to their office any needfor equipment repair. Once they find out thenature of the task, whether it is electrical,mechanical , or civi l , personnel wil l bedispatched accordingly. Upon personalassessment by the personnel, the equipmentmay either be repaired on the spot if thetools are available, or the repair may be puton hold pending request for the neededtools. In situations involving the latter, theSC Maintenance Division requests for thenecessary materials from the OAS. Oncethese tools are made available to the SCMaintenance Division, it can then proceedwith the repair. In addition to repairs,employees and offices may also request forthe construction of new furniture, such ascabinets, desks, and chairs.

Prevention, however, is still the bestcure. Thus, Engr. Bondoc advisesemployees to adopt the basic care

necessary in us ing of f ice equipment .Employees are reminded to always turn offair conditioning units after use, as well aslight bulbs and other electric devices asleaving them on overnight, specially onweekends not only increases the risk ofdefects but also exposes the office andbuilding to fire and safety risks. The samegoes for faucets in the comfort room,which have frequently been left runningresulting in the flooding of toilets. Indeed,it is well to remember that governmentemployees have the duty to observediligence in the use of all office equipment.Fulfilling this duty will also save us fromthe inconvenience of working withdefective tools , as well as save the SCMaintenance Division valuable time andresources.

For concerns, call the SC MaintenanceDivision at telephone nos. 525-5769 or536-9105. You may also personally visitthem at the ground floor of the SC OldBuilding, near the Taft gate.

STAFFMEMBERS OF THE SC MAINTENANCE DIVISION take time out from their hectic daily grind. (1st row) Jesus Bermejo, Eduardo San Jose, Johnny Llemos, Mario Marcellano, Arch. Carlo Pagaduan, Annabelle Desamero,Engr. Bernardito Bundoc, Engr. Antonio Bayot, Teofisto Viajar, Jr., Marino Iglesias, Winny Tablate, Alfonso Escobedo; (2nd row) Sofronio Laca, Rodolfo Becera, Noel Punzalan, Joel Pineda, Rodolfo Sadje, Basilio Caranto, JoselitoPineda, Luis Gabriel, Reynard Castor, Rizaldy Lungcay, Joselito Osorio, Felipe Dantes, Jr., Norberto Montalvo, Dominador Osas; (3rd row) Enrique Obina, Jason Basilio, Victor Dimabuyo, Boner Gobangco, Eduardo Lagman, OliverGobangco, Teotimo Racho, Jr.; (Last row): Renato Basilio, Ely Mariano, Nestor Cuadres, Joseph Goloso, Efren Santiago III, Eduardo David, Jun Natanauan, Augusto Mendoza. Not in Picture are Leonoro Yecla, Jr., Paulino Giducos,and Gerardo Alumbro.

The Supreme Court has upheld the claimfiled by a Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)employee with the Government ServiceInsurance System (GSIS) for compensationbenefits under PD 626 in connection with hiskidney ailment.

In an 11-page decision penned by JusticeMariano C. Del Castillo, the Court’s FirstDivision denied the petition for review oncertiorari filed by the GSIS and affirmed theassailed May 10, 2007 decision and July 17,2007 resolution of the Court of Appealsordering the GSIS to pay Manuel P. Besitan,who was formerly employed by the BSP asBank Officer III, his claim for compensationbenefits.

Besitan was diagnosed in 2005 with EndStage Renal Disease secondary to ChronicGlomerulonephritis and had to undergo akidney transplant at the National Kidney andTransplant Institute, for which he had incurredmedical expenses amounting to P817,455.40.

Believing that the nature and workingconditions of his employment contributed to thedevelopment of his kidney ailment, he filed withthe GSIS a claim for compensation benefits underPD 626. The GSIS denied his claim and hissubsequent motion for reconsideration of thesaid denial. Besitan elevated his case to theEmployees Compensation Commission (ECC),which affirmed the denial by the GSIS of hisclaim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)reversed the ruling of the ECC, ruling that Besitanwas entitled to the benefits he sought becausehis kidney ailment was aggravated by the natureof his work.

The Supreme Court, in affirming the decisionof the CA, ruled that in establishingcompensability of a non-occupational diseasesuch as Besitan’s, only a reasonable proof ofwork-connection and not direct causal relationis required.

SC Orders GSIS to Pay Compensation Benefits of Ill BankerBy Anna Katrina M. Martinez

The Court found that Besitan sufficientlyproved that his working condition increased hisrisk of contracting Glomerulonephritis, notingthat when the latter entered government servicein 1976, he was given a clean bill of health. “Itwould appear therefore that the nature of his workcould have increased his risk of contracting thedisease,” said the Court, adding that Besitan’sfrequent travels to remote areas in the countryin connection with his duties in BSP could haveexposed him to certain bacterial, viral, andparasitic infection, which, in turn, could havecaused his disease.

“In compensation proceedings, the test ofproof is probability, not absolute certainty,” theCourt emphasized. (GR No. 178901, GSIS v.Besitan, November 23, 2011)

SC VOW 21 CHRISTMAS DONATION TO PGH CANCER INSTITUTEIn keeping with the Christmas spirit of giving, the Supreme Court Values Orientation Workshop Batch 21 (VOW 21) raised P11,050for the Cancer Institute Foundation, Inc. On December 9, 2011, SC VOW 21 Acting Mayor Atty. Ma. Esperanza B. Felipe (Third DivisionOffice of the Clerk of Court), with her batchmates Atty. Maria Victoria Gleoresty Sp. Guerra (Public Information Office) and VeronicaI. Anciano (Second Division Office of the Clerk of Court) looking on, hands over the donation to Dr. Jorge G. Ignacio, Chairperson ofthe Cancer Institute Foundation, Inc., at the latter’s office at the Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Ignacio and Mr. Antonio L. Perez,President of the Cancer Institute Foundation, Inc., in their letter of thanks dated December 20, 2011 stated that the donation “isa glimmer of hope for many of our cancer patients who hesitate to seek treatment due to limited resources.”

THIS MONTH IN HISTORYDECEMBER1 – BONIFACIO DAYMCLE Implementing Regulations takes effect in 2001 The Ruleson Criminal Procedure (AM 00-5-03-SC) takes effect in 20002 – The Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal takes effect in 20057 – Reynato S. Puno takes his oath as 22nd Chief Justicein 20068 - The Revised Penal Code is passed in 1930 (Act 3815)10 - The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is formally convened in 198719 - The Law Student Practice Rule (Rule 138-A) is promulgated in 198623 - President Emilio F. Aguinaldo signs the Malolos Constitution in 189824 - Jose Abad Santos is appointed Chief Justice in 1941

COURT CALENDARJANUARY 25, 2012Orientation on the Revised Statement of Assets, Liabilities and NetWorth SC Training Center, Manila

JANUARY 26-27, 2012Training on the Small Claims Case Monitoring SystemDavao City

30 - Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos administers the oath to PresidentManuel L. Quezon for his second term as President of the PhilippineCommonwealth in Corregidor in 1941 President Ferdinand E. Marcos andVice President Fernando Lopez are inaugurated into office for anunprecedented second term in 1969

Photos by Doranne I. Lim, Francisco S. Gutierrez, Cesar Tito P. Royeras, and Randy R. SamonteCaptions by Arcie M. Sercado and Jay B. Rempillo

PIO ZOOM

LE

NS

EF

28-8

0m

m1:3

.5-5

.6

II

58mmPublic

info

rmation

Offi c

eSnap Judgments

8

STAFFBOXGLEO SP. GUERRA EDITOR IN CHIEF | JAY B. REMPILLO ASSOCIATE EDITOR | ANNA KATRINA M. MARTINEZ NEWS EDITOR | ANNIE A. LABORTE FEATURES EDITOR | RONALD C. NAPOLITANO ART/LAYOUT EDITOR | ERIKA T. DY • JOSEFINAA. GUZMAN • JOACHIM FLORENCIO Q. CORSIGA • HELEN GRACE D. SANTOS • NICOLETTE ANN P. CRUZ • ARCIE M. SERCADO • JEN T. TUAZON • DARYLLE EVIE MAE C. CATABAY • SHEENA MAE T. DAGUM CONTRIBUTINGEDITORS | RENATO T. BOCAR • RUTH MILO-FERRER • SANDRA PERALTA-CALUGAY SANDIGANBAYAN CORRESPONDENTS | ELSIE R. TIAUZON-FORTEZA CTA CORRESPONDENT | DORANNE I. LIM CHIEF PHOTOGRAPHER | FRANCISCO S.GUTIERREZ • CESAR P. ROYERAS • RANDY R. SAMONTE PHOTOGRAPHERS | MELODY L. SY EDITORIAL ASSISTANT | LEIZEL C. HABANA CIRCULATION MANAGER | LETICIA G. JAVIER PRODUCTION COORDINATOR | RAYMUND P. FLORESBENCHMARK ONLINE ADMINISTRATOR | JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ ADVISER

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE: 3/F New SC Bldg. Annex Padre Faura St., Ermita 1000 Manila, Philippines | Telephone Numbers: (02) 522-5090, 92, 93, 94 | Telefax (02) 526-8129 |sc.judiciary.gov.ph | BENCHMARK can also be viewed online at sc.judiciary.gov.ph/publications/benchmark. The views and opinions presented in BENCHMARK are those of their respective authors and do notnecessarily reflect those of the Supreme Court. To notify BENCHMARK of any change or correction in your mailing address, e-mail us at pio@sc.judiciary.gov.ph or write to The Editor in Chief at the above address. Contributions in the formof articles and photos of court-related subjects are welcome and will be published subject to the editors’ discretion.

Volume XII • Number 12DECEMBER 2011

NEWLY APPOINTED EMPLOYEESList provided by the Office of Administrative Services as of January 30, 2012

MICHAEL DAVID B. AZUCENA, Court Attorney VI, OAJ Brion, Original Appointment • GEMBETH G. BASILGO, Court Attorney VI, OCJ Corona, Promotion • THERESA GENEVIEVE N. CO, Court Attorney V, OAJVelasco, Promotion • RONALDO M. GARCIA, PHILJA Attorney IV, PHILJA, Promotion • ERIZA P. PAGALING, Court Attorney IV, OAJ Peralta, Transfer from HRET • CARISSA C. PAREL, Judicial Staff Head, OAJReyes, Promotion • PATRICK SIMON S. PERILLO, Court Attorney VI, OAJ Velasco, Promotion • ROSCOE J. ROSELL, Court Attorney VI, OAJ Carpio, Promotion

COURT OF APPEALS: PEDRO B. CORALES, Associate Justice • RTC: SERGIO T. ANGNGANAY, JR., RTC, Br. 36, Bontoc, Mountain Province • IGNACIO I. ALAJAR, RTC, Br. 18, Roxas City, Capiz • ALSAD H. ALFAD,JR., RTC, Br. 25, Siasi, Sulu • ANDREW U. BARCENA, RTC, Br. 17, Ilagan, Isabela • GINA JUAN CHAN, RTC, Br. 22, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur • SITA JOSE CLEMENTE, RTC, Br. 16, Malolos City, Bulacan • RODOLFO B.DIZON, RTC, Br. 18, Ilagan, Isabela • ANDREW P. DULNUAN, RTC, Br. 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino • ASUNCION FIKINGAS MANDIA, RTC, Br. 29, San Fernando City, La Union • GRACE VICTORIA RUIZ, RTC, Br. 22, MalolosCity, Bulacan • CONRADO T. TABACO, RTC, Br. 9, Aparri, Cagayan • MTC: JEANETTE LOPEZ BILAN, MTC, Br. 1, San Pedro, Laguna • EMERALD K. REQUINA-CONTRERAS, MTC, Oton, Iloilo CityEDWIN L. DIEZ, MTC, Sibonga, Cebu • EDWIN B. MAYNIGO, MTC, Lingayen, Pangasinan • JERRY C. PERICO, MTC, Sasmuan, Pampanga • JONATHAN C. SEGUNDO, MTC, Mankayan, Benguet • MCTC: PRUDENCIOO. BORGUETA, JR., 5th MCTC, Paranas-San Sebastian, Samar • EFRAIM B. CALIMUHAYAN, 7th MCTC, Piat-Sto. Niño, Cagayan • GLENDA B. COLUMNA-DUPAYA, 4th MCTC, Gonzaga-Sta. Teresita, Cagayan •ARMANDO L. ROSADIÑO, 3rd MCTC, Pambujan-Silvino Lobos, Northern Samar • MTCC: MYRA SHIELA MARDERS NALUPTA-BARBA, MTCC, Br. 1, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte • AILEEN LIZA MAMASABULOD DAVID,MCTCC, Br. 2, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan • GERLYN S. TURINGAN-DE LOS REYES, MTCC, Br. 3, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan • IVAN KIM B. MORALES, MTCC, Br. 2, San Fernando City, La Union • LEODYM. OPOLINTO, MTCC, Br. 3, Baguio City • CHARINA NAVARRO QUIJANO, MTCC, Br. 2, Talisay City, Cebu • GLENDA ORTIZ SORIANO, MTCC, Br. 2, Baguio City, Benguet

Newly Appointed Justice, and JudgesList provided by the Office of the Clerk of Court as of December 27, 2011

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and his wife Cristina, together with (from left) Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Jose C. Mendoza, BienvenidoL. Reyes, Jose P. Perez, and Mariano C. Del Castillo, attend the the 2011 Supreme Court Christmas Celebration Ecumenical Mass held at the Old Building Quadrangle, along Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila onDecember 16, 2011. (Inset) His Excellency Most Reverend Luis Antonio G. Tagle (inset), Archbishop of Manila, officiated the mass. In his homily, Archbishop Tagle encouraged the SC Justices and employeesto engage in regular prayer and action.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and his wife Cristina, together with (from left) Justices Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Jose C. Mendoza, BienvenidoL. Reyes, Jose P. Perez, and Mariano C. Del Castillo, attend the the 2011 Supreme Court Christmas Celebration Ecumenical Mass held at the Old Building Quadrangle, along Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila onDecember 16, 2011. (Inset) His Excellency Most Reverend Luis Antonio G. Tagle (inset), Archbishop of Manila, officiated the mass. In his homily, Archbishop Tagle encouraged the SC Justices and employeesto engage in regular prayer and action.

Former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (right) and former Assistant Court Administrator and Public Information Office Chief Atty. Ismael G.Khan, Jr. (left) attend the 12th International Conference of Chief Justices of the World On Article 51 of the Constitution of India (World JudiciarySummit 2011) held at the World Unity Convention Center, City Montessori School, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow, India from December7-13, 2011. Chief Justice Davide delivered a paper titled “Safeguarding the World’s Children Through Enforceable World Law and GlobalGovernance,” and discussed his ponencia in the case of Oposa v. Factoran. The former Chief Justice was given a key to the City of Lucknow “inrecognition of his support to the cause of Rights of Children and succeeding generations and for his support to the appeal of over 42,000 studentsof City Montessori School, Lucknow to ensure a safe and nuclear-free future for the humanity, especially for the world’s over two billion childrenand generations yet-to-be born.” (Photo courtesy of Noreen D. Salas)

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona receives a Certificate of Appreciation from the Metropolitan and City Judges Association (MeTCJAP) at theSupreme Court, Ermita, Manila on December 1, 2011. The certificate was given to the Chief Justice “for his genuine concern and devotion to thewelfare of the trial court judges,” and “for his strong resolve to provide them with the best compensation program allowed under the law, aimedat improving their economic condition and giving them the dignity befitting to their profession.” Also in photo is MeTCJAP Vice-President andMeTC Manila Branch 20 Presiding Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito, who prior to her appointment to the Bench, clerked in the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and his wife Cristina greet the members of the Justice Reporters Organization (JUROR) and the Justice and CourtReporters Association (JUCRA) during the traditional Christmas party held by the SC Public Information Office for the media at the SC TrainingCenter, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila on December 20, 2011.

Court Administrator and Public Information Office Chief Jose Midas P. Marquez receives a giant balisong or fan knife from Regional Trial CourtJudges Association of Manila (RTCJAM) Incoming President Antonio M. Eugenio as a token of appreciation for being the guest speaker and foradministering the oath of office to the officers and board of trustees of the RTCJAM at the association’s Christmas Party held at the DiamondHotel, Roxas Boulevard, Manila on December 13, 2011. The other officers are Judges Caroline R. Colasito, Vice-President; Rosalyn D. Mislos-Loja, Secretary; Buenaventura Albert J. Tenorio, Jr., Assistant Secretary; Thelma B. Medina, Treasurer; Ma. Bernardita J. Santos, AssistantTreasurer; Ma. Theresa Dolores G. Estoesta, P.R.O.; Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, Assistant P.R.O.; Roy G. Gironella, Business Manager; GermanoD. Legaspi, Manager; and Amelia Tria-Infante, Auditor. The Board of Trustees composed of Judges Amor A. Reyes, Marino M. Dela Cruz, Jr.,Reynaldo A. Alhambra, Virgilio V. Macaraeg, and Marcelino L. Sayo, Jr.

Court Administrator and Public Information Office Chief Jose Midas P. Marquez delivers a response from the Judiciary in behalf of Chief JusticeRenato C. Corona at the commemoration of the International Anti-Corruption Day held at the Garden Ballroom, EDSA Shangri-La Manila, OrtigasCenter, Mandaluyong City on December 9, 2011. During the event, a covenant for a unified and vigorous effort against corruption was signedby representatives from all branches of government and the private sector. Also in photo are (from left) Concerned Citizens of Abra for GoodGovernment Chairperson Pura Sumangil, Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Inc. President Tan Ching, House ofRepresentatives Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr., Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., SenatePresident Juan Ponce Enrile, and Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr.