7/28/2019 INTROLAW 3

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 3694 June 17, 1993

ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, ISABELO ONGTENGCO, ACHILLES BARTOLOME,

AND ST. LUKES MEDICAL CENTER, complainants,vs.ATTORNEY BENJAMIN M. GRECIA, respondent.

Norberto Gonzales for Fernandez.

Bu Castro for Ongtengco & Bartolome.

Quasha, Asperilla, Ancheta, Pea & Nolasco for St. Luke's Hospital.

Joaquin P. Yuseco for respondent Benjamin Grecia.

PER CURIAM:

This disbarment complaint against Attorney Benjamin M. Grecia was filed on August20, 1991 by Doctors Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco and Achilles Bartolomeand the St. Luke's Medical Center (hereafter "St. Luke's" for brevity) where they areaccredited medical practitioners. The respondent is charged with dishonesty andgrave misconduct in connection with the theft of some pages from a medical chartwhich was material evidence in a damage suit filed by his clients against theaforenamed doctors and St. Luke's.

Disciplinary proceedings like this one are in a class by themselves. As we observed inIn Re Almacen , 31 SCRA 562,600, they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal."Public interest is the primary objective, and the real question for determination iswhether or not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the privileges as such."The purpose is "to protect the court and the public from the misconduct of officers of the court" (In Re Montagne & Dominguez, 3 Phil. 577, 588), or to remove from the

profession a person whose misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with theduties and responsibilities belonging to the office of an attorney (Ledesma vs.Climaco, 57 SCRA 473; Atienza vs. Evangelista, 80 SCRA 338).

Disbarment is nothing new to respondent Grecia. On November 12, 1987, he wasdisbarred for his immoral complicity or "unholy alliance" with a judge in Quezon Cityto rip off banks and Chinese business firms which had the misfortune to be sued inthe latter's court (Prudential Bank vs. Judge Jose P. Castro and Atty. Benjamin M.Grecia [Adm. Case No. 2756], 155 SCRA 604).

Three years later, on December 18, 1990, the Court, heeding his pleas for compassions and his promise to mend his ways, reinstated him in the profession.Only eight (8) months later, on August 20, 1991, he was back before the court facinganother charge of dishonesty and unethical practice. Apparently, the earlier disciplinary action that the Court t ook against him did not effectively reform him.

The complaint of St. Luke's against Attorney Grecia was referred by the Court toDeputy Court of Administrator Juanito A. Bernad for investigation, report andrecommendation. The following are Judge Bernad's findings:

The late Fe Linda Aves was seven (7) months pregnant when she was admitted as apatient at St. Luke's Hospital on December 20, 1990. She complained of dizziness,hypertension, and abdominal pains with vaginal bleeding. Dr. Fernandez, head of theOB-GYNE Department of St. Luke's, Dr. Ongtengco, Jr., a cardiologist, and Dr.Bartolome, a urologist, examined Mrs. Aves and diagnosed her problem as mild pre-eclampsia (p. 63, Rollo ). Five (5) days later, on Christmas day, December 25, 1990,Mrs. Aves was discharged from the hospital, to celebrate Christmas with her family.

However, she was rushed back to the hospital the next day, December 26, 1990. OnDecember 27, 1990, she died together with her unborn child.

Blaming the doctors of St. Luke's for his wife's demise, Attorney Damaso B. Aves,along with his three (3) minor children, brought an action for damages against thehospital and the attending physicians of his wife. Their counsel, respondent AttorneyBenjamin Grecia, filed a complaint entitled: "Attorney Damaso B. Aves, et al. vs. St.Luke's Medical Center, Drs. Alberto Fernandez, Isabelo Ongtengco, Jr. and AchillesBartolome" in the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Bulacan, where it was docketedas Civil Case No. 3548-V and assigned to Branch 172, presided over by JudgeTeresita Dizon-Capulong.

On July 4, 1991, the medical records of Fe Linda Aves were produced in court by St.Luke's, as requested by Attorney Grecia. The records were entrusted to the ActingBranch Clerk of Court, Avelina Robles.

On July 16, 1991, between 8:30-9:00 o' clock in the morning, upon arriving in court for another hearing of the case, Attorney Grecia borrowed from Mrs. Robles the folder containing the medical records of Mrs. Aves.

While leafing through the folder, Grecia surreptitiously tore off two (2) pages of themedical records. The respondent's act was notified by Mrs. Robles and Maria ArnetSandico, a clerk. They saw Grecia crumple the papers and place them inside the rightpocket of his coat. He immediately returned the folder to Mrs. Roblesa (who wasmomentarily rendered speechless by his audacious act) and left the office.

Mrs. Robles examined the medical chart and found pages "72" and "73" missing. She

ordered Sandico to follow the respondent. Sandico saw Grecia near the canteen atthe end of the building, calling a man (presumably his driver) who was leaning againsta parked car (presumably Grecia's car). When the man approached, Grecia gave himthe crumpled papers which he took from his coatpocket. Sandico returned to theoffice and reported what she had seen to Mrs. Robles. The latter in turn reported it toJudge Capulong. The three of them Judge Capulong, Mrs. Robles and Ms.Sandico went downstairs. Ms. Sandico pointed to Judge Capulong the man towhom Grecia had given the papers which he had filched from medical folder of Linda

Aves. Judge Capulong told Sandico to bring the man to her chamber. On the wayback to chamber, Judge Capulong saw the plaintiff, Attorney Damaso Aves, and St.Luke's counsel, Attorney Melanie Limson. She requested them to come to her office.

In the presence of Attorneys Aves and Limson, Mrs. Robles, Ms. Sandico, and avisitor, Judge Capulong confronted the man and ordered him to give her the papers

which Grecia had passed on to him. The man at first denied that he had the papers inhis possession. However, when Sandico declared that she saw Grecia hand over the

7/28/2019 INTROLAW 3

2/4

papers to him, the man sheepishly took them from his pants pocket and gave them toJudge Capulong. When the crumpled pages "72" and "73" of the medical folder wereshown to Sandico, she identified them as the same papers that she saw Grecia handover to the man.

After the confrontation, Sandicio and Robles went back to their office. Mrs. Roblescollapsed in a dead faint and was rushed to the Fatima Hospital where she later regained consciousness.

In the ensuing excitement and confusion of recovering the stolen exhibits, no one

thought of ascertaining the identity of the man from whom they were recovered.Judge Capulong belatedly realized this, so she directed the Valenzuela Police to findout who he was. She also ordered Sandico to submit a formal report of the the ft of theexhibits to the police.

A police investigator, PO3 Arnold Alabastro, tried to ascertain the name of Grecia'sdriver who was known only as "SID." He located Grecia's house in Quezon City.

Although he was not allowed to enter the premises, he was a ble to talk with a housemaid. He pretended to be a cousin of "SID" and asked for the latter. The housemaidinformed him that "SID" was sent home to his province by Grecia.

He talked with Grecia himself but the latter denied that he had a driver named "SID."

PO3 Alabastro also talked wit one of Grecia's neighbors across the street. Theneighbor confirmed that Grecia's driver was a fellow named "SID".

The incident caused enormous emotional strain to the personnel of Judge Capulong'scourt, so much so that the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Avelina Robles, washospitalized. Because of the incident, Judge Capulong inhibited herself fromconducting the trial of Civil Case No. 3548-V.

On August 20, 1991, St. Luke's failed this disbarment case against Grecia.

At the investigation of the case by Judge Bernad, Attorney Damaso Aves, thesurviving spouse of the late Fe Linda Aves and plaintiff in Civil case No. 3548-V,testified that it was Attorney Bu Castro, counsel of the defendants in said Civil CaseNo. 3548-V, who lifted two pages from the medical folder which lay among somepapers on top of the table of Acting Branch Clerk of Court Robles. When he allegedlywent outside the courthouse to wait for Attorney Grecia to arrive, he noticed AttorneyCastro come out of the building and walk toward a man in the parking lot to whom hehanded a piece of paper. Afterward, Attorney Castro reentered the courthouse.

Respondent Grecia denied any knowledge of the theft of the exhibits in the Avescase. He alleged that the person who was caught in possession of the detachedpages of the medical record was actually "planted" by his adversaries to discredit himand destroy his reputation.

He denied that he had a driver. He alleged that his car was out of order on July 16,1991, so he was fetched by the driver of Attorney Aves in the latter's "Maxima" car.He arrived in the courthouse at exactly 9:15 in the morning and went straight to thecourtroom on the second floor of the building. He did not leave the place until his casewas called at 9:40. Since it was allegedly a very warm day, he wore a dark bluebarong tagalog, not a business suit. He branded the testimony of Ms. Sandico as anabsolute falsehood. He alleged that he would not have done the act imputed to him,because the medical chart was the very foundation of the civil case which he filedagainst St. Luke's and its doctors. He wondered why the man, alleged to be his driver,

to whom he supposedly gave the detached pages of the medical chart, was neither held nor arrested. His identity was not even established.

He likewise branded the testimony of Police Investigator Alabastro as a fabrication for he had never seen him before.

He underscored the fact that none of the lawyers in the courthouse, nor any of thecourt personnel, accosted him about the purloined pages of the medical record andhe alleged that the unidentified man remained in the courtroom even after theconfrontation in the Judge's chamber.

In evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses, Judge Bernad found the courtemployee, Maria Arnie Sandico, and Acting branch Clerk of Court Avelina Roblesentirely credible and "without any noticeable guile nor attempt at fabrication,remaining constant even under pressure of cross examination" (p. 11, JudgeBernad's Report).

That the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Mrs. Robles, who is not even a lawyer, and her lowly clerk, Ms. Sandico, did not promptly raise a hue and cry on seeing Grecia tear off two pages of the medical record, was understandable for they hesitated toconfront a man of his stature. Nevertheless, they had the presence of mind toimmediately report the matter to their Judge who forthwith took appropriate steps torecover the exhibits. Robles, Sandico and PO3 Alabastro had absolutely no motive totestify falsely against the respondent.

While Judge Capulong took the blame for failing to ascertain the identity of AttorneyGrecia's "driver," her swift action in summoning and confronting him led to therecovery of the stolen pages of the medical chart.

Unfortunately, the inquiry made by Police Investigation Arnold Alabastro into identityof the man was fruitless for he was never seen again.

Attorney Aves' allegation that it was St. Luke's counsel, Attorney Castro, not Grecia,who stole the pages from the medical folder and slipped them to an unidentified man,is an incredible fabrication. Not only is it directly contradicted by Mrs. Robles and Ms.Sandico, but, significantly, Attorney Aves failed to mention it during the confrontationwith the man inside Judge Capulong's chamber where he (Attorney Aves) waspresent.

His other allegation that he saw the man inside the courtroom afterwards, is notcredible for he would have called the attention of Judge Capulong who, he knew, hadbeen looking for the man to ascertain his identity.

In view of his obvious bias for his counsel, Aves' testimony was properly disregardedby the investigator, Judge Bernad. Likewise wanting in truth and candor was Grecia'stestimony. Judge Bernad noted that while Grecia was punctilious when testifying onthe hour of his arrival in court (9:15 A.M.) on July 16, 1991, and he even rememberedthat on that day he wore a dark blue barong tagalog (an apparel that has no pockets),his memory was not sharp when he was cross-examined regarding more recentevents. For instance, he insisted that Judge Bernad was absent on August 4, 1992,but the truth is that a hearing was held on that date as shown by the transcript.

When he was confronted with exhibits "A" and "B," Grecia tried to make an issue of the absence of a court order to deposit Linda Aves' medical chart in court. He forgotthat it was he who asked that the chart be left with the clerk of court.

7/28/2019 INTROLAW 3

3/4

7/28/2019 INTROLAW 3

4/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 August 20, 2001

MIGUEL ARGEL, complainant,vs.JUDGE HERMINIA M. PASCUA, RTC-Br. 25, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

BELLOSILLO, J .:

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 (Miguel Argel v. Judge Herminia M. Pascua, RTC-Br. 25, ViganIlocos Sur). This is an administrative complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law filed byMiguel Argel against Judge Herminia M. Pascua, RTC-Br. 25, Vigan, Ilocos Sur .1

Complainant alleged in his complaint that respondent Judge rendered a Decision dated 19 August 1993 2 in Crim. Case No. 2999-V entitled People v. Miguel Argel convicting him of murder notwithstanding the fact that he had already been previously acquitted byrespondent in her Decisio n3 dated 22 July 1993, promulgated on 13 August 1993.Complainant contends that respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and of violating his constitutional right against double jeopardy.

In a letter-explanation dated 7 March 1994 respondent Judge alleged that she renderedthe judgment of acquittal dated 22 July 1993 because she erroneously thought that therewas no witness who positively identified the accused, herein complainant, as theperpetrator of the crime. Her mistake was brought about by the fact that the testimony of the eyewitness was not attached to the records at the time she wrote her decision.However, when she re-read her notes after her attention was called by the lawyer of theprivate complainant that there was such an eyewitness, respondent confirmed that therewas indeed one in the person of Tito Retreta. Hence she "revised" her previous decisionand rendered the Decision dated 19 August 1993 finding the accused guilty of murder.Fully aware of her prior decision of acquittal, respondent nevertheless ordered the police tobring complainant Argel to court not for the purpose of having him incarcerated but only toinform him of her new decision so that he could be made to answer for his civil liabilitiesarising from the crime. Before she could explain the matter to complainant, the latter'sbrother already filed a petition for habeas corpus before the Court of Appeals .4 Accordingto respondent, she decided to await the hearing of the petition before setting complainantfree so that she could give him a copy of her new decision .5

In his Reply to the letter-explanation of respondent, complainant additionally chargedrespondent with gross negligence for not exercising extreme caution in the preparation of her decision by making sure that all the transcripts of stenographic notes were attached tothe records before writing the decision .6

In a Memorandum dated 11 May 2001 the Office of the Court Administrator recommendedthat respondent be fined P20,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law.

As stated earlier, complainant was accused of murder in Crim. Case No. 2999-V of theRTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur. On 13 August 1993 judgment was promulgated acquitting himon the ground that there was no witness who positively identified him as the perpetrator of the crime. However after respondent's attention was called by the private complainant'scounsel to the fact that there was such a witness and confirmed by respondent upon re-

reading her notes, she issued an Order dated 16 August 1993 stating her intention to"revise" the previous judgment of acquittal, branded the same as "uncalled for" and "not

final," and reset the case for another "rendering of the decision. "7 The reason given wasthat the judgment of acquittal was rendered without all the facts and circumstances beingbrought to her attention.

Respondent Judge explained that the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimony of eyewitness Tito Retreta was not attached to the records when she wrote her decision.Thus, in a Decision dated 19 August 1993, respondent Judge declared herein complainantMiguel Argel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder on the basis of the eyewitnessaccount of Tito Retreta, sentenced complainant Argel to seventeen (17) years, four (4)months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua , and to pay the heirs of

the victim P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P60,000.00 for actual damages.Too elementary is the rule that a decision once final is no longer susceptible toamendment or alteration except to correct errors which are clerical in nature ,8 to clarify anyambiguity caused by an omission or mistake in the dispositive portion , 9 or to rectify atravesty of justice brought about by a moro-moro or mock trial .10 A final decision is the lawof the case and is immutable and unalterable regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness .11

In criminal cases, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final upon its promulgation .12 Itcannot be recalled for correction or amendmen t13 except in the cases already mentionednor withdrawn by another order reconsidering the dismissal of the case since the inherentpower of a court to modify its order or decision does not extend to a judgment of acquittalin a criminal case .14

Complainant herein was already acquitted of murder by respondent in a decisionpromulgated on 13 August 1993. Applying the aforestated rule, the decision became finaland immutable on the same day. As a member of the bench who is always admonished tobe conversant with the latest legal and judicial developments, more so of elementary rules,respondent should have known that she could no longer "revise" her decision of acquittalwithout violating not only an elementary rule of procedure but also the constitutionalproscription against double jeopardy. When the law is so elementary, not to know itconstitutes gross ignorance of the law .15

The fact that respondent never had any intention of having complainant incarcerated onthe basis of the second decision but only to make him answer for the civil liabilities arisingfrom the crime, as respondent explained, cannot exculpate her from administrative liability.On the contrary, such thinking on the part of respondent that she could still "revise" apromulgated decision of acquittal even for such a purpose underscores, not mitigates, her gross ignorance.

We cannot write finis to this case without also commenting on respondent's negligence inthe preparation of her decision. Judges have always been reminded to take down their own notes of salient portions of hearings and not to rely on the transcripts of stenographicnotes. The pivotal testimony of Tito Retreta would not have been overlooked andconsequently disregarded had respondent prepared her own notes and read them as shewas supposed to.

WHEREFORE, for Gross Ignorance of the Law respondent Judge Herminia M. Pascua,RTC-Br. 25, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, is FINED P20,000.00, the same to be deducted from her retirement benefits. Since respondent has already compulsorily retired as of 18 September 1998, let her retirement benefits be immediately released to her minus the amount of P20,000.00 herein imposed on her as fine.

SO ORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/aug2001/am_rtj_94_1131_2001.html#fnt1