Bruselas, Jr. v. Mallari

EN BANC

[A.C. No. 9683. February 21, 2017.]

COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR., complainant,vs. ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI, respondent.

[IPI No. 17-250-CA-J. February 21, 2017.]

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI AGAINST HON. ANDRES B. REYES, JR., PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOURTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. SP NO. 106838

[IPI No. 17-251-CA-J. February 21, 2017.]

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI AGAINST HON. JAPAR B. DIMAAMPAO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, FOURTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. SP NO. 106838

[IPI No. 17-252-CA-J. February 21, 2017.]

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI AGAINST HON. APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, FOURTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. SP NO. 106838

[IPI No. 17-253-CA-J. February 21, 2017.]

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI AGAINST HON. NOEL G. TIJAM, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, FOURTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. SP NO. 106838

[IPI No. 17-254-CA-J. February 21, 2017.]

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI AGAINST HON. EDWIN D. SORONGON, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, FOURTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. SP NO. 106838

[IPI No. 17-255-CA-J. February 21, 2017.]

RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ATTY. ELIGIO P. MALLARI AGAINST HON. SOCORRO B. INTING, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, FOURTH DIVISION, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA RELATIVE TO CA-G.R. SP NO. 106838

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedFEBRUARY 21, 2017, which reads as follows:

"A.C. No. 9683(Court of Appeals Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. v. Atty. Eligio P. Mallari); IPI No. 17-250-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari against Hon. Andres B. Reyes, Jr., Presiding Justice, Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 106838); IPI No. 17-251-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari againstHon. Japar B. Dimaampao, Associate Justice, Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 106838); IPI No. 17-252-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari against Hon. Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., Associate Justice, Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 106838); IPI No. 17-253-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari againstHon. Noel G. Tijam, Associate Justice, Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 106838); IPI No. 17-254-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari against Hon. Edwin D. Sorongon, Associate Justice, Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila relative to CA-G.R. SP No. 106838); and IPI No. 17-255-CA-J (Re: Verified Complaint of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari againstHon. Socorro B. Inting, Associate Justice, Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manilarelative to CA-G.R. SP No. 106838). — Before this Court are Verified Complaints 1 against Court of Appeals (CA) Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (Justice Reyes); and CA Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (Justice Tijam), Japar B. Dimaampao (Justice Dimaampao), Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. (Justice Bruselas), Edwin D. Sorongon (Justice Sorongon), and Socorro B. Inting (Justice Inting) filed by Atty. Eligio P. Mallari (Atty. Mallari) on 5 December 2016.

In a Resolution dated 14 February 2017, 2 we consolidated IPI Nos. 17-250-CA-J to 17-255-CA-J with A.C. No. 9683, which was an earlier administrative case that arose from a letter sent by Justice Bruselas. In that letter, he called the attention of this Court to a paid advertisement of Atty. Mallari that appeared in two newspapers of general circulation in the country.

A. A.C. No. 9683

On 7 and 8 November 2012, Atty. Mallari caused the publication of an open letter addressed to Justice Bruselas in two newspapers of general circulation. 3 Therein, he challenged Justice Bruselas to a public debate on the topic "The Court of Appeals' Special Fourth Division of Five Amended Decision, dated 24 February 2011, in CA-G.R. SP. No. 106383, penned by Justice Apolinario Bruselas, Jr. is VOID." The challenge was published while Atty. Mallari's Motion for Reconsideration was still pending before the CA. HTcADC

On 12 November 2012, the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc received a Privileged Communication 4 from the chambers of Justice Bruselas. The latter called the attention of the Members of this Court to the paid public advertisements "for whatever action your Honors may deem best to take." This letter was docketed as A.C. No. 9683 and was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for investigation, report, and recommendation. 5

In a Resolution dated 10 June 2014, 6 this Court required Atty. Mallari to file a Comment and to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for having violated the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was given 10 days to comply. Despite receiving a copy of this Resolution on 17 July 2014, 7 Atty. Mallari has failed to comply with the order until this date.

On 28 June 2016, this Court issued a Resolution 8 requiring Atty. Mallari to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt of court for failure to comply with the Resolution dated 10 June 2014. He was also required to comply with that 2014 Resolution. However, the copy of the 2016 Resolution meant for Atty. Mallari was returned unserved with the notation "Returned: Moved out (no forwarding address)." 9 On 10 January 2017, the Process Servicing Unit was directed to serve copies of the Resolutions at the addresses provided by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 10 Meanwhile, Atty. Mallari filed the Verified Complaints that have been docketed as IPI Nos. 17-250-CA-J to 17-255-CA-J, in which he provided a more specific address at No. 248, 3rd Street, Dolores Homesite, San Fernando City, Pampanga.

B. IPI Nos. 17-250-CA-J TO 17-255-CA-J

Atty. Mallari accuses CA Presiding Justice Reyes and CA Associate Justices Tijam, Dimaampao, Bruselas, Sorongon, and Inting (collectively, respondent Justices) of gross ignorance of the law, gross dishonesty, gross misconduct, and violation of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA) and the Rules of Court. He questions the "highly anomalous, irregular, [and] improper" revival by respondent Justices of his adversary's "long-lost" Notice of Appeal. 11 He claims that out of dismay and frustration, he yet again caused the publication of a challenge to debate, this time against all of the nine CA Justices who had some participation in the resolution of CA-G.R. SP No. 106838. 12

In a Decision dated 11 August 2009, 13 respondent Justices Reyes and Bruselas, as well as Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, comprising the CA Fourth Division, unanimously denied the Petition for Certiorari filed by the Philippine National Bank (PNB) and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 106838. 14 However, in an Amended Decision dated 24 February 2011, 15 the same Justices who issued the Decision dated 11 August 2009, along with respondent Justice Dimaampao and Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador, comprising the Special Former Fourth Division, granted the Motion for Reconsideration filed by PNB and ordered the reinstatement of the latter's Notice of Appeal. Justice Reyes dissented from the Amended Decision. 16 In a Resolution dated 5 December 2012, 17 respondent Justices Reyes, Tijam, Sorongon, and Inting, as well as Justice Agnes Reyes Carpio, comprising the Special Former Fourth Division, denied complainant's Motion for Reconsideration of the Amended Decision. aScITE

Notably, Atty. Mallari admits that he and his wife have already assailed the Amended Decision dated 24 February 2011 and the Resolution dated 5 December 2012 through a Petition for Review on Certiorari filed before this Court on 25 January 2013. 18

In his Verified Complaints, Atty. Mallari argues that Justice Reyes unlawfully created the Special Former Fourth Division "despite the fact that the three [and later, two] members of the CA Fourth Division x x x was intact." 19 According to Atty. Mallari, this act violated Sections 2 (d), 20 2 (e), 21 and 7 (c), 22 Rule VI of the 2009 IRCA. He also questions the grant of due course to a petition filed beyond the 60-day period provided under Section 4, 23 Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 24

Further, Atty. Mallari argues that the CA's Amended Decision dated 24 February 2011 and Resolution dated 5 December 2012 were void based on the following facts:

Atty. Mallari and his wife were the plaintiffs in a civil case for consignation heard by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Quezon City. 25 The case was against PNB represented by its president and CEO, Omar Byron T. Mier.

On 22 January 2008, Judge Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, acting on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by plaintiff-spouses, ruled that 1) the amount of P11,042,334.05 consigned to the court be considered full payment by plaintiff-spouses of their balance under a Deed of Promise to Sell; 2) plaintiff-spouses be released from their obligation to pay the outstanding balance under the deed; 3) PNB should execute the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of plaintiff-spouses; and 4) PNB should pay the expenses of consignation and the costs. 26

On 4 February 2008, PNB filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 22 January 2008.

On 28 February 2008, an Order was issued denying PNB's Motion for Reconsideration. According to complainant, the motion was denied for being pro forma under Section 5, Rule 15 27 and Section 2, Rule 37 28 of the Rules of Court. 29

The Order dated 28 February 2008 was allegedly received by PNB on 12 March 2008. The bank then filed a Notice of Appeal dated 12 March 2008. 30

Atty. Mallari insists that since a pro forma motion for reconsideration does not toll the running of the period of appeal, PNB lost its privilege to appeal. 31 He opines that the period to file a petition for certiorari before the CA should be counted from the date of receipt of the Order. 32 Based on his computations, it expired on 11 or 13 May 2008; 33 hence, the Petition for Certiorari filed before the CA on 7 January 2009 was filed out of time.

Meanwhile, on 13 May 2008, Judge Quijano-Padilla ordered the deletion of the Notice of Appeal from the records of the case. 34 On 26 May 2008, a Writ of Execution was issued to enforce the Resolution dated 22 January 2008. 35 The following day, PNB filed an Omnibus Motion praying for the reconsideration of the Order dated 13 May 2008 and for the quashal of the Writ of Execution. In an Order dated 25 November 2008, Judge Evangeline C. Castillo-Marigomen denied the Omnibus Motion. 36

As earlier narrated, PNB filed before the CA a Petition for Certiorari, which was initially dismissed, but later granted upon reconsideration. According to Atty. Mallari, respondent Justices should be held administratively liable for granting PNB's Motion for Reconsideration in spite of the "undisputed fact" that the PNB's Petition for Certiorari is a prescribed petition. 37

THE COURT'S RULING

We dismiss the Verified Complaints for failure of Atty. Mallari to establish a prima facie case against respondent Justices. Moreover, a judicial remedy exists and was, in fact, availed of to question the Amended Decision.

Under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the CA and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court. These proceedings may also be instituted upon a verified complaint, supported by the affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents that may substantiate said allegations. The present Verified Complaints are easily dismissible for lack of affidavits or documents that tend to support the charges made against respondent Justices. It is settled that in administrative proceedings, complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence. If they fail to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which their claims are made, the respondents are not obliged to prove their exception or defense. 38

Even if this Court relies fully on the allegations of Atty. Mallari, the Verified Complaints would still have to be dismissed for failing not only to provide evidence, but also to allege bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. HEITAD

In Umali, Jr. v. Hernandez, 39 we dismissed the administrative case against Sandiganbayan Justice Jose R. Hernandez, because complainant therein failed to support by substantial proof any of the allegations in his Complaint. This Court cautioned that "extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself."40

At least in Umali, there were accusations, albeit also unsubstantiated, of extortion and manifest partiality. In the present case, there was none at all. Atty. Mallari merely insists that the rulings of respondent Justices were wrong.

On the charges of gross ignorance of

Atty. Mallari himself cites Andres v. Majaducon, 41 in which this Court ruled that "[f]or liability to attach [to] ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision, or actuation must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but most importantly, it must also be established that he was moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption." 42 In the same manner, gross misconduct necessarily implies a wrongful intent. 43 However, Atty. Mallari does not even allege that respondent Justices were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption in rendering the judgments. What he alleges is that they did so for reasons known only to them. To demonstrate, the allegations read:

For VIOLATION of the provision of Sec. 7 (sub paragraph c), Rule VI, 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, when instead of referring back PNB's Motion for Reconsideration of the CA Decision dated August 11, 2009 of to the CA FOURTH DIVISION, he PARTICIPATED and CONCURRED n with the promulgation of the CA "VOID" Amended Decision dated February 24, 2011 for reasons KNOWN ONLY TO HIM. 44

xxx xxx xxx

For VIOLATION of the provision under Section 4, Rule 65, Rules of Court which provides the mandatory period of 60 days prescriptive period within which to file Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 WHEN HE DID NOT SEE OR DID NOT LOOK into the matter that the PNB's Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court in CA-GR SP No. 106838 is LONG PRESCRIBED Petition for Certiorarifor reasons KNOWN ONLY TO HIM. 45 (Emphases and underscoring in the original)

Specifically with regard to respondent Justice Reyes, he allegedly disregarded plaintiffs' pleas for the reversion to the CA Fourth Division of PNB's Motion for Reconsideration "for reasons known only to him." 46

Another ground for the dismissal of these complaints is the existence of judicial remedies. In Rodriguez v. Gatdula, 47 this Court held that administrative complaints against judges cannot be pursued simultaneously with judicial remedies available to persons aggrieved by the erroneous orders or judgments. Further, "it is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed." 48

It is clear and undisputed that the assailed rulings were issued in the exercise of respondents' judicial functions. In the Amended Decision, respondent Justices explained that they reconsidered their earlier Decision, because they were constrained by policy considerations to prioritize substance over procedural niceties. 49 Assuming that respondent Justices erred in their judgment, Atty. Mallari still failed to establish that any of them was moved by fraud, dishonesty, malice, corrupt motive, improper considerations, or deliberate intent to do an injustice. 50

On the charge of gross dishonesty

No factual details have been provided to substantiate this charge. Atty. Mallari merely quotes a definition of "gross dishonesty" from jurisprudence. 51

On the charge of Violation of the

Atty. Mallari points to the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Reyes dated 24 February 2011 as evidence that he "surreptitiously created the Special Former Fourth Special Division of Five." 52 However, nowhere in the document adverted to is it stated that the special division was created by Justice Reyes; much less, that the division of five was "surreptitiously created." What is apparent is that the members of the Fourth Division who promulgated the Decision dated 11 August 2009 — Justices Reyes, Bruselas, and Lampas Peralta — were no longer unanimous in resolving PNB's Motion for Reconsideration. The very same Rules invoked by Atty. Mallari, the 2009 IRCA, provides that when the members of a division fail to reach a unanimous vote, its chairperson shall direct the Raffle Committee to designate, by raffle, two additional members to constitute a Special Division of Five. 53 A division of five is not created by the chairperson, then, but by operation of the rules. ATICcS

Atty. Mallari presented no other evidence that would tend to show that any of respondent Justices violated the internal rules of the tribunal.

On the charge of violation of Section 4,

This allegation deserves scant consideration. The rule applies to persons aggrieved by the judgment of a tribunal, a board or an officer. It is not an absolute bar on appellate courts that would prevent them from taking cognizance of petitions that have been filed beyond the periods prescribed by the Rules. In fact, this Court has allowed the liberal interpretation and application of the rules of procedure in proper cases and under justifiable causes and circumstances. This is not to say that the CA in this instance properly gave due course to PNB's Petition for Certiorari, as that issue is still pending in the judicial case. The point is that complainant cannot attribute gross ignorance, gross dishonesty, or gross misconduct, simply because respondent Justices resolved the petition.

We observe that the time element in the filing of these complaints is highly suspect, considering that the allegedly "void" Amended Decision was rendered way back in 2011, while these Verified Complaints were filed only on 5 December 2016, or three days after the Judicial and Bar Council had released the names of the nominees for the position of Associate Justice of this Court (vice Justice Jose P. Perez). The list included Justices Bruselas, Dimaampao, and Reyes. It was also publicly made known that Justice Tijam had applied for the position, and that he had been nominated for the position of Associate Justice (vice Justice Arturo D. Brion).

The Clerk of Court also reported 54 that the following administrative cases have been filed by Atty. Mallari against the very same respondent Justices:

1) A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-182-CA-J (Atty. Eligio P. Mallari v. Court of Appeals Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., Division Clerk of Court Josefina C. Mallari, and Atty. Antonio M. Elicaño) — DISMISSED for prematurity and lack of merit in a Resolution dated 29 November 2011

2) A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-195-CA-J (Re: Complaint of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari against Court of Appeals Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.) — DISMISSED for lack of showing of prima facie case in a Resolution dated 10 August 2012

3) IPI No. 13-211-CA-J (Re: Complaint of Atty. Eligio P. Mallari against Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting, Noel G. Tijam, Agnes R. Carpio, and Edwin Sorongon relative to CA-GR SP No. 106838) — DISMISSED for lack of showing of prima facie case in a Resolution dated 10 June 2013

It appears that those administrative cases were filed in connection with respondent Justices' ruling in CA-G.R. SP No. 106838. TIADCc

The Court Administrator likewise reported 55 that complaints filed by Atty. Mallari against two RTC judges in San Fernando, Pampanga, and another complaint against an RTC judge in Quezon City were dismissed for utter lack of merit and/or for being judicial in nature. 56 At present, complaints filed by Atty. Mallari against five other RTC judges in the same cities are pending before the Court. 57

Atty. Mallari's actuations bring to mind Balaoing v. Calderon, 58 in which this Court disbarred a lawyer for his propensity to file baseless and frivolous complaints against judges who rendered decisions or issued orders adverse to him or his clients. In that case, this Court strongly denounced the filing of complaints that were "based on personal interpretation of the law and not on material allegations of fact, substantiated by solid evidence." We found the lawyer unfit to practice law because of his failure to abide by Rules 11.03 and 11.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

In another case, this Court found the complainant guilty of contempt of court and meted out to the latter a fine for filing an unfounded administrative complaint. The Court held therein:

Complainant may strongly disagree with the decisions of the respondents but unsubstantiated allegations of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law serve no purpose other than to harass judges and cast doubt on the integrity of the entire judiciary.

xxx xxx xxx

x x x Complainant's unfounded imputations against respondents is malicious and offends the dignity of the entire judiciary. For this, complainant is guilty of contempt of court and must be sentenced to pay a fine of P20,000. 59

Considering the fact that this is the fourth case filed by complainant with the same factual milieu, and that all his prior complaints against judicial officers have been dismissed for lack of merit, this Court requires him to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for filing unfounded suits that clog the docket of this Court. We also reiterate the show cause order in connection with his act of challenging Justice Bruselas, and later the other eight CA Justices, to debate the merits of a judgment instead of taking established judicial routes.

Jurisprudence would show that this Court does not hesitate to use its power to discipline judges and Justices who fail to live up to the highest standards of judicial conduct. However, when charges are unsubstantiated, this Court would not shirk from its duty to shield members of the judiciary from unfounded suits.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Verified Complaints against Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., as well as Court of Appeals Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam, Japar B. Dimaampao, Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., Edwin D. Sorongon, and Socorro B. Inting, docketed as IPI Nos. 17-250-CA-J to 17-255-CA-J, are hereby DISMISSED. AIDSTE

The Court further resolves to REQUIRE Atty. Eligio P. Mallari 1) to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be held in contempt for his failure to comply with the Resolution dated 10 June 2014 issued in A.C. No. 9683; 2) to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be administratively sanctioned for filing unfounded suits in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility; and 3) to COMPLY with the Resolution dated 10 June 2014, all within 10 days from notice hereof.

The Process Servicing Unit is DIRECTED to SERVE copies of the Resolution dated 10 June 2014 and the Resolution dated 28 June 2016 issued in A.C. No. 9683, together with this Resolution, at No. 248, 3rd Street, Dolores Homesite, San Fernando City, Pampanga.

The Court further Resolved to NOTE the

(a) Memoranda, all dated December 6, 2016, of Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva, Officer-in-Charge (per Office Order No. 15-2016 dated December 2, 2016), Office of the Court Administrator, forwarding the aforesaid Verified Complaints of Atty. Mallari against Presiding Justice Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justices Dimaampao and Bruselas, Jr.; and

(b) Memoranda, all dated December 13, 2016, of Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez, forwarding the aforesaid Verified Complaints of Atty. Mallari against Associate Justices Tijam, Sorongon and Inting." Velasco, Jr., J., no part. Reyes, J., on official leave. (adv3)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), pp. 2-24; (IPI Nos. 17-251-CA-J to 17-255-CA-J), pp. 2-25.

2.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), pp. 117-118.

3. See rollo (A.C. No. 9683), pp. 4-5.

4.Id. at 2-3.

5.Id. at 1; Resolution dated 15 January 2013.

6.Id. at 11.

7.See Postmaster's reply dated 27 April 2016 to the query of the Clerk of Court dated 19 April 2016, id. at 13.

8.Id. at 15.

9.See Return of Service, id. at 17.

10.See Resolution dated 10 January 2017, id. at 23.

11.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), p. 14.

12.Id. at 20. See photocopy of the advertisement published on 7 January 2014 in Sun Star Pampanga, id. at 113.

13.Id. at 41-58.

14. Entitled "Philippine National Bank v. The Honorable Evangeline C. Castillo-Marigomen, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 101 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Sheriff Pedro L. Borja, and the Spouses Eligio P. Mallari and Marcelina I. Mallari."

15.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), pp. 25-34.

16.Id. at 35-40.

17.Id. at 59-70.

18.Id. at 17.

19.Id. at 4.

20. Section 2.Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. — In the determination of the two other Justices who shall participate in the adjudication of cases, the following shall be observed:

xxx xxx xxx

(d) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of the following proceedings has been taken, namely: (i) giving due course; (ii) granting temporary restraining order, writ of preliminary injunction, or new trial; (iii) granting an application for writ of habeas corpus, amparo or habeas data; (iv) granting an application for a freeze order; and (v) granting judicial authorization under the Human Security Act of 2007, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned and the Justices who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station.The case may not be unloaded by the ponente to complete the case assignments of a Justice who is newly-appointed or transferred from another station of the Court.

21. Section 2.Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. — In the determination of the two other Justices who shall participate in the adjudication of cases, the following shall be observed:

xxx xxx xxx

(e) However, if only one member of the Division who participated in any of the proceedings mentioned in subparagraph (d) hereof remains, the Raffle Committee shall automatically assign the case to him/her;

However, if all the members of said Division have ceased to be members of the Court or have transferred to other stations, the Judicial Records Division shall make a request to the Raffle Committee for a new ponente; and (n)

22. Section 7.The Justices Who Shall Act on Motions for Reconsideration.

xxx xxx xxx

(c) If the ponente has ceased to be a member of the Court or has inhibited himself/herself from acting on the abovementioned motion for reconsideration or has transferred to another station, he/she shall be replaced by another Justice who shall be chosen by raffle from among the remaining members of his/her Division in the same station, whether regular or acting, who participated in the rendition of the decision or final resolution, and the resulting vacancy therein shall be filled by raffle from among the other Justices in the same station.

If only one member of the Division, whether regular or acting, who participated in the rendition of the decision or final resolution, remains, the motion for reconsideration shall be sent to him/her by the Raffle Committee and he/she shall act thereon with the participation of the other members of his/her Division.

23. Section 4.When and where petition filed. — The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said motion.

24.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), pp. 19-20.

25. Entitled "The Spouses Eligio P. Mallari and Marcelina I. Mallari v. The Philippine National Bank (PNB) represented by its President & CEO Omar Byron T. Mier" docketed as Civil Case No. Q-06-58366.

26.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), p. 86.

27. Section 5.Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion. (5a)

28. Section 2.Contents of motion for new trial or reconsideration and notice thereof. — The motion shall be made in writing stating the ground or grounds therefor, a written notice of which shall be served by the movant on the adverse party.

A motion for new trial shall be proved in the manner provided for proof of motion. A motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (a) of the preceding section shall be supported by affidavits of merits which may be rebutted by counter-affidavits. A motion for the cause mentioned in paragraph (b) shall be supported by affidavits of the witnesses by whom such evidence is expected to be given, or by duly authenticated documents which are proposed to be introduced in evidence.

A motion for reconsideration shall point out specifically the findings or conclusions of the judgment or final order which are not supported by the evidence or which are contrary to law making express reference to the testimonial or documentary evidence or to the provisions of law alleged to be contrary to such findings or conclusions.

A pro forma motion for new trial or reconsideration shall not toll the reglementary period of appeal. (2a)

29. No copy of this Order was attached to the Verified Complaints.

30.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), pp. 87-88.

31.Id. at 6.

32.Id.

33. In rollo, p. 6, complainant stated, "The PNB's Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to be considered as timely filed, should have been filed on or before May 13, 2008 x x x." However, in rollo, p. 12, complainant said, "The sixty (60) day period within which PNB should have filed its lost petition for certiorari was on or before May 11, 2008."

34.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), pp. 89-90-A.

35.Id. at 91-92.

36.Id. at 72-75.

37.Rollo (IPI No. 17-251-CA-J), p. 6.

38.Tan v. Usman, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2390, 13 August 2014 citing Reyes v. Judge Mangino, 490 Phil. 444 (2005).

39. IPI No. 15-35-SB-J, 23 February 2016.

40.Id.

41. 594 Phil 591 (2008).

42.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), p. 3.

43.Office of the Court Administrator v. Tormis, A.C. No. 9920 (Resolution), 30 August 2016, citing Spouses Whitson v. Atty. Atienza, 457 Phil. 11 (2003), further citing Osop v. Fontanilla, 417 Phil. 724 (2001).

44. See rollo (IPI Nos. 17-251-CA-J to 17-255-CA-J), p. 20.

45. See rollo (IPI Nos. 17-251-CA-J), p. 20; (IPI No. 17-252-CA-J), pp. 20-21; (IPI Nos. 17-253-CA-J to 17-255-CA-J), p. 21.

46.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), p. 8.

47. 442 Phil. 307 (2002).

48.Re: Catalina Z. Aliling, I.P.I. No. 16-244-CA-J, 6 September 2016.

49.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), p. 28.

50. See Magdadaro v. Saniel, Jr., 700 Phil. 513 (2012).

51.Rollo (IPI No. 17-250-CA-J), p. 3.

52.Id. at 9.

53. 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Rule 1, Section 9 (g).

54. In a letter dated 31 January 2017. See rollo (A.C. No. 9683), pp. 29-30.

55. In a letter dated 6 February 2017. See rollo (A.C. No. 9683), pp. 39-42.

56. See Resolution dated 8 April 2013 in OCA IPI No. 12-3887-RTJ; Resolution dated 9 December 2013 in OCA IPI No. 13-4019-RTJ; Resolution dated 15 February 2016 in OCA IPI No. 13-4016-RTJ.

57.Supra note 54, at 30.

58. A.M. No. RTJ-90-580, RTJ-676, 27 April 1993.

59.Cruz v. Aliño-Hormachuelos, A.M. No. CA-04-38, 31 March 2004.

n  Note from the Publisher: Written as "CUNCURRED" in the official document.