Sabeniano v. Court of Appeals

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 152985. July 9, 2014.]

Modesta R. Sabeniano, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, Citibank, N.A., et al., respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 09 July 2014 which reads as follows:

G.R. No. 152985: Modesta R. Sabeniano v. Court of Appeals, Citibank, N.A., et al.

On 11 April 2011, this Court issued a Resolution denying the request of petitioner Modesta R. Sabeniano (petitioner) for "authentication" of the alleged "Decision dated 13 November 2002" on the ground that there is no Decision dated 13 November 2002 rendered by the First Division in this case. The Court likewise reserved its right to investigate who are responsible for producing or circulating the "Decision dated 13 November 2002."

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) forwarded to this Court its Initial Investigation Report dated 27 June 2011. On 20 July 2011, this Court issued a Resolution requiring petitioner to explain within ten days from notice why she should not be cited for contempt of Court for submitting the spurious "13 November 2002 Decision." Copy of the 20 July 2011 Resolution sent to petitioner herself at her address on record was returned unserved with the notation "RTS Refused to RCVD, No One to RCVD, Addressee Out of the Country." 1

Meanwhile, a Notice of Appearance was filed by Atty. Lucas C. Carpio, Jr. as counsel for petitioner. Copy of the 20 July 2011 Resolution was sent to petitioner's counsel for his compliance. 2 On 1 August 2012, petitioner's counsel himself was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with the 20 July 2011 Resolution. 3 In the Resolution of 14 January 2013, counsel was granted an extension to comply. In his Compliance, 4 counsel manifested that the submission by petitioner of the spurious "decision" took place when he was not yet retained as counsel for petitioner and that his engagement as counsel for petitioner was short-lived as he filed on 5 December 2011 a notice of withdrawal as counsel. Nonetheless, in the Resolution of 14 January 2013, the Court directed that a copy of the 20 July 2011 Resolution be re-sent to petitioner herself, for the last time. 5 The Court likewise directed that a copy of the 14 January 2013 Resolution together with the 20 July 2011 Resolution be re-sent to petitioner herself. 6 Copies of these resolutions were returned unserved with the notation "RTS Addressee Refused to [Receive]" 7 and "RTS No One To [Receive]." 8

At the outset, let it be stressed that the Court made several attempts to serve upon petitioner herself the copy of the 20 July 2011 Resolution requiring her to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt for submitting the spurious "13 November 2002 Decision." Petitioner was given ample time, in fact since 2011, and opportunity to explain and defend herself. Her willful refusal to receive the Court's resolution and her disobedience to or resistance to comply with the lawful order of this Court constitutes indirect contempt pursuant to Section 3 of Rule 71 of the Revised Rules of Court. 9

Submitting the spurious "13 November 2002 Decision" to this Court for "authentication" constitutes an abuse and unlawful interference with the proceedings of this Court. In the Resolution dated 1 June 2011, we noted the separate letters both dated 12 April 2011 filed by counsel for Citibank, N.A. requesting for a certification that the "purported Decision dated 13 November 2002 does not exist and that no such decision was rendered by the Court." Counsel further requested for a thorough investigation so as not to let such reprehensible, contemptible and criminal behavior go unpunished. 10TEDAHI

In its Investigation Report, the NBI found that there was no original copy of the spurious "decision" since what were attached by petitioner in her request for authentication were only photocopies of the spurious "Decision." The NBI opined that if a person has in his possession a falsified document and he made use of it, the presumption is that he is the material author of the falsification. 11

Likewise, Atty. Teresita Aquino Tuazon, Assistant Clerk of Court of the Second Division, certified that "there is no Decision dated 13 November 2002" in this case. 12 In view of this certification and that what is on record is a Minute Resolution on even date, signed by then Assistant Clerk of Court, Atty. Enriqueta Esguerra Vidal, which declared the case terminated for petitioner's failure to file the intended petition for review on certiorari within the reglementary period, the request of petitioner for an authentication of the alleged "Decision dated 13 November 2002" was denied in the Resolution dated 11 April 2011. 13

As can be gleaned from the records of this case, there was never a "Decision" promulgated on 13 November 2002. All genuine decisions and resolutions, whether signed or unsigned, have a Supreme Court logo or seal at the upper portion of the first page of the decision or resolution. As observed by the Court, 14 the spurious "Decision" had no Supreme Court logo or seal. The format and font in the spurious "Decision" are not the format and font that the ponente uses in his ponencias or resolutions. In page 2 of the spurious "Decision" with the heading "Antecedent Facts," the succeeding paragraphs contain the dispositive portion and excerpts from the 26 March 2002 Decision and 20 November 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 51930. The spurious "decision" itself is grammatically incorrect and obviously not well-crafted. Even a first year law student would know that it certainly is not one written by a justice of this Court.

Petitioner's attempt to pass a decision as one rendered by this Court is certainly contemptuous. Petitioner should bear in mind that the decisions of this Court are products of the magistrates' creativity; it is here that their genius, originality and honest labor can be found. Their decisions analyze the often conflicting facts of each case and sort out the relevant from the irrelevant. They identify and formulate the issue or issues that need to be resolved and evaluate each of the laws, rulings, principles, or authorities that the parties to the case invoke. The decisions then draw their apt conclusions regarding whether or not such laws, rulings, principles, or authorities apply to the particular cases before the Court. 15 Petitioner's attempt to "authenticate" the spurious "Decision dated 13 November 2002" is an affront to the Court. She should be penalized accordingly.

WHEREFORE, petitioner Modesta R. Sabeniano is found GUILTY of Indirect Contempt and is FINED the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos, with a warning that any further infraction shall be dealt with more severely. This is without prejudice to whatever criminal liability she might have incurred.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, p. 1128.

2. Id. at 1138.

3. Id. at 1151.

4. Id. at 1166-1171.

5. Id. at 1195.

6. Id. at 1201.

7. Id. at 1213.

8. Id. at 1216.

9. Industrial and Transport Equipment, Inc. v. NLRC, 348 Phil. 158, 163 (1998).

10. Rollo, p. 1068.

11. Id. at 1205.

12. Id. at 880.

13. Id. at 892.

14. Annex A of the Resolution of 16 March 2011, id. at 874-876.

15. In The Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, Etc., against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, 8 February 2011, 642 SCRA 11, 23.