2 Court of Appeals Justices
Facing Supreme Court Quiz for Case-Fixing
THE HIGH court yesterday took aim at so-called hoodlums in robes, ordering a full-blown investigation into charges that two appellate justices were engaged in case-fixing at the Court of Appeals.
In a unanimous resolution of the full court, the Supreme Court appointed retired SC Associate Justices Carolina Grino-Aquino to conduct the administrative investigation.
“The court resolved to refer the complaint in this case to (Grino-Aquino) for evaluation and or investigation, report and recommendation,” the SC resolution read. It was signed by SC Clerk of Court Luzviminda Puno.
The SC order stemmed from a complaint lodged by a certain Antonio K. Litonjua on July 8, 2002 with the SC. In the complain, Litonjua charged CA Associate Justices Juan Enriquez Jr. and Bernardo Abesamis with the following offenses:
- Grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law due to Enriquez' deliberate to resolve the six pending motions listed in his affidavit-complain for an unreasonable length of time.
- Abesamis' culpability for acting as a power broker and influence-peddler, and engaging in the practice of case- fixing.
- Grave misconduct on the part of Enriquez in demanding money from Litonjua-- P1.5 million in order to facilitate the release of the revolution of the case.
- Grave misconduct on the part of Enriquez and Abesamis “in knowingly frustrating the execution of the writ of final decision despite the SC's entry of judgment, in issuing a temporary restraining order ... stopping the execution of the judgment in the case before the regional trial court.”
Original case
The case started when onother group of Litonjuas- Eduardo Sr., and his namesake--sued the Bank of America on Feb. 12, 1993. Eduardo Sr. is the president of American Realty Corp. (ARC).
In a decision on May 12, 1995, the Pasig Regional Trial Court sided with the ARC, and ordered the bank to pay ARC P99 million in actual and compensatory damages and P5 million in exemplary damages.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision. When the matter was elevated to the SC, the high court reduced the exemplary damages from P5 million to P50, 000. The decision became final on April 3, 2000.
On Nov. 20, 2000.ARC, through Eduardo Sr., entered into a compromise agreement with the bank "whereby the amounts awarded in the judgment of the (SC) were offset against the other claims of the BA against ARC."
But on April 6, 2001, another group the Litonjua brothers Aurelio and Antonio asked the RTC to execute the SC decision. The lower court issued a writ of execution on April 20, 2001.
This prompted the original claimants to file a petition for prohibition before the CA, contesting the issuance of the April 20 writ of execution. They claimed that a compromise agreement had already been entered into between ARC and BA.
On April 24 and June 25, 2001, TROs were issued by the CA stopping the execution of judgment of the lower court.
The TROs were issued by Enriquez, and concurred in by then CA Justices Presbitero Velasco and CA Justices Bienvenido Reyes.
On Aug. 7, 2001, the CA eventually dismissed the petition for prohibition, and ruled against the father and son.
Another decision
However, upon a motion for reconsideration, the CA special division issued another decision, again penned by Enriquez, granting BSA's motion for reconsideration .
It also enjoined the lower court from enforcing its writ of execution. Aggrieved, Antonio Litonjua filed on July 8, 2002 a complain against the CA justices.
He claimed that after the issuance of the earlier TRO's, he allegedly received a call from Enriquez "requesting to see him at his office at the CA."
Complainant Litonjua obliged and met Justices Enriquez at his office, whoapologized to him for the issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction. Justice Enriquez allegedly told him that he had a commitment with Justice Abesamis, who represented the interests of the officers of ARC and BA.” said the SC.
The complainant even claimed that Enriquez allegedly told him the group that Abesamis represented “was very influential and had prepared a big amount of money for mobilization and judicial expenses.”
He was allegedly assured by Enriquez that since he was the ponente, “the resolution of the case could be facilitated if a mobilization and judicial fund was available.”
They then arrived at a sum of P1.5 million, said the SC, quoting the complaint.
Subsequently, after the full payment of the amount, the CA lifted the TRO's.
But the complainant was stunned when the CA special division reversed the original decision lifting the TRO's .
He then accused Enriquez and Abesamis of deliberately refusing to resolve the motion for reconsideration and the series of six motions filed from Dec. 5, 2001 to April 15, 2002.
In his defense, Enriquez said in a counter- affidavit to the SC that the amended decision was issued by the whole special division.
