A.M. No. 2739-CFI - NOVEMBER 1982 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. 2739-CFINovember 2, 1982 Teresita De Castro vs. Ignacio Capulong A.M. No. P-2221November 2, 1982 Cipriano Abenojar vs. Domingo Lopez G.R. No. L-50298November 2, 1982 Joseph Y. Punay vs. Jose R. Ramolete G.R. No. L-27152November 2, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Luis E. Torio G.R. No. L-34079November 2, 1982 Republic of the Philippines vs. Rafael De La Cruz G.R. No. L-34517November 2, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Simeon Ganut G.R. No. L-39518November 2, 1982 Agricultural & Industrial Marketing, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44039November 2,1982 Rolando A. Datuin vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al. G.R. No. L-47460November 2, 1982 Amelia Delegente vs. Employees' Compensation Com G.R. No. L-48196November 2, 1982 Rolando Bautista vs. Ignacio P. Lacsina G.R. No. L-50358November 2, 1982 Shipside, Incorporated vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-52823November 2, 1982 Philippine National Bank vs. Midpantao Adil G.R. No. L-53465November 2, 1982 Antonio Nitura vs. Jose C. Colayco G.R. No. L-54439November 2, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Jesus N. Montez G.R. No. L-55645November 2, 1982 Ricardo Ceniza vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-56909November 2, 1982 Florencia B. San Valentin vs. Employees' Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-58578November 2, 1982 Jose Geromo vs. Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-59054November 2, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Mustapa Alibasa G.R. No. L-34597November 5, 1982 Rosito Z. Bacarro vs. Gerundio B. Castaño G.R. No. L-36033November 5, 1982 Apolonio Taboada vs. Avelino S. Rosal G.R. No. L-61870November 5, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Constantino D. Peralta G.R. No. L-49004November 10, 1982 Ng Lit vs. Francisco R. Llamas A.M. No. 702-CTJNovember 15, 1982 Elisa Vda. De Ochoa vs. Gerino M. Tolentino G.R. No. L-26325November 15, 1982 Pacweld Steel Corp. vs. Asia Steel Corp. G.R. No. L-31366November 15, 1982 Asian Surety and Ins. Co. vs. Island Steel, Inc. G.R. No. L-39258November 15, 1982 Raymundo A. Armovit vs. Amante P. Purisima G.R. No. L-42540November 15, 1982 Victor Nepomuceno vs. Juan B. Montecillo G.R. No. L-52325November 15, 1982 Canlubang Sugar Estate vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-53060November 15, 1982 Rosario T. Mamerto vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. L-55771November 15, 1982 Tahanan Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-56479November 15, 1982 Socorro L. Vda. De Sta. Romana vs. Philippines Comm. Indstl. Bank G.R. No. L-61663November 15, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo L. Reglos G.R. No. L-61997November 15, 1982 Republic of the Philippines vs. Elfren Partisala G.R. Nos. L-56695-98November 15, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Gibson A. Araula G.R. No. L-34834November 16, 1982 Arturo H. Trocio vs. Luis D. Manta A.M. No. 1675November 19, 1982 Belen A. Rivera vs. Orlando Latonero A.M. No. 641November 19, 1982 Francisco Radomes vs. Fernando Fabrigaras A.M. No. P-1935November 19,1982 Benjamin Daag vs. Honorio Serrano G.R. No. L-30690November 19, 1982 Bf Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-30854November 19, 1982 PhilippineNatl . Railways vs. Workmen's Comp. Comm. G.R. No. L-34362November 19, 1982 Modesta Calimlim vs. Pedro A. Ramirez G.R. No. L-35718November 19, 1982 Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-37712November 19, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Syquioco G.R. No. L-38258November 19, 1982 Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan (Lakas) vs. Marcelo Enterprises G.R. No. L-39503November 19, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Lucresio Cardenas G.R. No. L-39528November 19, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Monaga G.R. No. L-44686November 19, 1982 Macario Manuel vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-44817November 19, 1982 Lea Paz Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-46729November 19, 1982 Lausan Ayog vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. G.R. No. L-49140November 19, 1982 Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Valmonte Peña & Marcos vs. Celestino P. Juan G.R. No. L-54158November 19, 1982 Pagasa Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-55079November 19, 1982 Metropolitan Bank vs. National City Bank G.R. No. L-55539November 19, 1982 Diosa De Leon vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-55624November 19, 1982 Baguio Country Club Corp. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com. G.R. No. L-56761November 19, 1982 Mariano Toledo vs. Bernardo P. Pardo G.R. No. L-57170November 19, 1982 Ko Bu Lin vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-57440November 19, 1982 D. D. Comnd. Const. Corp. vs. Marcelino N. Sayo G.R. No. L-57707November 19, 1982 Philex Mining Corp. vs. Domingo Coronel Reyes G.R. No. L-58506November 19, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Nilo De Jesus G.R. No. L-59463November 19, 1982 Province of Nueva Ecija vs. Imperial Mining Company, Inc. G.R. No. L-59596November 19, 1982 Nat'l. Mines and Allied Workers' Union vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com. G.R. No. L-60950November 19, 1982 J.D. Magpayo Customs Brokerage Corp. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com. G.R. Nos. L-57477-78 November 19, 1982 William Sevilla vs. Dimalanes B. Buissan A.M. No. 2662-CFINovember 25, 1982 Flaviano A. Pelmoka vs. Felix T. Diaz, Jr. G.R. No. L-30391November 25, 1982 Associated Sugar, Inc. vs. Com. of Customs G.R. No. L-35630November 25, 1982 PhilippineRabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Galauran & Pilares Const. Co. G.R. No. L-35757November 25, 1982 Lucia Lusung vs. Susana Vda. De Santos G.R. No. L-36364. November 25, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Dascil G.R. No. L-38423November 25, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Samuel Pimentel G.R. No. L-38449 November 25, 1982 People of the Phil vs. Dominador Manzano, G.R. No. L-50548November 25, 1982 Conching Alvaro vs. Hospicio Zapata G.R. No. L-56025November 25, 1982 Republic of the Philippines vs. Arsenio M. Gonong A.M. No. P-292November 25, 1982 Atty. Isidro G. Arenas vs. Manuel Resultan, Sr G.R. Nos. L-56224-26November 25, 1982 Purisima Gestoso Cruz vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos. L-61067-68November 25, 1982 Mitsui & Co., Ltd. vs. Manuel G. Abello G.R. No. L-33724November 29, 1982 Jorge Batbatan vs. Local Civil Registrar of Pagadian The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Teresita De Castro vs. Ignacio Capulong Cipriano Abenojar vs. Domingo Lopez Joseph Y. Punay vs. Jose R. Ramolete People of the Philippines vs. Luis E. Torio Republic of the Philippines vs. Rafael De La Cruz People of the Philippines vs. Simeon Ganut Agricultural & Industrial Marketing, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals Rolando A. Datuin vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al. Amelia Delegente vs. Employees' Compensation Com Rolando Bautista vs. Ignacio P. Lacsina Shipside, Incorporated vs. National Labor Relations Commission Philippine National Bank vs. Midpantao Adil Antonio Nitura vs. Jose C. Colayco People of the Philippines vs. Jesus N. Montez Ricardo Ceniza vs. Employees' Compensation Commission Florencia B. San Valentin vs. Employees' Compensation Com. Jose Geromo vs. Commission on Elections People of the Philippines vs. Mustapa Alibasa Rosito Z. Bacarro vs. Gerundio B. Castaño Apolonio Taboada vs. Avelino S. Rosal People of the Philippines vs. Constantino D. Peralta Ng Lit vs. Francisco R. Llamas Elisa Vda. De Ochoa vs. Gerino M. Tolentino Pacweld Steel Corp. vs. Asia Steel Corp. Asian Surety and Ins. Co. vs. Island Steel, Inc. Raymundo A. Armovit vs. Amante P. Purisima Victor Nepomuceno vs. Juan B. Montecillo Canlubang Sugar Estate vs. National Labor Relations Commission Rosario T. Mamerto vs. Amado G. Inciong Tahanan Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals Socorro L. Vda. De Sta. Romana vs. Philippines Comm. Indstl. Bank People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo L. Reglos Republic of the Philippines vs. Elfren Partisala People of the Philippines vs. Gibson A. Araula Arturo H. Trocio vs. Luis D. Manta Belen A. Rivera vs. Orlando Latonero Francisco Radomes vs. Fernando Fabrigaras Benjamin Daag vs. Honorio Serrano Bf Homes, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals PhilippineNatl . Railways vs. Workmen's Comp. Comm. Modesta Calimlim vs. Pedro A. Ramirez Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Syquioco Lakas Ng Manggagawang Makabayan (Lakas) vs. Marcelo Enterprises People of the Philippines vs. Lucresio Cardenas People of the Philippines vs. Jimmy Monaga Macario Manuel vs. Court of Appeals Lea Paz Tuazon vs. Court of Appeals Lausan Ayog vs. Vicente N. Cusi, Jr. Quasha Asperilla Ancheta Valmonte Peña & Marcos vs. Celestino P. Juan Pagasa Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals Metropolitan Bank vs. National City Bank Diosa De Leon vs. Employees' Compensation Commission Baguio Country Club Corp. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com. Mariano Toledo vs. Bernardo P. Pardo Ko Bu Lin vs. Court of Appeals D. D. Comnd. Const. Corp. vs. Marcelino N. Sayo Philex Mining Corp. vs. Domingo Coronel Reyes People of the Philippines vs. Nilo De Jesus Province of Nueva Ecija vs. Imperial Mining Company, Inc. Nat'l. Mines and Allied Workers' Union vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com. J.D. Magpayo Customs Brokerage Corp. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com. William Sevilla vs. Dimalanes B. Buissan Flaviano A. Pelmoka vs. Felix T. Diaz, Jr. Associated Sugar, Inc. vs. Com. of Customs PhilippineRabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Galauran & Pilares Const. Co. Lucia Lusung vs. Susana Vda. De Santos People of the Philippines vs. Juanito Dascil People of the Philippines vs. Samuel Pimentel People of the Phil vs. Dominador Manzano, Conching Alvaro vs. Hospicio Zapata Republic of the Philippines vs. Arsenio M. Gonong Atty. Isidro G. Arenas vs. Manuel Resultan, Sr Purisima Gestoso Cruz vs. Court of Appeals Mitsui & Co., Ltd. vs. Manuel G. Abello Jorge Batbatan vs. Local Civil Registrar of Pagadian The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 2739-CFI November 2, 1982

TERESITA DE CASTRO,complainant,
vs.
HON. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULONG,respondent.

Roberto Mendoza for complainant.

Judge Ignacio Capulong in his own belief.

VASQUEZ,J.:

This is an administrative complaint filed against Hon. Ignacio Capulong, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, with station at San Fernando, Pampanga, for SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AND ILLEGAL PRACTICE OF LAW. After the necessary pleadings were filed by both complainant and respondent, the case was assigned to Justice Emilio A. Gancayco of the Court of Appeals for investigation, recommendation and report. The said Investigator conducted appropriate proceedings during which both presented documentary and testimonial evidences. Justice Gancayco eventually submitted his Report of such investigation.

The instant administrative complaint is an offshoot of a transaction which involved a certain Basilio de Castro, the father of complainant Teresita de Castro. It appears that the spouses Basilio and Iluminosa de Castro owned six (6) parcels of residential land located in San Miguel, Bulacan, with an aggregate area of approximately 12,175 square meters, together with the improvements existing thereon. The said properties were mortgaged by them to secure a loan from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP), Having been unable to pay the said loan, the mortgage on the property was foreclosed, and the title to the properties was consolidated in the name of the DBP in view of the inability of the de Castros to redeem the same within the statutory period.

On February 27, 1981, Basilio de Castro made an offer to repurchase the properties in question from the DBP for the sum of P207,922.35, and for said purpose, he made an initial deposit of P10,000.00. The money used for such deposit was furnished by herein complainant.

On March 4, 1981, the DBP approved the said offer and required a down payment of P41,584.47 with the balance to be payable within five (5) years by a quarterly payment of P12,787.41. The down payment was required to be paid on or before October 9, 1981 which, at that time, had already amounted to P36,500,00 (excluding the deposit of P10,000.00) due to interests and other charges.

On October 7, 1981, Basilio de Castro executed a document. entitled "Deed of Waiver of Rights," pursuant to which Basilio de Castro was waiving his rights and interests to redeem or repurchase the property in question from the DBP in favor of the spouses Alejandro Villena and Beatriz Villena, both of San Miguel, Bulacan.

On October 8, 1981, the Villenas went to the DBP and made an additional deposit for P36,500.00 to repurchase the properties in question for which they were issued a receipt in the name of "Basilio de Castro (paid by Beatriz Villena)."

A few days later, complainant de Castro learned of the transaction which her father had entered into. On October 19, 1981, she caused her father to execute a "Revocation of Deed of Waiver of Rights" to nullify the effect of the assignment of rights that Basilio de Castro had executed in favor of the Villenas on October 7, 1981. When the complainant sought to revoke the assignment of rights executed by her father, her efforts proved to be in vain. Complainant received information that the failure of DBP to process her papers relative to the cancellation of the assignment of rights executed by her father in favor of the Villena spouses was allegedly due to the intervention of the respondent Judge in behalf of the Villenas, which she considered surprising inasmuch as the respondent used to be the lawyer of her father.

On November 20, 1981, at the Acquired Assets Department of the DBP in Makati, Metro Manila, Basilio de Castro and his wife Iluminosa de Castro, executed a document, entitled "Deed of Assignment with Assumption of Obligation" in favor of the Villena spouses. Present on that occasion for the signing of the said document were the de Castro spouses, the Villena spouses, Atty. Ciriaco Lapuz (counsel for the Villenas), employees of the DBP, and the herein respondent. It was in connection with this incident that the charge of SERIOUS MISCONDUCT had been levelled by complainant against the respondent Judge.

The evidence presented during the investigation as to what actually transpired on that occasion is conflicting. The testimonies of the complainant, her father Basilio de Castro, her sister Loida de Castro, Atty. Roberto Mendoza (complainant's counsel in this case) and a representative of the Register of Deeds tended to show that Basilio de Castro signed the Deed of Assignment with Assumption of Obligation on November 20, 1981 without reading and understanding its contents, and that he was only made to do so primarily due to the misrepresentation and undue pressure exerted on the de Castro spouses by the herein respondent who represented to them that the document was merely to prevent the sale of the properties to other interested parties. Basilio de Castro was not in a position to understand the import of said document, he having reached only the third grade of schooling, nd did not know or understand English. He relied on the assurance of the respondent Judge, not only because of his position, but primarily due to the fact that he had been his lawyer for the last fifteen (15) years.

For his part, respondent Judge, thru his testimony and those of his witnesses, Beatriz Villena, Jose Sanchez (an Assistant Manager of the DBP's Acquired Assets Department), Mrs. Grace Bocalan (a Sales Analyst of the same Department), and Atty. Ciriaco Lapuz, denied the imputation of deceit, and claimed that Basilio de Castro and his wife signed said document of Assignment with Assumption of Obligation on November 20, 1981 at the DBP office of the Acquired Assets Department at Makati, Metro Manila,with full knowledge of its contents and without any compulsion, undue pressure or undue influenceexerted upon the de Castro spouses by herein respondent Judge; that he merely acted as a mediator, not as a lawyer of the Villenas, because the latter had a lawyer, Atty. Ciriaco Lapuz, who represented the Villenas in all their transactions with the de Castros and the DBP regarding the foreclosed properties of the de Castros.

Evaluating the mass of conflicting testimonies of the parties and their witnesses.ℒαwρhi৷the investigator came to the conclusion that the charge of SERIOUS MISCONDUCT constituting in the alleged misrepresentation and deceit and undue influence and pressure exerted by the respondent judge on the complainants father Basilio de Castro had not been established. This finding is based upon the following considerations.

With respect to the second charge that the respondent Judge engaged himself in the private practice of law, the Investigator similarly exculpates the respondent for the principal reason that the respondent Judge did not act as counsel for any of the parties in the transaction in question. It is a fact that the Villena spouses had a lawyer in the person of Atty. Ciriaco Lapuz, who acted in their behalf throughout the entire transaction between the Villenas and complainant's father, Basilio de Castro, and in the DBP. Atty. Lapuz was the one who prepared and notarized the Deed of Waiver of Rights dated October 8, 1981. The principal document, the signing of which on November 20, 1981 was the basis of the charge of SERIOUS MISCONDUCT against the respondent Judge, to wit, the Deed of Assignment with Assumption of Obligation, was not prepared by the respondent Judge but by the employees of the DBP at its offices in Makati, Metro Manila, with the respondent Judge acting merely as a witness to the signing of the said document. No evidence was presented nor was it even intimated that the respondent Judge received any material consideration from his participation in the transaction in question. It is also an admitted fact that the Villena spouses are townmates and friends of the respondent judge as well as of the De Castros, they being all from San Miguel, Bulacan; and that before joining the judiciary, the respondent Judge was a lawyer of the de Castros and not of the Villena spouses.

We agree with the Investigator that the proven actuations of the respondent Judge in connection with the transaction in question do not warrant a categorical or definite finding that he has committed serious misconduct or engaged in the private practice of law, His intervention in the subject transaction had nothing to do with his official position as a Judge of the Court of First Instance. The controversy between the de Castros and the Villena spouses is not the subject of any court action or proceeding in the court of the respondent Judge, nor in any other court for that matter. The alleged misrepresentation and undue pressure that he exerted on complainant's father have not been substantiated and, on the contrary, have been belied by preponderant evidence presented before the Investigator. The initial reluctance of Basilio de Castro to cede in favor of the Villena spouses his right to redeem his foreclosed properties from the DBP, induced no doubt by his natural desire to regain ownership of the properties which he had acquired through the years, was dissipated by an apparent realization that he did not have the financial capacity to effectuate the repurchase and by is decision to receive a substantial amount from the Villena spouses in consideration of the cessation of his rights to redeem. It was in the process of advising Basilio de Castro of the consequences and implications of the suggested arrangement with the Villena spouses as regards the reacquisition of the foreclosed properties that the respondent Judge came into prominent exposure. His intervention therein may not be considered as constituting private practice of law, he not having acted as counsel for any of the parties involved therein; nor did he receive any material benefit in consideration thereof; nor was it shown that he engaged himself in the exercise of the law profession in any other transaction or litigation after he had joined the judiciary.

By and large, We agree with the findings and recommendation of the Investigator and see no compelling reason to deviate from the same.

WHEREFORE,the complaint against respondent Judge Ignacio Capulong should be, as it is hereby,DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, Actg. C.J., Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur,