G.R. No. 152309.

September 18, 2002

AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET ELINE vs. !NI"ERSITY O# T$E
%$ILI%%INES &OAR' O# REGENTS, et al.
SEON' 'I"ISION
Ge(t)eme(*
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated
18 SE% 2002:
G.R. No. 152309. (Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine vs. University of
the Philippines oard of !egents, "ran#is#o $emen%o &&, 'merlinda !oman,
Maria (erena )iokno, Consuelo Pa%, &sagani Medina, !oger Posadas, *livia
Caoili, Pa#ifi#o Aga+in, Carmelita ,uno and Mari#hu -am+ino..
For consideration is a motion, dated August 21, 2002, entitled
CAU!"#U$%F%CA$%&N '%$( &)N%*U )&$%&N +)&$%&N F&R
R!C&N%,!RA$%&N &F $(! R!&-U$%&N ,A$!, #U-. 29, 2002 +A/,
)&$%&N $& %N(%*%$ $(! (&N&RA*-! #U$%C! 0%C!N$! )!N,&1A,
)&$%&N F&R A22R&2R%A$! ANC$%&N *. C !$(%C C&))%$$!!
AGA%N$ #U$%C! )!N,&1A AN, )&$%&N $& R!F!R $(! CA! $& $(!
C !N *ANC/, 3iled 45 6etitioner Aro7ias8am5 'illiam )argaret Celine.
Re: )otion 3or Reconsideration o3 t9e Resolution dated #ul5 29, 2002
%n its resolution, dated #ul5 29, 2002, t9is Court alread5 denied 8it9 3inalit5 3or
lac7 o3 merit 6etitioner:s )&$%&N F&R R!C&N%,!RA$%&N F&R %N,%0%,UA-
R!&-U$%&N &F (!R CA! *. $(! )!)*!R &F $(! C&UR$, dated )a5
20, 2002. '9ile 6etitioner claims t9at t9e 6resent motion is neit9er a second
motion 3or reconsideration nor a su66lement to 9er 6re;ious motion 3or
reconsideration, t9e 3act remains t9at s9e is as7ing 3or a reconsideration o3 t9e
Court:s earlier resolution den5ing 9er 6etition 3or re;ie8. %n 9er 6ra5er, s9e see7s
t9e 3ollo8ing relie3s:
<'(!R!F&R!, it is most res6ect3ull5 6ra5ed o3 t9is (onora4le Court to:
<1. Acce6t 2etitioner:s cause"=usti3ication 895 s9e s9ould not
4e cited in contem6t 3or certain statements s9e 9as made in 9er
letters and in 6re;ious 6leadings>
<2. %n9i4it t9e (onora4le #ustice 0icente )endo?a 3rom
Furt9er 2roceedings o3 t9e Case>
<3. Re3er t9e )atter to t9e C !t9ics Committee 3or
A66ro6riate anction against #ustice )endo?a>
<@. Re3er t9e Case to t9e C !n *anc 3or ad=udication on t9e
merits o3 t9e case, to Reconsider t9e Resolution +a/ dated #ul5 29,
2002, and e;entuall5 to issue a 8rit o3 6reliminar5 mandator5
in=unction to order t9e U.2. to release 2etitioner:s doctoral di6loma,
and to re3er t9e case 4ac7 to t9e R$C 3or continuation o3 t9e
6roceedings on damages.
<&t9er remedies =ust and eAuita4le under t9e
6remises are li7e8ise 6ra5ed 3or.B
$9e 6resent motion is t9us a second motion 3or reconsideration. As suc9 it
s9ould 4e denied outrig9t 6ursuant to Rule 52, ection 2, in relation to Rule 5C,
ection @, o3 t9e 199D Rules o3 Ci;il 2rocedure, 89ic9 6ro;ides t9at <no second
motion 3or reconsideration o3 a =udgment or 3inal resolution 45 t9e same 6art5
s9all 4e entertained.B
All t9e more t9e 6resent motion s9ould 4e denied 4ecause t9e arguments
set 3ort9 t9erein are t9e same ones alread5 raised in 6etitioner:s 3irst motion 3or
reconsideration dated )a5 20, 2002, arguments 89ic9 8ere 3ound 45 t9is Court
to 4e 8it9out merit.
"irst. 2etitioner reiterates 9er contention t9at t9e 6ro;ision 3or 6a5ment o3
s9eri33:s 3ee and cler7:s Commission a66lies onl5 <in cases 89ere t9e in=unction is
issued 45 t9is Court in t9e eEercise o3 its original =urisdiction.B
2a5ment o3 s9eri33:s 3ees and cler7:s commission, in addition to t9e doc7et
3ee and t9e ot9er la83ul 3ees, is reAuired 89en, as 9ere, a 6art5 a66ealing see7s
an in=uncti;e relie3. Re;ised Circular No. 1FGG +e33ecti;e #ul5 1, 1991/, 6ar. 1 +c/
o3 t9is Court is eE6licit on t9is 6oint, and t9e 3ailure to 6a5 t9e 3ees in Auestion
8arrants t9e dismissal o3 a 6etition under Rule 5C, ection 5 +c/ o3 t9e 199D
Rules on Ci;il 2rocedure. u4seAuent 6a5ment, as 6ro;ided in 6ar. 5 o3 t9e said
circular, 8ill not cure t9e de3ect.
(e#ond. 2etitioner 3ailed to attac9 to 9er 6etition in t9e Court o3 A66eals
9er 6etition 3or mandamus and t9e comment o3 U.2. 89ic9 9ad 4een 3iled in t9e
R$C, *ranc9 10@, Hue?on Cit5. For t9is reason t9e Court o3 A66eals correctl5
denied 9er 6etition. 2etitioner contends t9at t9e R$C decision a66ended to 9er
6etition 8as su33icient to com6l5 8it9 t9e reAuirement o3 Rule @2, ection 2
4ecause t9at decision contains t9e material 6ortions o3 t9e record. According to
9er, <i3 t9is Court could decide +8it9out t9e mandamus 6etition and t9e comments
t9ereon/ on t9e merits o3 t9e case, 895 could t9e Court o3 A66eals not do"sa5 t9e
same +since 4ot9 6etitions in G.R. No. 1@DGGG and 152309 contain t9e same
materials/IB
$9is Court 3ound t9e 6etition in t9is case to 4e 8it9out merit 6recisel5
4ecause it 8as insu33icient in 3orm and su4stance. %n an5 e;ent, t9e reAuirement
to a66end a co65 o3 t9e 6leadings 3iled 4elo8 to a 6etition 3or re;ie8 is a
reAuirement o3 Rule @2, ections 2 and 3 t9ereo3, 89ic9 6ro;ide t9at
noncom6liance 8it9 t9ese reAuirements, as to <t9e 3orm and t9e contents o3 and
t9e documents 89ic9 s9ould accom6an5 t9e 6etition,B is a ground 3or t9e
dismissal o3 t9e 6etition.
/hird. 2etitioner claims t9at t9e 6resent case is 4ased on a di33erent cause
o3 action 4ecause <t9e cor6us delicti 9as no8 4een ac7no8ledged as a t9esis o3
U2. ,ilimanB and <is J4eing used asK a resource material 3or t9e U2. Communit5
in t9e 3ield o3 9istor5B> t9at t9e Court, in a;oiding t9is material 3act, did not
comment on t9at 6ortion o3 t9e R$C decision aut9ori?ing 9er to sue U2. 3or
damages suc9 t9at <i3 Js9eK can 4e entitled to damages, 895 can s9e not 4e
entitled to 9er degreeIB> t9at <e;en granting t9at t9e 3actual 3indings in G.R. No.
13@C25 +t9at 6etitioner 6lagiari?ed 9er t9esis/ 8as sustained in t9e second action
o3 6etitioner against U2., t9e ac7no8ledgment o3 t9e said t9esis as a Lt9esis o3
U2. ,iliman: and t9e usage o3 t9e same as a re3erence material 3or t9e U2.
communit5, indicates t9at 6lagiarism is t9e standard o3 U.2., and t9at, . . . t9e
res6ondents are merel5 4eing academic 956ocriteJeKs or sc9olastic 6retenders in
re3using to grant 6etitioner 9er due.B
$9e Auestion o3 6lagiarism 8as laid to rest in G.R. No. 13@C25 and t9e
R$C, *ranc9 10@ a66ro6riatel5 dismissed t9e mandamus suit under t9e 6rinci6le
o3 res =udicata. As suc9, t9e issue can no longer 4e relitigated, not to mention
t9at 89et9er, as alleged, 6etitioner:s t9esis is used in U2. as a re3erence 4oo7 is
a Auestion o3 3act 89ic9 is su4=ect to 6roo3. 2etitioner:s re3erences to <6lagiarism
MasN t9e standard o3 U2., and t9at . . . t9e res6ondents are merel5 4eing
academic 956ocrites or sc9olastic 6retenders are de6lora4le in t9e case o3 a
candidate 3or a doctoral degree.
"ourth. 2etitioner also insists t9at t9e title <,r.B s9ould not 4e remo;ed
3rom t9e ca6tion o3 t9is case citing as reasons t9at t9e Court a66ears to 9a;e
acAuiesced in 9er continued use o3 t9e title as it <8as sustained in t9e 3irst
resolutionB Mdated A6ril 1, 2002N o3 t9is Court> t9at U.2. 9ad recogni?ed 9er rig9t
to t9e degree 4ecause a co65 o3 t9e U.2. Ne8sletter mailed to 9er added t9e title
<29.,B to 9er name> and t9at <t9is Court 9aMdN not stated +in t9e second
resolution dated #ul5 29, 2002/ an5t9ing against 6etitioner:s using 9er doctoral
title.B
2etitioner 8as allo8ed to graduate 8it9 t9e doctoral degree in ant9ro6olog5
su4=ect to t9e outcome o3 t9e 6lagiarism c9arge against 9er. As s9e 8as 3ound
guilt5 t9ereo3, 9er degree 8as accordingl5 8it9dra8n. ConseAuentl5, s9e cannot
use t9e title <,r.B or t9e degree <29.,.B to 9er name in t9e 6leadings s9e 3iles
4e3ore t9is Court and in ot9er courts or tri4unals 3or t9at matter. (er use o3 t9e
title or degree cannot ri6en into a rig9t.
%ndeed, so as not to gi;e t9e im6ression t9at t9e Court 9ad ac7no8ledged
6etitioner:s rig9t to use suc9 title, #ose69 *r5an (ilar5 2. ,a;ide, C9ie3 #ustice:s
ta33 (ead, in a letter to 6etitioner, dated August D, 2002, 8rote 9er:
D August 2002
Aro7ias8am5 'illiam )argaret Celine
D0 C. al;ador treet, -o5ola (eig9ts
110G Hue?on Cit5
)s. Celine,
<$9is re3ers to our letter o3 3 August 2002.
<&ur attention 9as 4een called to t9e 3act t9at t9e econd ,i;ision
9as denied on 29 #ul5 2002 5our motion 3or reconsideration o3 t9e
resolution dismissing 5our 6etition 3or re;ie8 as 8ell as 5our motion to
reAuire t9e mem4ers o3 t9e econd ,i;ision, indi;iduall5, to resol;e t9e
motion. %n addition, it reAuired 5ou to s9o8 cause 895 5ou s9ould not 4e
6unis9ed 3or contem6t 3or statements contained in 5our t8o letters
addressed to t9e C9ie3 #ustice.
<Considering t9e action o3 t9e econd ,i;ision and t9e 6re;ious
cases relati;e to 5our alleged doctoral degree, 8e 9ereto 8it9dra8 t9e
title L,r.: and t9e term L29., in our greeting in our letter o3 3 August. .ou
are 8arned not to use t9at letter as a recognition o3 a rig9t to t9e 29.,.
degree. (ence3ort9, all 5our communication, i3 an5, s9all 4e addressed to
t9e econd ,i;ision o3 t9e Court.
$rul5 5ours,
For t9e C9ie3 #ustice
+gd./ #&!2( *R.AN (%-AR. 2. ,A0%,!B
Re: )otion to Re3er t9e Case to t9e C !n *anc
2etitioner see7s t9e re3erral o3 t9is case to t9e Court en 4anc 3or resolution
stating t9at:
<2etitioner is o3 t9e o6inion t9at t9e C econd ,i;ision could not
rule in 3a;or o3 2etitioner in t9e second action e;en i3 it is 4ased on a
di33erent cause o3 action, 4ecause it 9ad decided t9e 3irst case +in G.R.
No. 13@C25/ against 9er. %3 t9is %% ,i;ision is 4ound 45 its 6re;ious ruling
in G.R. No. 13@C25, regardless o3 t9e su4seAuent turn o3 e;ents in t9e
relations 4et8een t9e 6etitioner and t9e res6ondents, t9en, 2etitioner
8ould li7e to reAuest t9at t9e case 4e re3erred to t9e C !n *anc.
<At an5 rate, as 6er t9e resolutions o3 t9e (onora4le u6reme
Court, it is t9e !n *anc 89ic9 can modi35 or re;erse a doctrine or
6rinci6le laid do8n 45 a ,i;ision, to 8it:
<$9e 3ollo8ing are considered en 4anc cases
EEE
<D. Cases 89ere a doctrine or 6rinci6le laid do8n 45 t9e Court en
4anc or di;ision ma5 4e modi3ied or re;ersed>
EEE
+C !n *anc Resolution dated No;. 1G, 1993/
<(ence, 6etitioner reAuests t9at t9is case 4e immediatel5 re3erred to t9e
C !n *anc 3or ad=udication on t9e merits, +!;en 89en it is re3erred to t9e !n
*anc, t9e (onora4le #ustice )endo?a s9ould not 6artici6ate in t9is case./B
As stated in Circular No. 2FG9 +e33ecti;e )arc9 1, 19G9/, 6ar. 3 o3 t9is
Court, t9e Court en 4anc is not an A66ellate Court to 89ic9 decisions or
resolutions o3 a ,i;ision ma5 4e a66ealed. Cases are re3erred eit9er to t9e Court
en 4anc or to t9e di33erent di;isions according to t9e nature o3 t9e case and t9e
Auestions raised t9erein. 2etitions 3or re;ie8 o3 decisions o3 t9e Court o3 A66eals,
li7e t9e one at 4ar, are re3erred to t9e ,i;isions. ,ecisions rendered 45 t9e Court,
89et9er en 4anc or t9roug9 an5 o3 its di;isions, re6resent t9e decisions o3 t9e
u6reme Court itsel3.
Re: )otion to %n9i4it #ustice 0icente )endo?a 3rom Furt9er 2roceedings and
)otion to Re3er t9e )atter to t9e C !t9ics Committee 3or A66ro6riate anction
against #ustice )endo?a
2etitioner alleges t9at:
<%n G.R. No. 13@C25, #ustice )endo?a re;ersed t9e decision
o3 t9e Court o3 A66eals +granting t9e 2etition 3or )andamus/ e;en
4e3ore t9e U.2.:s 2etition 3or Re;ie8 8as gi;en t9e course. No8,
8it9out e;en as7ing t9e U.2. to comment on t9e 2etition 3iled 45
2etitioner, 9e 9as dismissed it on untrue grounds.
<'9en a )otion 3or Reconsideration is 3iled against a
,ecision, said motion is eit9er denied or granted on t9e 4asis o3 t9e
contents o3 t9e same ,ecision. (o8e;er, to den5 2etitioner:s
)otion 3or Reconsideration against t9e resolution dated A6ril 1,
2002, #ustice )endo?a 9as stated +in t9e resolution dated #ul5 29,
2002/ some reasons ot9er t9an 89at 8ere laid in t9e A6ril 1
resolution.
<$9e (onora4le #ustice )endo?a 9as deli4eratel5 misAuoted
and su66ressed t9e 3acts and issues o3 t9e case, and e;en t9e
decisions o3 t9e Regional $rial Court and t9e Court o3 A66eals. (e
9as also misre6resented 6etitioner:s statements 8it9 regard to
6a5ment o3 doc7et 3ees.
<%n t9is situation, 2etitioner does not 4elie;e t9at t9e
(onora4le #ustice )endo?a could o4=ecti;el5 resol;e t9e instant
6leading 9ence, s9e see7s 9is immediate in9i4ition 3rom t9e case.
!arlier, 2etitioner 9ad soug9t t9e indi;idual resolution o3 9er )R.
dated )a5 20, 2002 4ecause s9e 8as not ;er5 sure 89o t9e L8riter
o3 t9e decision: 8as. No8, 3rom t9e Lst5le o3 t9e 8ritings:, 2etitioner
is con;inced t9at t9e 6onente in t9e instant case is t9e same as t9e
one in G.R. No. 13@C25. (ence, t9e reAuest 3or t9e eEclusion o3 t9e
said (onora4le #ustice.
<ince 2etitioner 4elie;es t9at t9e resolution dated #ul5 29,
2002 contains untrue statements and deli4erate misre6resentation
o3 3acts and issues +in order to arri;e at a negati;e decision against
9er/, s9e also reAuests t9at t9e matter 4e re3erred to t9e C !t9ics
Committee M3orN a66ro6riate sanction against #ustice )endo?a.
<2etitioner also reAuests t9at s9e 4e not cited in contem6t o3
t9is Court 3or t9is motion, 4ecause s9e is onl5 4eing articulate
a4out t9e realities o3 li3e and is 3ig9ting 3or =ustice 3or 9ersel3.
<At t9is 6oint, 2etitioner 8ould li7e to re6ort to t9is (onora4le
u6reme Court a4out t9e de;elo6ments o3 t9e administrati;e case
s9e instituted at t9e &33ice o3 t9e &m4udsman against t9e
res6ondents:
2etitioner:s Com6laint, to 89ic9 onl5 t9e R$C ,ecision 8as
attac9ed, 8as L,ismissed 3or -ac7 o3 )erit: +and not 3or t9e
Lde3iciencies:/ 45 Gra3t %n;estigating &33icers 0italiano )endo?a and
#ulita Calderon. o, 2etitioner 3iled a )otion 3or Rein;estigation
8it9 )otion to %n9i4it 0italiano )endo?a and #ulita Calderon.
<ince 2etitioner 6ointed out anomalies and irregularities on
t9e 6art o3 t9e a3orementioned in;estigators, t9e (onora4le
&m4udsman Aniano ,esierto granted t9e in9i4ition o3 0italiano
)endo?a and #ulita Calderon, and created a 3 men MsicN 6anel to
eEamine t9e allegations o3 6etitioner +AnneE L#:/.
<2etitioner 9o6es t9at t9e (onora4le #ustice 0icente
)endo?a 8ould 4e in9i4ited 3rom 3urt9er 9andling 9er case.B
$9e resolutions in t9is case are 6er cur"am. $9e5 do not 4ear an5
aut9ors9i6 and t9e5 t9ere3ore cannot 4e attri4uted to an5 mem4er. (ence, t9e
motion 3or in9i4ition o3 #ustice )endo?a and t9e motion 3or a66ro6riate sanctions
against 9im are 4ot9 denied 3or lac7 o3 an5 3actual and legal 4asis. *ased on 9er
assum6tion t9at #ustice )endo?a is li7e8ise t9e aut9or o3 t9e resolutions in t9is
case as in t9e 6rior case +G.R. No. 13@C25/, 6etitioner:s idea o3 a 3air decision or
resolution a66ears to 4e one t9at is rendered in 9er 3a;or. %t 8ould seem t9at an5
decision or resolution t9at is not in 9er 3a;or is 4iased. '9ile a 6art5 litigant ma5
3ile a motion 3or disAuali3ication o3 a mem4er o3 t9e Court, t9e same must 4e
4ased on =usti3ia4le grounds and not on un3ounded and malicious im6utations
aimed at casting as6ersions on t9e dignit5 and integrit5 o3 a mem4er.
%n 9er letter dated )a5 22, 2002, to t9e C9ie3 #ustice, 6etitioner stated: <%
am not sure i3 #ustice )endo?a is again t9e 6onente +89o descri4ed me as
L3raud:, Ldis9onest:, etc. in G.R. No. 13@C25/, t9e latest resolution ma7es me
sus6ect t9at #ustice )endo?a could 9a;e denied m5 ne8 6etition in order to sa;e
9is 3ace or to sa;e t9e 3ace o3 t9e U.2. or 4ot9.B
$9is statement is 4ot9 malicious and 3alse. $9e use o3 t9e 8ords <3raudB
and <dis9onestB 8as in t9e conteEt o3 t9e decision in G.R. No. 13@C25, 4ased on
t9e results o3 se;eral in;estigations conducted 45 t9e ;arious committees o3 t9e
Uni;ersit5 o3 t9e 29ili66ines, as t9e 3ollo8ing 6ortion o3 t9e decision in t9at case
s9o8s:
<As t9e 3oregoing narration o3 3acts t9is case s9o8s, 9o8e;er,
;arious committees 9ad 4een 3ormed to in;estigate t9e c9arge t9at
6ri;ate res6ondent 9ad committed 6lagiarism and, in all t9e in;estigations
9eld, s9e 8as 9eard in 9er de3ense. %ndeed, i3 an5 criticism ma5 4e made
o3 t9e uni;ersit5 6roceedings 4e3ore 6ri;ate res6ondent 8as 3inall5
stri66ed o3 9er degree, it is t9at t9ere 8ere too man5 committee and
indi;idual in;estigations conducted, alt9oug9 all resulted in a 3inding t9at
6ri;ate res6ondent committed dis9onest5 in su4mitting 9er doctoral
dissertation on t9e 4asis o3 89ic9 s9e 8as con3erred t9e 29., degree.
+!m69asis su66lied/
<. . . %3 an institution o3 9ig9er learning can decide 89o can and
89o cannot stud5 in it, it certainl5 can also determine on 89om it can
con3er t9e 9onor and distinction o3 4eing its graduates.
<'9ere it is s9o8n t9at t9e con3erment o3 an 9onor or distinction
8as o4tained t9roug9 3raud, a uni;ersit5 9as t9e rig9t to re;o7e or
8it9dra8 t9e 9onor or distinction it 9as t9us con3erred. $9is 3reedom o3 a
uni;ersit5 does not terminate u6on t9e Lgraduation: o3 suc9 a student, as
t9e Court o3 A66eals 9eld. For it is 6recisel5 t9e Lgraduation: o3 suc9 a
student t9at is in Auestion. %t is note8ort95 t9at t9e in;estigation o3 6ri;ate
res6ondent:s case 4egan 4e3ore 9er graduation. %3 s9e 8as a4le to =oin
t9e graduation ceremonies on A6ril 2@, 1993, it 8as 4ecause o3 too man5
in;estigations conducted 4e3ore t9e *oard o3 Regents 3inall5 decided s9e
s9ould not 9a;e 4een allo8ed to graduate.B +!m69asis su66lied/
$9ere 8as no s6eci3ic re3erence to 6etitioner 4ut to t9e general grounds u6on
89ic9 a uni;ersit5, and not onl5 U.2., ma5 cancel or re;o7e a degree it 9as
granted.
%n an attem6t to =usti35 9er motion 3or t9e in9i4ition o3 #ustice )endo?a and 9er
contem6tuous language, 6etitioner 3urt9er states:
<%n 9er letters and in t9e )R., 2etitioner 9as not said an5t9ing
ne8. %n an e33ort to ma7e sure t9at t9e Lun6leasant 6ast 9a66enings: do
not get re6eated, 2etitioner onl5 reiterated certain statements 89ic9 s9e
9ad said at least t8o 5ears ago, and 89ic9 9a;e not 4een 6rotested or
condemned 45 eit9er t9e (onora4le #ustice )endo?a or an5 ot9er
mem4er o3 t9is Court.
<&n A6ril 2D, 2000, 2etitioner 3iled +in G.R. No. 13@C25/ a motion
to in9i4it #ustice )endo?a MAnneE LA:N 3rom 9andling 9er motion to reo6en
t9e case. %n t9e said motion, 2etitioner 6ointed out t9at L#ustice )endo?a
O 4eing a 3ormer U2. ,iliman Uni;ersit5 Council 89ic9 ;oted to 8it9dra8
6etitioner:s ,octorate, as 8ell as t9e 9us4and o3 $9elma -eeF)endo?a
89o 8as a mem4er o3 t9e same Council until t9e outcome o3 t9e C
,ecision in G.R. No. 13@C25 O s9ould 9a;e t9e delicade?a to ;oluntaril5
in9i4it 9imsel3.: 2ointing out t9at #ustice )endo?a 9ad 3ound L3actual
errors: in t9e Court o3 A66eals: ,ecision alt9oug9 t9e U.2. 9ad a66ealed
t9at said decision onl5 on Lerrors o3 la8:, 2etitioner also stated +in t9e
)otion to %n9i4it #ustice )endo?a/ t9at s9e Lcannot 9a;e an5 3urt9er trust
t9at 9e 8ould do =ustice in resol;ing 9er )otion 3or Reo6ening.: 2etitioner
3urt9er said in t9e in9i4ition motion, Lt9e decision +in G.R. No. 13@C25/
seems to 9a;e 4een 6enned 45 a re6resentati;e o3 t9e U.2.
Administration.: aid motion 8as 6u4lis9ed 45 t9e )anila tandard on
)a5 2, 2000 JAnneE L*:K. *ut no mem4er o3 t9is Court, not e;en #ustice
)endo?a, said an5t9ing against t9ose statements.
<&n #une 15, 2000, in a letter addressed to t9e C9ie3 #ustice
JAnneE LC:K, co65 3urnis9ed to t9e %% ,i;ision, 2etitioner stated, L#ustice
)endo?a considers 9imsel3 as 6art o3 t9e U2. 5stem and 9e 9as
committed 9imsel3 to dis6ense t9e case against me to t9e eEtent o3
su4;erting t9e 3acts o3 t9e case.: $9e (onora4le C9ie3 #ustice re3erred t9e
said letter to t9e C econd ,i;ision 3or a66ro6riate action JAnneE P,PK.
*ut not9ing 8as said 45 t9e %% ,i;ision against it.
<'9en 2etitioner 3iled 8it9 t9is Court t9e 2etition doc7eted as
G.R. No. 1@DGGG, s9e soug9t t9e in9i4ition o3 #ustice )endo?a and s9e
6ointed out t9e 3oregoing 3acts. 9e 3urt9er stated t9at Lt9e )otion to
Reo6en 8as denied on an allegation t9at t9e !ntr5 o3 #udgment 8as
made on No;em4er 1C, 1999 89en actuall5 suc9 entr5 8as made onl5 on
)arc9 20, 2000 as 6er Notice o3 !ntr5 o3 #udgment 3rom t9e C
#udgment ,i;ision: JAnneE L!:K. $9e resolution den5ing t9e )otion to
Reo6en and t9e notice o3 entr5 o3 =udgment are 9ereto attac9ed as
AnneEes LF: Q LG:, res6ecti;el5.
<ince neit9er #ustice )endo?a nor an5 ot9er mem4er o3 t9e C
9ad eE6ressed an5 negati;e reaction against t9e ;arious allegations o3
2etitioner against 9im, s9e 8as con;inced t9at t9ose allegations 9a;e
entirel5 4een admitted +as true/ 45 t9is Court and 45 #ustice )endo?a
9imsel3.
<%n 8riting t9e su4=ect statements, 6etitioner did not de3initel5 s9o8
an5 ill 8ill against #ustice )endo?a, and s9e onl5 tried to 6rotect 9er
interest in t9e litigation.B
#ustice )endo?a, 89ile once a mem4er o3 t9e 3acult5 o3 t9e U.2. College
o3 -a8, 8as ne;er a mem4er o3 t9e Uni;ersit5 Council o3 U.2. 89ic9 conducted
t9e in;estigations o3 t9e 6lagiarism c9arge against 9er. (is 8i3e, 2ro3essor
$9elma -. )endo?a, o3 t9e U.2. College o3 ocial 'or7 and Communit5
,e;elo6ment, 8as once a mem4er o3 t9e Uni;ersit5 Council, 4ut s9e ne;er sat
t9erein 89en 6etitioner:s case came 4e3ore t9at august assem4l5. %n t9e 6rior
case +G.R. No. 13@C25/, t9e motion to reo6en t9e case and to in9i4it #ustice
)endo?a on t9e same ground no8 in;o7ed 45 6etitioner 8as eE6unged 3rom t9e
records 6er resolution, dated #une 1@, 2000, o3 t9is Court, 89ic9 read,
<$9e motions o3 res6ondent 3or t9e reo6ening o3 t9e case and 3or
t9e in9i4ition o3 #ustice 0icente )endo?a 3rom t9e dis6osition o3 9er
motion 3or reo6ening are !R2UNG!, 3rom t9e records o3 t9is case, t9e
case 9a;ing 4een decided on 31 August 1999, entr5 o3 =udgment made
on 1C No;em4er 1999 and t9e records remanded on 20 )arc9 2000.
*esides, t9e Court 9as stated in t9e resolution o3 0G ,ecem4er 1999 t9at
no 3urt9er 6leadings or motion s9all 4e entertained in t9is case.B
$9e e33ect 8as to disregard t9e 6etitioner:s motion as not 3iled and, 9ence, it 8as
not to 4e acted u6on 45 t9e Court. $9is is 895 it 4ecame unnecessar5 to 6ass
u6on 6etitioner:s allegation t9at #ustice )endo?a 8as disAuali3ied 3rom t9e
consideration o3 t9e 3irst case 4ecause 9e 9ad acted on t9e matter as a mem4er
o3 t9e Uni;ersit5 Council o3 U.2.
Re: 2etitioner:s Com6liance 8it9 t9e Resolution o3 #ul5 29, 2002+4/ ReAuiring 9er
to 9o8 Cause '95 9e 9ould not 4e Cited 3or Contem6t o3 t9is Court
%n its resolution, dated #ul5 29, 2002 +4/, t9e Court reAuired 6etitioner to
s9o8 cause, 8it9in ten +10/ da5s 3rom notice, 895 s9e s9ould not 4e 9eld in
contem6t o3 t9is Court 3or t9e contem6tuous language and t9reat contained in
9er letters o3 )a5 22, 2002 and #ul5 11, 2002, to t9e C9ie3 #ustice.
2etitioner no8 sa5s:
<2etitioner 9as ;er5 9ig9 regard and res6ect 3or t9e (onora4le
u6reme Court and s9e 9as 4een con3ident to get #ustice 3rom t9is (ig9
Court, 3or 89ic9 reason s9e 3iled t8o 6etitions +doc7eted as G.R. No.
1@DGGG and G.R. No. 152309/ 9ere. %t is onl5 t9e (onora4le #ustice
0icente )endo?a in 89om 2etitioner 9as 4een disa66ointed 4ecause o3
t9e 8a5 9e 9as 9andled 9er case O ;er5 negati;e against 9er.
<%n 9er letters addressed to t9e (onora4le C9ie3 #ustice and in 9er
)otion 3or Reconsideration dated )a5 20, 2002, 89at 2etitioner 9as said
are meant 3or #ustice )endo?a onl5 and not 3or an5 ot9er mem4er o3 t9is
Court. %3 t9e ot9er #ustices 9a;e 4een o33ended 45 t9ose Lstatements: o3
2etitioners, s9e sincerel5 a6ologi?es 3or t9e same.
<%3 2etitioner:s )otion 3or Reconsideration dated )a5 20, 2002 9ad
4een resol;ed in 9er 3a;or, s9e 8ould 9a;e 3elt sorr5 3or 9a;ing said t9at
#ustice )endo?a 9as 4een 4iased against 9er. *ut, indeed, t9e ne8
resolution +den5ing t9e )R. dated )a5 20, 2002/ e;en strengt9ens
2etitioner:s allegations against #ustice )endo?a. o, on t9e same ground
2etitioner is also 9ereto 3iling a )otion 3or Reconsideration +against t9e
said Resolution/ 8it9 )otion to %n9i4it #ustice )endo?a and to Re3er t9e
)atter to t9e C !t9ics Committee 3or A66ro6riate anction against 9im.B
$9is Court 3inds 6etitioner:s eE6lanation to 4e unsatis3actor5. $9e Court
cannot tolerate 6etitioner:s use o3 ;itu6erati;e language suggesting t9at #ustice
0icente 0. )endo?a, t9e 6onente in t9e 3irst case +G.R. No. 13@C25/, 8as mo;ed
45 considerations ot9er t9an t9at o3 u69olding =ustice and t9e rule o3 la8. As t9is
Court ruled in %n re Almacen, <undenia4l5 t9e mem4ers o3 t9e Court are, to a
certain degree, aggrie;ed 6arties. An5 tirade against t9e Court as a 4od5 is
necessaril5 and ineEtrica4l5 as muc9 so against t9e indi;idual mem4ers t9ereo3.
*ut in t9e eEercise o3 its disci6linar5 6o8ers, t9e Court acts as an entit5 se6arate
and distinct 3rom t9e indi;idual 6ersonalities o3 its mem4ers. Consistent 8it9 t9e
intrinsic nature o3 a Collegiate court, t9e indi;idual mem4ers act not as suc9
indi;iduals 4ut onl5 as a dul5 constituted court. $9eir distinct indi;idualities are
lost in t9e ma=est5 o3 t9eir o33ice.B
%ndeed, 89at 6etitioner does not seem to 7no8 is t9at t9e o6inions 8ritten
45 mem4ers o3 t9e Court are actuall5 decisions o3 t9e Court. (ence, 8e s6ea7 o3
<decisions o3 t9e Court 8ritten 45 )r. #ustice soFandFsoB 4ecause, alt9oug9
8ritten 45 a mem4er o3 t9e Court, t9e5 are in actualit5 t9e decisions o3 t9e Court.
%n t9is connection, Art. 0%%%, ection 13 6ro;ides t9at <$9e conclusions o3 t9e
u6reme Court in an5 case su4mitted to it 3or decision en 4anc or in di;ision
s9all 4e reac9ed in consultation 4e3ore t9e case is assigned to a )em4er 3or t9e
8riting o3 t9e o6inion o3 t9e Court.B
Nor can 6etitioner =usti35 t9e use o3 contem6tuous language on t9e ground
t9at t9e Court did not censure 9er or ta7e an5 action against 9er 89en s9e made
t9e same allegations in 9er 6leadings and letters in G.R. No. 13@C25. As alread5
stated, no action 8as ta7en against 9er 4e3ore 4ecause t9e o33ensi;e language
8as contained in a 6leading 89ic9 9ad 4een eE6unged. )oreo;er, to t9e Court
t9en t9e 6etitioner:s 4itterness 8as due to t9e understanda4le 3eeling o3 losing a
case. $9e Court 9o6ed t9at in time 6etitioner 8ould see 9er 8a5 clear and acce6t
t9e decision against 9er. Un3ortunatel5, 9o8e;er, 6etitioner 9as mista7en t9e
Court:s tolerant attitude as an in;itation to commit 3urt9er a4use against t9e Court
and one o3 its mem4ers.
Nor can 6etitioner =usti35 9er attac7 on t9e ground t9at <89at said are
meant 3or #ustice )endo?a onl5B> t9at s9e 9ad no intention to o33end t9e ot9er
=ustices o3 t9is Court> and t9at 9ad t9e resolution 4een issued in 9er 3a;or, <s9e
8ould 9a;e 3elt sorr5 3or 9a;ing said t9at #ustice )endo?a 4een 4iased against
9er.B As alread5 eE6lained, an attac7 on t9e 6erson o3 an5 mem4er o3 t9is Court
is an attac7 on t9e integrit5 o3 t9e entire Court. %n at least t8o recent decisions,
attac7s on indi;idual mem4ers o3 t9is Court and o3 t9e Court o3 A66eals 8ere
considered attac7s on t9e Courts concerned and 6unis9ed as contem6t o3 t9ese
Courts.
)ore recentl5, in %n re 2u4lis9ed Alleged $9reats Against )em4ers o3 t9e
Court in t9e 2lunder -a8 Case (urled 45 Att5. -eonard ,e 0era, a mem4er o3
t9e *ar 8as 3ined 220,000.00 3or contem6t o3 t9is Court 3or statements made in a
6ending case. %t 8as 9eld t9at maintaining t9e dignit5 o3 t9e courts and en3orcing
t9e dut5 o3 citi?ens to res6ect t9em are necessar5 ad=uncts to t9e administration
o3 =ustice. $9us, Rule D1, ection 3+d/ o3 t9e Re;ised Rules o3 Court aut9ori?es
t9e courts to 9old lia4le 3or criminal contem6t a 6erson guilt5 o3 conduct directed
against t9e dignit5 or aut9orit5 o3 t9e court, or o3 an act o4structing t9e
administration o3 =ustice 89ic9 tends to 4ring t9e court into disre6ute or
disres6ect.
Finall5, 6etitioner eE6lains t9at <s9e is onl5 4eing articulate a4out t9e
realities o3 li3e and is 3ig9ting 3or =ustice 3or 9ersel3.B Freedom o3 s6eec9 includes
t9e rig9t to 7no8 and discuss =udicial 6roceedings, 4ut suc9 rig9t does not co;er
statements aimed at undermining t9e Court:s integrit5 and aut9orit5 and
inter3ering 8it9 t9e administration o3 =ustice. Freedom o3 s6eec9 is not a4solute,
and it must 4e 4alanced 8it9 t9e reAuirements o3 eAuall5 im6ortant 6u4lic
interests, suc9 as t9e maintenance o3 t9e integrit5 o3 t9e courts and orderl5
3unctioning o3 t9e administration o3 =ustice. &ne does not need to 4e a la85er to
7no8 t9is. %n an5 e;ent, 6etitioner 9as not in realit5 engaged in t9e 3ree eEercise
o3 3reedom o3 eE6ression 4ut in a4use and slander, 3or 89ic9 s9e s9ould 4e
sanctioned. A 3ine o3 210,000.00 is a66ro6riate 3or t9is 6ur6ose.
W$ERE#ORE, t9e Court RESOL"E' to:
+a/ ,!N. t9e )otion 3or Reconsideration 6ra5ing 3or t9e
reconsideration o3 t9e Court:s resolution, dated #ul5 29, 2002, 3or
4eing a 6ro9i4ited 6leading. No 3urt9er 6leadings 8ill 4e
entertained. -et entr5 o3 =udgment 4e made in due course>
+4/ ,!N. t9e motion to re3er t9e case to t9e Court en 4anc 3or lac7 o3
merit>
+c/ ,!N. t9e motion to in9i4it #ustice 0icente 0. )endo?a 3rom
6artici6ating in t9e deli4erations o3 t9e 6resent case 3or lac7 o3
3actual and legal 4asis>
+d/ ,!N. t9e motion 3or a66ro6riate sanction against #ustice 0icente
0. )endo?a 45 t9is Court 3or lac7 o3 3actual and legal 4asis> and
+e/ ,!N. 6etitioner:s use o3 t9e title <,r.B and <29.,.B in 9er 6leadings
in t9is case.
2etitioner Aro7ias8am5 'illiam )argaret Celine is 3ound GU%-$. o3
contem6t o3 court and is 9ere45 #INE' in t9e amount o3 $en $9ousand 2esos
+210,000.00/ to 4e 6aid 8it9in ten +10/ da5s 3rom recei6t o3 t9is Resolution.
0er5 trul5 5ours,
+S,-. TOMASITA M. 'RIS
Cler7 o3 Court
Ro%%o, 6. 1@9.
%d., 66. 1@GF1@9.
%d., 66. 1@DF1@G.
Uni;ersit5 o3 t9e 29ili66ines *oard o3 Regents ;s. Court o3 A66eals, 313 CRA
@0@, @21 +1999/.
%d., 66. @23F@2@.
Rollo, 66. 13CF13D.
%d., 66. 135F13C.
31 CRA 5C2, C01 +19D0/ citing arcos ;s. Castillo, 2C CRA G53 +19C9/.
ee %n re Almacen, su6ra.
)ic9ae% $. 0istan ;s. #udge Adoracion G. Angeles, A). No. R$#F02F1CD2,
Fe4ruar5 2C, 2002 +)in. Res./> United *F (omeo8ners ;s. #ustice Angelina
ando;alFGutierre?, 3@3 CRA 1C2 +2000/. ee also %n re #oaAuin $. *orromeo,
2@1 CRA @05 +1995/> %n re 'enceslao -aureta, 1@G CRA 3G3 +19GD/.
A.). No, 01F12F03FC, #ul5 29, 2002.
1aldi;ar ;s. Gon?ales, 1CC CRA 31C, 35@ +19GG/.