Republic of the Philippines
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
SIXTH (6th ) DIVISION
MUNICIPALITY OF TAGUIG (now
CITY OF TAGUIG),
Plaintiff -Appellee,
- versus -
CA-G.R. CV No. 98377
MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI
(now CITY OF MAKATI), HON.
TEOFISTO P. GUINGONA, in his
capacity as Executive Secretary,
HON. ANGEL ALCALA, in his
capacity
as
Secretary
of
Environment
and
Natural
Resources, HON. ABELARDO
PALAD, JR., in his capacity as
Director of Lands Management
Bureau,
Defendants-Appellants.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
URGENT MOTION TO INHIBIT
Plaintiff-Appellee CITY OF TAGUIG, by counsel, respectfully
states:
1.
The Supreme Court in Gutierrez v. Santos1 teaches that a
judge should render a decision in a manner that will not arouse suspicion
on its fairness and on his integrity:
“x
x
x due process of law requires a hearing
before an impartial and disinterested tribunal and that every
litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of
1
G.R. No. L-15824, 30 May 1961; emphasis ours.
2
an impartial judge. Moreover, second only to the duty of
rendering a just decision is the duty of doing it in a manner
that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and the
integrity of the Judge. Consequently, we take it to be the
true intention of the law --- stated in general terms --- that
no judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly
free, disinterested, impartial and independent.”
2.
Circumstances show that Honorable Marlene GonzalesSison, the ponente in the captioned case, does not seem to possess the
cold neutrality to fairly and impartially resolve the issues involving the
territorial dispute between plaintiff-appellee CITY OF TAGUIG and
defendant-appellant CITY OF MAKATI.
3.
Plaintiff-appellee CITY OF TAGUIG recently learned that
Honorable Gonzales-Sison is married to Atty. Casimiro “Cassy” C. Sison, a
former prosecutor in and an incumbent councilor of the City of Manila
(District VI). Atty. Cassy Sison has been a known stalwart of the United
Nationalist Alliance (UNA), which is a coalition of Pwersa ng Masang
Pilipino (PMP) headed by the former President and now Mayor of the
City of Manila Joseph E. Estrada and Partido Demokratiko Pilipino –
Lakas ng Bayan (PDP-Laban) headed by Vice President Jejomar C. Binay.
Together with Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, the three are known as the
three kings of UNA.
4.
In 2013, Atty. Cassy Sison ran and won as councilor of the
City of Manila (District VI) under the UNA banner. The certified true
copy of Atty. Cassy Sison’s Certificate of Candidacy dated 02 October
2012 and the UNA Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance dated 26
September 2012 are attached as Annexes “1” and “1-A.”
5.
Atty. Cassy Sison’s membership in UNA and close association
with Vice President Binay cast serious doubt on the impartiality of Hon.
Gonzales-Sison, his wife and ponente in the captioned case.
5.1 It is undisputed that Vice President Jejomar
Binay is one of the key leaders of UNA. Prior to becoming
the Vice President of the Republic of the Philippines in 2010,
Vice President Jejomar Binay became the Mayor of Makati
3
from 1986 to June 1998 and again from July 2001 to June
2010.
5.2 He was the incumbent Mayor of defendantappellant CITY OF MAKATI (then Municipality) when in
1993, plaintiff-appellee CITY OF TAGUIG (then
Municipality) instituted Civil Case No. 638962 against
defendant-appellant.
5.3 At the time he was Mayor of defendantappellant CITY OF MAKATI, and while Civil Case No. 63896
was pending, Vice President Jejomar Binay defended the
claims of defendant-appellant CITY OF MAKATI on the
disputed property at Fort Bonifacio. He himself signed
defendant-appellant CITY OF MAKATI’s Answer, the
Amended Answer and the Verification thereof.
5.4 His only son and incumbent Mayor of
defendant-appellant CITY OF MAKATI, Honorable Jejomar
Erwin “Junjun” S. Binay, Jr., even declared that up to now,
Vice President Jejomar Binay continues to discuss the
territorial dispute with him. In an interview on national
television on the issue of said territorial dispute,3 Mayor
Junjun Binay asserted:
“Anthony Taberna: Pwede po hati na lang kayo?
Mayor Junjun Binay: Ito po ay lagi naming pinaguusapan ng aking ama. Kung meron pong batas na
nagsasabing may pagkakataong magkaroon ng revenue
sharing, ito po ay gagawin ng administrative body,
papayag po ang Makati. Gusto rin po naming tulungan
ang Taguig. Kung magkakaroon po ng revenue sharing,
Civil Case No. 68396 entitled “Municipality of Taguig v. Municipality of Makati, Hon. Teofisto P.
Guingona, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Hon. Angel Alcala, in his capacity as Secretary of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Hon. Abelardo Palad, Jr., in his capacity as
Director of Lands Management Bureau” is for the judicial confirmation of the territory and boundary
2
limits of Taguig and declaration of the unconstitutionality and nullity of certain provisions of
Presidential Proclamations 2475 and 518, with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order.
3 Interview of Mayor Jejomar Erwin “Junjun” S. Binay, Jr. (incumbent Mayor of defendant-appellant
City of Makati) and Mayor Maria Laarni L. Cayetano (incumbent Mayor of plaintiff-appellee City of
Taguig) in the Umagang Kay Ganda program on 08 August 2013.
4
papayag po kami na hatiin na lang ang pera ng Fort
Bonifacio para po makatulong din po kami.”
5.5 Vice President Jejomar Binay has also been vocal
on the Decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals dated 30
July 2013 and claimed that the Decision that gave defendantappellant CITY OF MAKATI ownership of Fort Bonifacio
was correct.4
6.
And from nowhere, another key personality of UNA echoed
that it is defendant-appellant CITY OF MAKATI which is entitled to the
disputed property. Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, who is affiliated with
Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino and also with UNA since 2012, declared that
he agrees with the Honorable Court’s ruling that Fort Bonifacio is part of
defendant-appellant CITY OF MAKATI. Copies of the newspaper
articles in The Daily Tribune and Abante Tonite released on 10 August
2013 quoting Senator Juan Ponce Enrile are attached hereto as Annexes
“2” and “2-A.”
7.
Meanwhile, instead of challenging the Decision or
defendant-appellant CITY OF MAKATI or the Binays, Taguig Councilor
Michelle Anne “Che-Che” B. Gonzales, the PDP-Laban President of
Taguig, attacked plaintiff-appellee’s Mayor Maria Laarni “Lani” L.
Cayetano and her husband Senator Alan Peter S. Cayetano on national
television.5 Councilor Che-Che Gonzales is the sister-in-law of Gigi
Reyes, who was the long time chief-of-staff of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile.
In fact, Councilor Che-Che Gonzales refers to Senator Juan Ponce Enrile
as her “lolo.”
8.
Indeed, Atty. Cassy Sison’s affiliation with UNA -- whose
key personalities strongly advocate that the disputed property is part of
defendant-appellant CITY OF MAKATI --- has created a strong suspicion
on Hon. Gonzales-Sison’s impartiality.
Please see http://www.interaksyon.com/business/68118/taguig-city-to-appeal-ca-ruling-onfort-bonifacio-as-vp-binay-asserts-makati-ownership.
5 Please see the interview of Councilor Che-Che Gonzales which was aired on the 07 August 2013
episode of Pilipinas News between 10pm and 11pm and on 08 August 2013 episode of Good Morning
Club about 6am, both of TV5.
4
5
9.
Judges should not only be impartial, but should also appear
6
impartial. A judge should exercise circumspection in the discharge of his
duties to preclude suspicion on his impartiality.7 A judge should be the
last person to be perceived as no better than a mulcting traffic cop or a
corrupt bureaucrat out to make money.8
9.1 Vice President Jejomar Binay has announced in
many occasions that he will run for President. It is not
farfetched to think that Atty. Cassy Sison would want to
strengthen his relationship with the Vice President.
10. There is a suspicion that the Decision dated 30 July 2013 is a
“political decision” meant to curry favor with Vice President Binay for
future appointment to the Supreme Court. Such suspicion could very
well be unfounded and unfair to Hon. Gonzales-Sison. But her
relationship with Atty. Cassy Sison and his ties to UNA do not help
remove the suspicion.
11. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court leaves to the
judge’s discretion whether he should desist from sitting in a case for other
just and valid reasons with only his conscience to guide him.
12.
The Supreme Court’s pronouncement in People of the
Philippines and Congresswoman Vida Espinosa v. Governor Antonio Kho
and Arnel Quidato9 is illuminating:
“A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a
litigation. But when suggestion is made of record that he
might be induced to act in favor of one party or with bias or
prejudice against a litigant arising out of circumstances
reasonably capable of inciting such a state of mind, he should
conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his
discretion in a way that the people's faith in the courts of
justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is that he reflects on
the probability that losing party might nurture at the back of
his mind the thought that the judge had unmeritoriously
6
Fernandez v. Presbitero, A.M. No. 486-MJ, 13 September 1977.
Yanuario v. Paraguya, ADM. Matter No. 64-MJ, 05 May 1976.
8 Medina v. De Guia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-216, 01 March 1993.
9 G.R. No. 139381, 20 April 2001, citing Pimental v. Salonga; emphasis ours.
7
6
tilted the scales of justice against him. That passion on the
part of a judge may be generated because of serious charges
of misconduct against him by a suitor or his counsel, is not
altogether remote. He is a man, subject to the frailties of
other men. He should, therefore, exercise great care and
caution before making up his mind to act or withdraw from a
suit where that party or counsel is involved. He could in
good grace inhibit himself where that case could be heard by
another judge and where no appreciable prejudice would be
occasioned to others involved therein. On the result of his
decision to sit or not to sit may depend to a great extent the
all-important confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
If after reflection he should resolve to voluntarily desist from
sitting in a case where his motives or fairness might be
seriously impugned, his action is to be interpreted as giving
meaning and substance to the second paragraph of Section 1,
Rule 137. He serves the cause of law who forestalls the
miscarriage of justice.”
13.
The Supreme Court in Bautista v. Rebueno10 also held:
“The Judge must maintain and preserve the trust and
faith of the parties litigants. He must hold himself above
reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack of faith
and trust to his actions, whether well-grounded or not, the
Judge has no other alternative but inhibit himself from the
case. A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in a
litigation, but when circumstances appear that will induce
doubt to his honest actuation and probity in favor of either
party, or incite such a state of mind, he should conduct a
careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a
way that the people’s faith in the Courts of justice is not
impaired. The better recourse for the Judge under such
circumstances is to disqualify himself. That way, he avoids
being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved. What is more important, the ideals
of impartial administration of justice is lived up to.”
10
G.R. No. L-46117, 22 February 1978; emphasis ours.
7
14. In Latorre v. Hon. Ansaldo,11 the Supreme Court explained
that when a judge exhibits actions that give rise to perception of bias, the
judge has no recourse but to inhibit himself:
“Judges must at all times maintain and preserve the
trust and faith of parties litigants in the court's impartiality,
and that the slightest doubt in the actions of a judge, whether
well grounded or not, will leave the judge no better
alternative than to rescue himself as the ideal mode to
preserve the image of the judiciary. By inhibiting himself, he
avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved. More importantly, the ideal of
impartial administration of justice is lived up to.
In Orola vs. Alovera, we reiterated that when a judge
exhibits actions that give rise, fairly or unfairly, to perceptions
of bias, such faith and confidence are eroded, and he has no
choice but to inhibit himself voluntarily. A judge may not be
legally prohibited from sitting in a litigation, but when
circumstances appear that will induce doubt on his honest
actuation and probity in favor of either party, or incite such
state of mind, he should conduct a careful self-examination.
He should exercise his discretion in a way that the people's
faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. The better
course for the judge is to disqualify himself.”
15. Plaintiff-appellee CITY OF TAGUIG intends to file a Motion
for Reconsideration and exhaust the remedies available before the
Honorable Court. In the interest of fair play and to serve the higher
interest of justice, Hon. Gonzales-Sison should immediately inhibit
herself from this case.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff-appellee CITY OF TAGUIG respectfully
prays that --(1) Hon. Marlene Gonzales-Sison immediately inhibit herself
from this case;
11
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1563, 31 May 2001.
8
(2) Hon. Gonzales-Sison be replaced by another Justice who shall
be chosen by raffle from among the remaining members of her Division
who participated in the rendition of the Decision dated 30 July 2013; and
(3) The resulting vacancy be filled by raffle from among the
other Justices in the Court of Appeals in Manila.
Plaintiff-appellee prays for such further or other relief as may be
deemed just or equitable.
Taguig City for the City of Manila,
14 August 2013.
THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
City of Taguig
4/F Taguig City Hall, Gen. Luna Street
Tuktukan, 1630 Taguig City
Tel. No. 628-3445
By:
GRACE U. FONACIER
Roll No. 42152
IBP No. 926959; 01-23-2013; PPLM
PTR No. A-1745664;1/23/13; Taguig City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0015066; 3/27/13
FATIMA A. ALCONCEL-RELENTE
Roll No. 40570
IBP No. 922623; 1/8/13; Quezon City
PTR No. 1728305; 1/9/13; Taguig City
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0006706; 07/12/12
NOTICE OF HEARING
9
The Division Clerk of Court
Court of Appeals – Sixth Division
Atty. Pio Kenneth I. Dasal
OIC-Law Department, Makati City
18th Floor, Law Department, New Makati City Hall
J.P. Rizal Street, Makati City
Atty. Glenda Isabel L. Biason
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
12th Floor, PDCP Bank Centre cor. Rufino & Leviste Sts.
Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City
A.D. Corvera & Associates
Suite 1207 Antel Global Corporate Center
Doña Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center
1605 Pasig City
Hon. Presiding Judge
Regional Trial Court, Branch 153
Pasig City (Taguig City Hall of Justice)
Office of the Executive Secretary
Malacañang, Manila
Hon. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Visayas Avenue, Quezon City
The Director
Lands Management Bureau
Plaza Cervantes, Binondo
Manila
Greetings:
Please submit the foregoing Urgent Motion to Inhibit for the
consideration of this Honorable Court immediately upon receipt hereof.
Atty. Fatima A. Alconcel-Relente
10
VERIFICATION
I, MARIA LAARNI L. CAYETANO, Filipino, of legal age, and with
office address at the City Hall Building, Gen. Antonio Luna Street,
Tuktukan, Taguig City, under oath, state:
1.
I am the Mayor/Local Chief Executive of the City of Taguig,
the plaintiff-appellee in the above-captioned case.
2.
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing Urgent
Motion to Inhibit.
3.
I have read and understood the contents of the foregoing
Urgent Motion to Inhibit and attest that the allegations therein are true
and correct of my own personal knowledge and based on authentic
records in my possession.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ___
day of August 2013 in ______________.
MARIA LAARNI L. CAYETANO
City Mayor
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of August
2013 in ________________, affiant personally appearing before me and
exhibiting to me her Passport No. XX3169427 issued on 06 March 2009 in
DFA Manila and valid until 05 March 2014.
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No._____;
Series of 2013.
11
Copy furnished:
Atty. Pio Kenneth I. Dasal
OIC-Law Department, Makati City
18th Floor, Law Department, New Makati City Hall
J.P. Rizal Street, Makati City
Atty. Glenda Isabel L. Biason
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
12th Floor, PDCP Bank Centre cor. Rufino & Leviste Sts.
Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City
A.D. Corvera & Associates
Suite 1207 Antel Global Corporate Center
Doña Julia Vargas Avenue, Ortigas Center
1605 Pasig City
Hon. Presiding Judge
Regional Trial Court, Branch 153
Pasig City (Taguig City Hall of Justice)
Office of the Executive Secretary
Malacañang, Manila
Hon. Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Visayas Avenue, Quezon City
The Director
Lands Management Bureau
Plaza Cervantes, Binondo
Manila
12
EXPLANATION
(Re: Service by Registered Mail)
Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, undersigned counsel respectfully manifests that copies of the
foregoing Urgent Motion to Inhibit were served upon the adverse parties
by registered mail in lieu of personal service due to lack of messengerial
personnel in the office of undersigned counsel.
FATIMA A. ALCONCEL-RELENTE