Litigant fined for criticizing SC

The Supreme Court has slapped a losing litigant with a P20,000 fine for describing the justices as "crooks in robes " and Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as the "chief swindler in robes."

"Freedom of speech and expression, like other constitutional freedoms, is not absolute. It is subject to the limitations of equally important public interests such as the maintenance of the integrity and orderly functioning of the administration of justice," the high tribunal told Aurelio Arrienda.

In a 21-page resolution penned by Justice Renato Corona, the SC en banc ordered Arrienda to pay the fine within 10 days from the receipt of the copy of the resolution. The SC also warned Arrienda that a repetition of a similar act would be dealt with more severely.

The SC also dismissed with finality Arrienda's complaint for graft and corruption against Senior Associate Justices Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Bernardo Pardo, Santiago Kapunan, Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco Jr., and Court of Appeals Justices Perlita Tirona and Bennie dela Cruz.

It was learned that Arrienda lost a civil case he filed before a regional trial court in Quezon City against the Government Service Insurance System. It was then RTC judge and now CA justice Tirona who handed the decision.

But when Arrienda filed a motion to appeal the decision before the CA, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

When Arrienda elevated the case to the SC, it was dismissed by the high court's first division, which composed of Davide, Kapunan and Pardo.

Unhappy with the high tribunal's decision, Arrienda said the justices acted like the lawyers of GSIS. He described the decision as an act of betrayal of public trust.

Arrienda accused the justices of being "crooks in robes" and "swindlers in robes" who gypped him and his family of their right to due process. He also labeled them as "corrupt justices who were only sowing 'judicial terrorism."

Arrienda criticized Davide for his "weak leadership as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

He claimed that Davide "failed to uphold the rule of law and had given license to Puno " to take whatever action the Division may deem appropriate to the extent of committing a miscarriage of justice."

But the SC explained that chief justice cannot, by himself, overturn the decision of the Court whether of a division or the en banc.