What's next?

This refers to the article of Mr. Jarius Bondoc, Will the SC investigate its Chief Justice?, in his column Gotcha published 26 September 2011.

Please be informed that the case alleged therein, Inter-Petal Recreational Corporation, represented by its Chairman Atty. Fernando C. Campos v. Securities and Exchange Commission, was already unanimously dismissed with finality by the Supreme Court’s First Division, then composed of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (now retired) and Justices Antonio T. Carpio (Working Chairperson), Renato C. Corona (now Chief Justice), Teresita Leonardo de Castro, and Lucas P. Bersamin. The decision was not then Justice Corona’s alone.

In its 20 April 2009 Resolution, the Court dismissed the petition and held that Atty. Campos availed of the “wrong remedy as the petition should have been brought under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court and (his petition is being dismissed also) for being premature.” The Court further resolved that “[i]n any event, petitioner failed to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion was committed by the (SEC) in rendering the challenged decision which, on the contrary, appears to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and jurisprudence.” Elementary procedure teaches us that the Court, in its sound discretion, can dismiss a petition without requiring a comment from the other party.

Not satisfied, Atty. Campos, on 15 June 2009, moved for a reconsideration, and sent a separate letter to then Chief Justice Puno alleging that “[t]here was undue haste in rushing the decision.” Atty. Campos likewise asked, “If true that a member of the Division went to Las Vegas to witness the Pacquiao-Hatton fight last May 3, 2009, could there be a connection between the early signing of the decision and the trip to Las Vegas?” Both the Motion for Reconsideration and the Letter were included in the Agenda of the First Division.

In a Resolution dated 8 July 2009, the Court, among others, denied with finality Atty. Campos’ motion for reconsideration “considering that there is neither any compelling reason nor any substantial argument to warrant a modification of this Court’s resolution.” The Court further held that no further pleadings shall be entertained and entry of judgment in the case shall be made in due course.

The foregoing notwithstanding, Atty. Campos still wrote a letter to then Chief Justice Puno dated 1 September 2009. On 3 March 2010 the Court NOTED WITHOUT ACTION Atty. Campos’ 1 September 2009 letter considering the denial with finality of his motion for reconsideration. The Court further noted that (then) Justice Corona “took no part” in the subject resolution. On 15 September 2009, an Entry of Judgment was made declaring the case “final and executory.”

Still in another letter dated 24 February 2010, Atty. Campos requested for “signed copies” of Resolutions dated 20 April 2009 and 8 July 2009. On 17 March 2010, the Court NOTED WITHOUT ACTION Atty. Campos’ 24 February 2010 letter and declared that his case be considered “CLOSED and TERMINATED.” Again, then Justice Corona “took no part.”

The Court then issued a series of Resolutions dated 26 April 2010, 26 July 2010 and 4 October 2010 which NOTED WITHOUT ACTION the succeeding letters of Atty. Campos dated 10 March 2010, 13 May 2010, 29 July 2010 and 12 August 2010, respectively, since the case has already been considered closed and terminated.

Atty. Campos continued to file, on 17 January 2011, a Motion to Set Aside Entry of Judgment, filing simultaneously a Motion for Leave to File Second Motion for Reconsideration. The Court DENIED both motions in a Resolution dated 2 February 2011 considering that a second motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading.

In an attempt, yet again, to revive his case, Atty. Campos strongly opposed Justice Corona’s nomination for Chief Justice by sending a letter to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) on 11 February 2010 alleging impropriety of Justice Corona’s acts regarding the case. The JBC gave due course to his letter-opposition and asked then Justice Corona to comment. In his Comment, Justice Corona presented receipts and documentation regarding his assailed trip to Las Vegas. Satisfied with the explanation, the JBC accordingly nominated him for the chief judicial post.

Time and again, the Court has explained that litigation, at some point, must come to an end:

Access to the courts is guaranteed. But there must be a limit thereto. Once a litigant’s rights have been adjudicated in a valid final judgment of a competent court, he should not be granted an unbridled license to come back for another try. The prevailing party should not be harassed by subsequent suits. For, if endless litigations were to be encouraged, then unscrupulous litigants will multiply in number to the detriment of the administration of justice.

[I]t is essential to an effective and efficient administration of justice that, once a judgment has become final, the winning party be not, through a mere subterfuge, deprived of the fruits of the verdict. Courts must therefore guard against any scheme calculated to bring about that result. Constituted as they are to put an end to controversies, courts should frown upon any attempt to prolong them.

Still unsatisfied, Atty. Campos now files the same Complaint before the Ethics Committee of the Supreme Court, which was surprisingly delved into lengthily by Mr. Bondoc in his column.

Recent developments appear to show that there is another wave of conspiracy to denigrate the Chief Justice and the Judiciary as a whole: the “impounding” of the budget of the Supreme Court, as termed by no less than Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Senator Joker Arroyo; the threat of impeachment against the Chief Justice should the Court later on strike down as unconstitutional the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefit Fund; the resurrection of this old, dismissed case which now prominently figures in the column of a respected journalist in a widely-read broadsheet; and most recently, the congressional investigation of judges and court personnel about a pending case which encroaches on the authority of the courts, raises separation of powers issues, and undermines judicial independence. Will there be more? When will this stop?