G.R. No. A.M. No. 11-184-CA-J; January 31, 2012
Case Title: RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. OSCAR L. ONGJOCO, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD/CEO OF FH-GYMN MULTI-PURPOSE AND TRANSPORT SERVICE COOPERATIVE, AGAINST HON. JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR., HON. RAMON M. BATO, JR. AND HON. FLORITO S. MACALINO, ASSOCIATE JUSTICES, COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

On June 7, 2011, the Supreme Court received a letter-complaint from Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, Chairman/CEO of FH-GYMN Multi-Purpose and Transport Service Cooperative (FH-GYMN), against the Court of Appeals Sixth Division Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Florito S. Macalino. The complaint arose from the CA’s denial of FH-GYMN’s petition for review (CA-G.R. SP No. 102289) of the Ombudsman’s dismissal of its administrative case. FH-GYMN had originally filed a complaint with the Ombudsman against certain San Jose del Monte City officials and officers of rival transport groups, alleging bias and violations of law for denying its request to amend a local ordinance to allow it to issue Motorized Tricycle Operators Permits. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence and lack of merit/jurisdiction. The CA, in its January 31, 2011 Decision, denied FH-GYMN’s petition. Ongjoco’s motion for reconsideration with prayer for inhibition was also denied.
In his administrative complaint, Ongjoco accused the respondent Justices of: (1) violating Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution for not clearly stating the facts and law in their decision denying the petition; (2) rendering an “unjust, unfair and partial” decision that heavily favored the other party; (3) warranting a presumption of being “directly or indirectly interested for personal gain” under the Anti-Graft Law; and (4) being possibly influenced or persuaded by Ombudsman officials (who might be their schoolmates or associates) to dismiss the petition and manipulate the delivery of the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint against the respondent Court of Appeals Justices for alleged violations of the Constitution, bias, partiality, and graft in relation to their decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 102289 has merit.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint for being baseless and utterly devoid of legal and factual merit.
1. On the Alleged Violation of the Constitutional Requirement for Decisions: The Court held that Ongjoco’s insistence was unfounded. Citing Tichangco v. Enriquez, the Court explained that Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution , for appellate courts, does not require a comprehensive statement of facts and law when denying a petition for review, but merely a statement of the “legal basis.” The CA’s Decision sufficiently complied by stating the petition was “without merit,” discussing the petitioner’s core allegation, reiterating the rule that findings of fact by the Ombudsman supported by substantial evidence are conclusive, and quoting the Ombudsman’s rationale for dismissal. A point-by-point resolution of all issues is not constitutionally mandated.
2. On the Allegations of Bias, Partiality, and Graft: The Court found these accusations to be baseless, reckless, and malicious. The charges were based solely on Ongjoco’s dissatisfaction with the adverse judgment. The Court emphasized that a judge’s failure to rule in a party’s favor is not proof of bias or corruption. The allegations of influence by Ombudsman officials were pure conjecture and unsupported by evidence. The Court condemned the use of intemperate and scandalous language in the complaint, noting that such tactics, aimed at intimidating judges, constitute an abuse of the judicial process and disrespect for the courts.
3. On the Nature of the Complaint and Sanction: The Court characterized the complaint as a “direct and public assault” on the judicial institution and an attempt to intimidate the Justices. It stressed that judges should not suffer baseless accusations from dissatisfied litigants. While the complaint was dismissed against the respondent Justices, the Court referred the matter concerning the conduct of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco to the Office of the Bar Confidant. This was for the purpose of determining whether, as a member of the Bar, he should be disciplinarily sanctioned for his grossly disrespectful statements and for filing a frivolous and malicious administrative complaint aimed at undermining judicial integrity. The Court cited precedents where lawyers were sanctioned for using offensive language against judges and for attempting to use administrative complaints to influence judicial outcomes.