AC 2756; (March, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.C. No. 2756. March 15, 1988.
PRUDENTIAL BANK, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE P. CASTRO and ATTY. BENJAMIN M. GRECIA, respondents.
FACTS
This is an administrative case for disbarment. The Supreme Court had already rendered a decision on November 12, 1987, disbarring respondent Atty. Benjamin M. Grecia. His motion for reconsideration was denied with finality by the Court in a Resolution dated January 12, 1988. Subsequently, on February 8, 1988, Grecia filed a “Petition for Redress and Exoneration and for Voluntary Inhibition,” praying for the setting aside of the decision and his exoneration. The petition also sought the inhibition of Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee and Associate Justice Teodoro R. Padilla from the case, alleging bias and vindictiveness. The petition included an annex, a copy of a letter from a judge to an unknown addressee, which was immaterial to the disbarment proceedings.
ISSUE
The primary issues are: (1) the propriety of acting on Grecia’s second motion for reconsideration and the attached annex; (2) the merit of the petitions for the voluntary inhibition of Chief Justice Teehankee and Justice Padilla; and (3) the validity of the challenges against the Court’s decision and resolution for alleged constitutional violations.
RULING
The Court expunged the Petition, as it constituted a prohibited second motion for reconsideration filed without leave of court after a final denial. The Court also ordered Annex “1” and its enclosures stricken from the record for being immaterial, impertinent, and scurrilous. On the petitions for inhibition, the Court denied the request for Chief Justice Teehankee’s inhibition. Established jurisprudence holds that a motion to disqualify a member of the Court cannot be entertained after that member has rendered an opinion on the merits, as litigants cannot speculate on the Court’s action. The disbarment decision was a collective judgment, and no ill will or vindictiveness was shown during deliberations. The plea for Justice Padilla’s inhibition was likewise denied. His prior representation of Cityland Development Corporation in an unrelated case (Manchester Development Corp. vs. CA) was irrelevant, as Cityland is not a party to this administrative proceeding, and there was no basis for alleging bias.
The constitutional challenge against the decision for lacking the Chief Justice’s certification of consultation was dismissed. The certification requirement under the Constitution applies to decisions in judicial cases, not administrative matters. Administrative cases are inherently deliberated upon by the collegiate Court. Even if required, the signatures of the participating members attest to such consultation. Furthermore, the per curiam nature of the decision obviates the need for a formal certification. The challenge against the Minute Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration for “lack of merit” was also rejected. The constitutional mandate for stating legal bases applies to decisions in judicial cases. In any event, “lack of merit” is a valid legal basis for denial under the Rules of Court. The Resolution was therefore in order.