GR L 30052; (April, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-30052 April 18, 1969
CAMILO PEÑA Y VALENZUELA and DOMINGO CAJIPE Y DACUNO, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL), respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Camilo Peña and Domingo Cajipe filed a second motion for reconsideration after their petition for certiorari was dismissed for lack of merit. In this motion, Peña, acting for himself and his co-petitioner, made several allegations regarding the Court’s internal deliberations. He claimed that an earlier resolution referring their first motion for reconsideration to the Solicitor General for comment was “tantamount to giving the petition DUE COURSE,” and suggested that the subsequent denial of that motion was influenced by the accidental assignment of the case to a Justice who “dissents most often” from the views of the absent ponente. The Court, in a resolution dated March 14, 1969, denied the second motion and required Peña to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt due to the untruthful nature of these allegations. In response, Peña filed a manifestation explaining that he was in a state of emotional despondency and fear due to police surveillance and an active warrant for his arrest when he prepared the motion. He admitted the allegations in paragraphs 2(a) to 2(e) of his motion had no factual basis, were hearsay, and half-truths. He withdrew those allegations and offered his sincerest apologies to the Court.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Camilo Peña should be held in contempt of court for making false and improper allegations in his second motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s internal proceedings.
RULING
The Court, while accepting Peña’s explanation and apology as sufficient to show a lack of malice and bad faith given his claimed precarious mental and emotional state at the time, resolved to admonish him. The Court held that Peña, like any other member of the bar or party litigant, has a duty to carefully verify the truth and correctness of all statements of fact made in pleadings. The Court warned that any subsequent similar misconduct on the part of Peña would be dealt with more severely.