Mercado V Security Bank
Mercado V Security Bank
G.R. No. 160445 | Feb. 16, 2006 with Atty. Villanueva, he and his family left for London,
Sandoval Gutierrez, J. leaving his case to the care of one of his Associates.
Group 2 – LERA Later on, the ponente herself left for the U.S.A. to visit
her children.
SUMMARY Petitioner claimed: “Is this a coincidence? As the saying
Petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing CA’s decision. It was goes, when there is smoke, there is fire.”
denied by the Court. Petitioners filed for MFR and was granted, however a SBC sold their property to M. Miranda Development Corporation
Resolution was issued denying the same. Two MFRs were filed but were also and succeeded in getting a permit to demolish the 4 building
denied. Petitioner wrote a letter to the CJ Davide Jr. containing contemptuous erected in the property from the Forbes Park Association, even if
remarks insinuating that (1) the ponente succumbed to the tremendous pressure of the case is still pending and MFR with the Supreme Court wasn’t
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in denying his petition; (2)the Security Bank filed yet
Corporation, respondent, financed the ponente’s travel to the United States; The person who bought property from SBC
and (3) the ponente gave respondent a go signal to sell his property. A contempt for P120,000,000.00 while having a drink with
proceeding followed. Court found petitioners and Atty. Villanueva guilty of indirect petitioner’s nephew bragged that he just bought the
contempt. property of the Mercado’s in Forbes Park.
Buyer said: I paid already the property because SBC told
FACTS: me that they already have the go-signal from the
ponente to sell the property.
Jose Teofilo T. Mercado and Ma. Agnes R. Mercado, petitioners, filed with this
Court a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing CA’s decision of (1) dismissing Petitioner further included contemptuous remarks in his letter against the CJ
their petition for annulment of judgment; and (2) denying their motion for as follows:
reconsideration. “Have you no conscience at all? Are you not bothered of the final
Petition was denied for failure to show reversible error judgment after life? Is this the legacy you want to impart to your
children and all the Filipino people? What you did to my family
Petitioners filed an MFR alleging: and I is unforgivable not only to God and to humanity. You have
the CA merely relied on technical rules of procedure which sacrificed the deprived us of our precious possession without due process.”
greater interest of justice and equity; and “If you, the Chief Justice, himself, are the first person to make a
their former counsel’s gross negligence constitutes extrinsic fraud, a ground mockery of our laws, no wonder why foreign investors do not
for annulling the trial courts judgment. want to invest in our country because they said, there is no justice
in our courts, the Supreme Court in particular.”
MFR was granted “Please I beg of you, have a last hard look on our Petition and the 2
However, a Resolution was later on issued denying their petition on the MFR and let us focus and not evade on the real issue on lack of
ground that they failed to show reversible error jurisdiction on the part of the trial court and not concentrate on
negligence of counsel and other trivial reasons, etc. Or better yet,
Petitioners filed MFR, but was dismissed please refrain from influencing the members of the Third
Division.”
Filed another MFR but was subsequently denied for being prohibited “SBCs counsels are experts in fabrication of facts and in
misleading the courts. Please don’t be an instrument of their
Mercado wrote to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. stating the following: wicked schemes, lest the Supreme Court itself becomes their
according to Mercado’s counsel, Atty. Jose Villanueva means to perpetrate injustice. This is the only Bank which is not
the ponente informed him that he has to deny petition on interested in amicable settlement in spite of my several sincere
the same ground because of the tremendous pressure from offers of amicable settlement.”
the Chief Justice to favor Security Bank Corporation “Please enlighten us before we seek another forum to seek
Ponente are very close and long time friends to each other. redress the injustices, sleepless nights, humiliation and
embarrassment we suffered. If we are wrong about you, and I
hope we really are wrong, please accept our appeal for forgiveness Atty. Villanueva testified that it was Mercado who informed him that
and apologies.” Justice Gutierrez is the ponente. He also confirmed that she attended the
wake of his mother. But he denied Mercados claim that he pointed to Justice
Chief Justice Davide required Mercado’s lawyer, Atty. Jose P. Villanueva, to Gutierrez and said that she is his close friend.
comment on the letter and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of
court. Third Division designated Court of Appeals Justice Renato C. Dacudao as
Commissioner to receive evidence
The Court’s Third Division ordered Mercado to personally appear and show cause Justice Dacudao submitted his Investigation, Report and Recommendation.
why he should not be held in contempt of court. Mercado
Mercado, together with Atty. Pablo G. Macapagal, his new counsel, guilty of improper conduct tending to bring the authority
appeared before the Third Division and swore to the truth of the letter he and the administration of justice by the Court into
wrote. disrespect
Only stated therein what Atty. Villanueva told him However, he held that there was no showing that he acted
He further manifested that during the wake of Atty. Villanuevas with malice and/or in bad faith or that he was properly
mother, he pointed to Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, motivated.
bragging that she is a close and long time friend of his. fined in the sum of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00).
However, while stating this, Mercado referred to Justice
Conchita Carpio Morales as Justice Gutierrez. ISSUE # 1: WON the court should sustain Justice Dacudao’s finding that Mercado
did not act with malice or bad faith – NO
Atty. Villanueva submitted a comment,
denied Mercado’s allegations Bad faith imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing
denied having told petitioners that their petition had to be denied of a wrong. Malice is of the same genre. It connotes a sinister motive.
again because there was a tremendous pressure from the CJ Mercados addressing such letter to Chief Justice Davide is a perfect
there was no correlation between the ponente’s trip to the United States and illustration of bad faith and malice tending directly to degrade the
his trip to London. administration of justice.
he and his family went to London to attend the graduation of his It transgresses the permissible bounds of fair comment and criticisms
daughter, Cherriemaya Veloso Villanueva. bringing into disrepute, not only the authority and integrity of Chief Justice
submitted a photocopy of London School of Economics (LSE) and Davide and the ponente, but also of the entire Judiciary.
Political Science Presentation Ceremonies where the name of his Furthermore, he alleged that an irregularity or bribery attended the denial of
daughter, Cherriemaya Veloso Villanueva, is listed as one of the his petition for review.
successful graduates. insinuated that the travels of Atty. Villanueva and
submitted a photocopy of his passport the ponente abroad were financed by respondent bank
there is no truth to Mercado’s statement regarding his nephews alleged recklessly accused the ponente of giving respondent bank a go-
encounter with the new owners of the subject property. signal to sell his property.
condemned the entire Judiciary by saying there is no justice in our courts,
Mercado submitted his explanation the Supreme Court in particular.
contemptuous statements in his letter merely reiterate the tenor of Atty. threatened Chief Justice Davide to enlighten him before he seeks
Villanueva’s statements. another forum to seek redress for the injustices
offered an apology, explaining that he wrote the letter while he was under
the impulse of personal stress as he was losing his residential house. Contrary to his claim that he is just verifying the truth of Atty. Villanuevas
statements, the words in his letter are more accusatory than inquisitorial.
The Third Division ordered both Mercado and Atty. Villanueva to appear to accusations have no basis in fact and in law
elucidate their respective positions. caused intense pain and humiliation on the part of Chief Justice Davide and
Mercado testified that it was Atty. Villanueva who informed him that the ponente.
the ponente is Justice Gutierrez.
In a bid to escape liability for contempt, Mercado invokes freedom of speech and tribunal or legislative body. Further, Rule 15.07 provides that a lawyer must
privacy of communication. impress upon his client compliance with the laws and the principles of fairness.
A person charged with contempt of court for his utterances which In informing Mercado that he was a close and long time friend of
clearly constitute contempt may not ordinarily escape liability by the ponente, Atty. Villanueva impressed upon the former that he can obtain
merely invoking the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. a favorable disposition of his case.
Liberty of speech must not be confused with abuse of such liberty. However, when his petition was dismissed twice, Mercados expectation
When he attributed those contemptuous remarks to Chief Justice Davide crumbled. This prompted him to hurl unfounded, malicious, and
and the ponente, Mercado abused such liberty. disrespectful accusations against Chief Justice Davide and the ponente.
Accordingly, we hold Mercado guilty of indirect contempt of court. Responsibility enjoins lawyers to observe and maintain the respect due to courts and
the judicial officers. Atty. Villanuevas conduct, no doubt, degraded the integrity and
Section 3, Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides: dignity of Chief Justice Davide and the ponente and this Court as well.
ISSUE # 2 (MAIN ISSUE): WON Atty. Villanueva should be held guilty of indirect
contempt – YES
it was only through Atty. Villanueva that petitioner could have learned or
known the name of the ponente in the case.
petitioner consistent, firm, and candid and detailed in his
testimony, but he was also able to corroborate his claims, by
submitting his diary which contained vital entries and by
presenting the testimony of his nephew. x x x
admitted by Atty. Villanueva that he and Justice Gutierrez have
known each other since 1964 and that Justice Gutierrez was in the
wake of his mother.