Dangerous precedents

The year’s observance of National Law Week from September 11-16, 2011 promises to be a resounding success as the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the country’s official organization of lawyers under National President Roan I. Libarios spearheads the affair with several activities aimed at “inspiring transformation in the legal profession and society” which is its theme. With these activities, the IBP is really becoming more and more relevant and useful not only to lawyers but to Filipinos in general.

It is quite ironic however that as we celebrate National Law Week, some recent events have transpired where adherence to the rule of law seem to have been impudently taunted, or where, at the very least, gross ignorance of the law seem to have been brazenly committed by members of the legal profession coming from the bench and the bar. Yet, on second thought, celebrating National Law Week right on the heels of these two alarming and dismaying events may, on the other hand, be really propitious as it would hopefully spur and lead to a thorough and in depth probe on whether the rule of law has been flouted, or gross ignorance of the law committed by those involved.

Of course, the judges and the lawyers involved in these two cases may have acted in good faith and according to their best lights as we have not yet fully heard their side at this stage. So in keeping with the spirit of the rule of law, they should also be given the opportunity to present their sides at the proper forum where their actions and decisions can be questioned.

Nevertheless, since some of their actions and rulings are glaringly unusual, out of the ordinary and seemingly “extra legal”, they have caught public attention and reaped expected denunciations from those directly affected. They have become controversial, questionable and deserve public scrutiny.

The first case refers to the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Rolando Mislang stopping the Department of Justice (DOJ) from pursuing the indictment of the executives and officers of Globe Asiatique (GA) as well as some officers of PAG-IBIG Fund for syndicated Estafa in connection with the alleged anomalous housing projects in Pampanga. The Judge issued the TRO because the GA executives told him they may suffer irreparable damage or injury by the filing and prosecution of the charges considering that the offenses are non-bailable and therefore may lead to their indefinite detention in jail.

In our justice system, it is well accepted that a person cannot stop another from suing him even if he believes that suit is purely malicious and without any basis. Anyone who feels aggrieved cannot be stopped from filing a case against the perceived offender. More concretely, a victim of rape cannot be stopped from filing a complaint against the person whom she suspected of raping her. If the suspect thinks that she is mistaken, the law provides him with enough remedies more specifically the process of preliminary investigation where probable cause is determined first. And even if the prosecution has already determined probable cause, he can still ask for a judicial determination of probable cause before the court issues the warrant of arrest.

Actually in this case, when the Pasig Judge issued the TRO blocking the DOJ from filing the syndicated estafa case against the officers of Asiatique and PAG-IBIG, the DOJ has already found probable cause against them. The general rule is that a criminal prosecution cannot be restrained especially by the accused even if they believe they are innocent. In fact, they should welcome the filing of the case because it provides them the opportunity to prove their innocence. In this case the accused themselves are in effect asking the Judge not to give them that opportunity. The Judge’s action therefore really looks worse. It is an improper and novel way of disrupting the regular flow of criminal procedure. It will set a dangerous precedent.

More improper and highly questionable is the apparent haste in granting the TRO. It was issued even before the DOJ has officially released its findings of probable cause. At that time the Judge has no way of determining whether the DOJ findings of probable cause are correct or not as to justify the issuance of the TRO. Worse is that he seems to have rushed the extension of the TRO and granted the writ of preliminary injunction even before the lapse of the 20 days given him to decide. Even to non-lawyers, the rush to action is obvious.

The other case is the issuance of a writ of possession by QC Judge Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon involving a 24 hectare property in favor of a certain Wilfredo Torres against the numerous occupants of the property. The writ was issued in connection with a case filed by Torres against the spouses Alino who allegedly purchased the property from his deceased mother for failure to pay the full purchase price. The case is for recovery of possession but the thousands of persons who are in actual possession were not parties thereto. Well established in this jurisdiction however is that a judgment of the court can only be enforced against persons who are parties therein. Hence the issuance of the writ against thousands of residents who were not made parties to the case is clearly contrary to well established rules. If Torres believes he has a better right of possession he should first file actions for ejectment against the residents who possess the lands.

Worse here is that the titles of Torres have already been decided in another case as fake and coming from spurious source. It has already been established with finality that they were derived from reconstituted title based on a void OCT or TCT. In fact there is even a pending petition for the cancellation of these titles filed by the Office of the Solicitor General. The judge should have taken judicial notice of these circumstances before issuing the writ of possession.

The Judge should have also taken judicial notice of Torres’ background. While it is true that she cannot go beyond the evidence presented before her, the well known and documented fact is that Torres heads one of the groups of well organized squatting syndicates with extensive connections to various government agencies as found by the PNP Task Force on Squatters. This alone should have put her on guard against issuing the writ.

If these two cases will not be properly addressed, dangerous precedents undermining the criminal justice system and the Torrens System of registration of titles may seep-in and destroy the rule of law.