THE Supreme Court (SC) has junked the administrative complaint filed by lawyer Homobono Adaza 2nd against Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justice Vicente Veloso for not inhibiting in a case that landed before him.
In a full court resolution, the high tribunal dismissed the administrative complaint against Veloso for lack of merit as it ordered Adaza “to show cause within ten (10) days from receipt of [the]resolution why he should not be punished for contempt for filing a frivolous administrative action against [the CA magistrate.]”
The case stemmed from a rape charge filed against Dr. Gerard Danielle K. Sio before Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores Estoesta of the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC). The complaint was eventually brought to Justice Noli Diaz when Estoesta inhibited from the case.
On the other hand, Sio sought Diaz’s inhibition when the latter canceled his bail, and the case was reassigned to Justice Armanda Yanga.
The CA ordered for the release of Sio on March 19, 2012, prompting the father of the alleged rape victim and legal counsel Adaza to file the complaint before the SC against Veloso and lawyer Antonio Rebosa, Sio’s counsel, for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility, respectively.
However, the Supreme Court found “absolutely no arbitrariness or whimsicality in Justice Veloso’s denial of the motion to inhibit him on account of his interpellations of the parties during the October 12, 2011 oral argument.”