SC junks admin raps vs CA justices

0

THE Supreme Court (SC) has junked a complaint filed against several justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) and has ordered an investigation of AMA Land Inc., which is owned by former ambassador Amable Aguiluz.

Advertisements

Administrative raps were filed against the CA magistrates by AMA Land for allegedly rendering an unjust judgment in a case filed before them.

In a full court decision signed by Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal, the tribunal dismissed the administrative complaint against Associate Justices Danton Bueser, Sesinando Villon and Ricardo Rosario for its utter lack of merit.

The complainant, AMA Land, Inc., administratively charged the magistrates for issuing a decision on June 14, 2012 preventing it from pursuing with its project.

The CA decision was issued pending the resolution of the Wack Wack Residents Association Inc. case before the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC).

The firm filed the complaint against the magistrates before the high court when it did not get a favorable verdict.

It alleged that respondent justices had conspired with the counsels of WWRAI.

The firm had filed another complaint against the same justices but it was also dismissed.

In its new ruling, the SC said “AMALI’s allegations directly attacked the validity of the proceedings in the CA through an administrative complaint.”

“The attack in this manner reflected the pernicious practice by disgruntled litigants and their lawyers of resorting to administrative charges against sitting judges instead of exhausting all their available remedies,” the SC said.

The court ordered “Joseph Usita, the senior assistant vice president of AMA Land, Inc., and all members of the board of directors of [AMA] who had authorized Usita to bring the administrative complaint against respondent associate justices to show cause in writing within 10 days from notice why they should not be punished for indirect contempt of court for degrading the judicial office of respondent associate justices, and for interfering with the due performance of their work for the judiciary.”

Share.
loading...
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

Comments are closed.