MIGUEL CUENCO, complainant, v. HON. MARCELO B.
FERNAN, respondent,
A.C. No. 3135, 17 February 1988, En Banc
FACTS:
1. 13 March 1952 – Vito Borromeo died without any forced heirs, but leaving behind
extensive properties situated in the province of Cebu.
2. 19 April 1952 – Petition for probate (docketed as Special Proceedings No. 916-R)
purportedly the last will and testament of the decedent — was filed with the then
CFI of Cebu.
3. 28 May 1960 – the court rendered a decision declaring the will to be a forgery and
Court en banc declared the decision final. During the intestacy proceeding, 9
individuals were declared by the trial court as the rightful successors to the
decedent Vito Borromeo's estate. During the course of the intestacy proceedings,
several petitions were filed with this Court by the parties involved therein and
were subsequently consolidated as they came from a common source and being
closely interrelated.
4. 23 July 1987 – the Third Division of the Court, through Mr. Justice Hugo E.
Gutierrez, Jr., rendered a Decision in the consolidated petitions.
5. 10 October 1987 – Atty. Miguel Cuenco filed a complaint and prayed for
judgement ordering the disbarment of Mr. Justice Marcelo B. Fernan, Chairman of
the Third Division of this Court.
6. These are some of the allegations of Complainant Cuenco:
a. That Mr. Justice Fernan, in the Borromeo estate proceedings, appeared as
counsel for the three (3) instituted heirs (i.e.,Fortunato, Tomas and Amelia,
all surnamed Borromeo) and despite having already accepted his
appointment as an Associate Justice of the Court, "continues to be counsel
for the instituted heirs;"
b. That Mr. Justice Fernan "had exerted personal efforts to take away from the
Supreme Court en banc, the First and Second Divisions of the Tribunal, the
Vito Borromeo proceedings to his Office as Chairman of the Third Division
to enable him to influence the decision or the outcome of the Vito Borromeo
proceedings;"
c. That Mr. Justice Fernan's strong and unyielding determination to collect
big sums of money in payment of his legal services rendered to his clients
had induced the Honorable Justice, as Chairman of the Court's Third
Division, to unduly influence the Members thereof into dismissing Atty.
Cuenco's complaint Judge Francisco P. Burgos, then the trial judge in the
intestacy proceedings.
d. That Mr. Justice Fernan had willfully, persistently, stubbornly and
systematically violated his Oath of Office as a lawyer which imposes upon
him the duty not to delay any man for money or malice.
ISSUES:
A. Whether or not these allegations against Mr. Justice Fernan hold true.
SUPREME COURT’S RULING:
A. No. Mr. Cuenco’s charges against Mr. Fernan have no weight, he had not provided
any substantial facts or evidence of record.
1. “We have found nothing in the record of the Vito Borromeo estate proceedings
to indicate that Mr. Justice Fernan had appeared as counsel in such
proceedings… Mr. Justice Fernan did enter his appearance on 7 August 1965
as counsel, in collaboration with Atty. Crispin Baizas, for claimants Tomas
and Amelia Borromeo in Special Proceedings No. 916-R. The record, however,
reveals that Mr. Justice Fernan withdrew as such counsel as early as 19
February 1968.”
2. “Prior to the appointment of Mr. Justice Fernan to the Court, the
aforementioned five (5) consolidated petitions had already been assigned for
preliminary study to Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., the ponente of the
disputed Decision in G.R. Nos. L-41171, 55000, 62895, 63818 and 65995 and
a Member then of the Court's First Division.”
The subsequent designation of Mr. Justice Fernan as Chairman of the
Court’s Third Divisions along with the assignment of Mr. Justice
Gutierrez with three other Members of the Court to said Third
Divisions were circumstances of pure coincidence. The Chief Justice
determined and carried out these actions in accordance with the time-
honored procedures followed by the Court after the 1987 Constitution
went into effect.
3. “Mr. Justice Fernan inhibited himself from participating in the deliberations
on the Vito Borromeo estate cases and, in fact, did not take part in the
resolution thereof; this was made explicit by the annotation appearing beside
his signature: "No part —I appeared as counsel for one of the parties."
“In an En Banc Resolution dated 19 November 1987, this Court, having found
that the delay complained of was caused by several factors beyond the control
of respondent judge, dismissed that complaint for lack of merit.”
4. “There is nothing in the record, other than the undocumented assertions of
complainant Cuenco, that would suggest that Mr. Justice Fernan has violated
his oath of office as a lawyer either during the time when he was collaborating
counsel for Tomas and Amelia Borromeo in the proceedings below or
thereafter, and since joining this Court.”
In a Memorandum given to the Court on 17 December 1987, “Mr. Justice
Fernan invited attention to his written Appearance and Motion to Withdraw
as Counsel and stressed that he had ceased a long time ago to act as counsel for
the two Borromeo’s mentioned earlier and that he did not in any way take part
in the deliberations and decision of G.R. Nos. 41171, etc.”
5. “The Court has, nevertheless, gone into substantial detail in dealing with the
accusations so freely made by complainant Cuenco, apparently in his concern
over the amount of the attorney's fees he can hope to claim and collect from
some of the distributees of the Vito Borromeo Estate. The Court has done so
precisely because the person charged is a Member of this Court.”
“The record of this case suggests strongly, however, that those accusations
were not only instituted without any basis but were also made recklessly
without regard for the good name and reputation of Mr. Justice Fernan.”
“There is another reason why the complaint for disbarment here must be
dismissed. Members of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of
the Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and may be removed from
office only by impeachment (Article XI [2], Constitution).”
Therefore, the court resolved to dismiss the charges made complainant Cuenco against
Mr. Justice Fernan for utter lack of merit.
xxx
