CA Orders Lawyers Of Suspended Cebu Governor To Explain Side

By Rey G. Panaligan
March 8, 2013, 10:14am

MANILA, Philippines --- The Court of Appeals (CA) has ordered the lawyers of suspended Cebu Gov. Gwendolyn Garcia to explain why they should not be punished for indirect contempt for improper conduct.

Ordered to answer in 10 days from notice were lawyers Tranquil Salvador III, Victorina Calma, Leandro Abarquez, Jomini Nazareno, Amanda Marie Nograles and Glenn Tuazon.

The lawyers sought the inhibition of Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso, to whom Garcia’s case was assigned for writing of a decision on the merits, for alleged inordinate delay in the resolution of the application for temporary restraining order (TRO)/ status quo ante order, political bias, and for having “demonstrated undue bias, prejudice and partiality when he made sweeping statements during the hearing on the application for TRO/ SQA order.”

In a resolution, the CA denied the plea for Velosos’s inhibition and instead issued a show cause order for the lawyers to explain their improper conduct under the pain of indirect contempt.

Garcia had earlier filed a petition challenging her six-month suspension as governor as a result of an administrative case filed by the former Vice Gov. Gregorio Sanchez Jr., accusing her of alleged usurpation of authority and cutting the budget of his office.

The CA did not issue a TRO and, instead, opted to resolve the petition on its merits. The case is still pending.

In its resolution on the inhibition of Justice Veloso, the CA said that it “is a collegiate court whose members reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation.”

“To single out a member of a division of the appellate court is inappropriate,” it said.

It pointed out that only the Supreme Court (SC) can reverse the ruling of the appellate court or the views expressed by a justice during case proceedings.

“And absent such ruling from the High Tribunal, petitioner’s contention that Justice Veloso erred in his opinions during the January 10, 2013 hearing would be baseless,” the CA said.