The SEC decision adverted to in the publications had been appealed to the

The sec decision adverted to in the publications had

This preview shows page 6 - 8 out of 16 pages.

The SEC decision adverted to in the publications had been appealed to the Commission en banc . A copy of the notice of appeal was sent by mail to the counsel of record on June 9, 1995. (Exhibit "V", Annex "P"). While the SEC case was pending appeal, respondent Chua 4led a case against SK Realty, complainant herein and others with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Case No. 95-9051 for "Reconveyance of Property and Cancellation of Titles and/or Recovery of Ownership and Possession of Real Estate with Damages and Accounting." (Annex "Q") In defense, respondent Chua submitted evidence to show that a complaint for libel 4led by Ban Hua Flores against respondent, arising from the publication/advertisement of the decision in SEC No. 3328, was dismissed by the prosecutor's of4ce of Bacolod (Annex "1", Respondent's Manifestation and Submission of Evidence dated February 15, 1997.). He further alleged that while complainant 4led an administrative complaint against the prosecutors, the said complaint was likewise dismissed for the acts complained of amounted merely to errors of judgment correctable by appeal or a petition for review and not by an administrative proceedings (Annex "3", Ibid .). Respondent maintains that the complaint on the publication is, therefore, baseless. GROUND IV. On the charge that respondent was guilty of bribery, corruption and blackmail of the judiciary, as well as harassment of the prosecution arm through the 4ling of administrative and criminal cases against them, complainant presented evidence that respondent testi4ed in Administrative Matter No. RTJ-92- 863 and Administrative Matter No. RTJ No. 92-880, involving Judge Renato Abastillas and Judge Bethel Moscardon, respectively, whereat respondent Chua allegedly admitted having bribed and/or conspired to bribed then RTC Judge Abastillas in order to obtain a favorable ruling for his clients in Crim. Case Nos. 10009 and 10010. Failing to get a favorable action, respondent Chua "squealed/fabricated Administrative Matter No. RTJ-92-863 against ex-Judge Abastillas". Complainant further charges respondent of having conspired to bribe Judge Moscardon, which illegal act he admitted in A.M. RTJ-92-880. Complainant also CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Image of page 6
makes the sweeping accusation that respondent Chua has the propensity to either bribe or sue the judges and prosecutors. He is charged of having harassed Provincial Prosecutor Bartolome Facuñal. Respondent denies the accusation but admits that he has already been proceeded against and, in fact, sternly warned for his misconduct in giving Judge Abastillas P20,000.00 for a case he was handling and for which acts he has already expressed rancor (A.M. No. RTJ-92-863). He emphasizes that the charges he acted irresponsibly by indiscriminately suing or harassing judges and others, while serious, are false and untrue. His actions, in fact, resulted in the dismissal of judges.
Image of page 7
Image of page 8

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture