[G.R. No. 170605. March
20, 2006]
ANTONIO R. BAUTISTA v.
MARIA DELIA CARMELA C. CIOCON
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated MAR. 20, 2006
G.R. No. 170605 (Antonio R.
Bautista v. Maria Delia Carmela C. Ciocon) and
A.M. No. 05-10-623-RTC (Re:
Change of Venue of Crim. Case No. 05-28194 (People v.
Bautista) From RTC-Br. 52, Bacolod City to Makati or Quezon City)
Petitioner Atty. Antonio Bautista (Bautista) filed a petition
with the Office of the Court Administrator seeking the transfer of venue of the
criminal case referred to in the caption from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Bacolod City
to Makati
or Quezon City.
Said case, a libel suit initiated by
Atty. Ma. Delia Ciocon (Ciocon)
against Bautista, is currently pending before the RTC of Bacolod
City, Branch 52.
Bautista alleges that, with most of the material witnesses being
residents of Metro Manila, justice will be best served if these witnesses are
able to freely testify with the least inconvenience. He likewise claims that Ciocon
belongs to a prominent and influential Bacolod City
family, whose influence is evinced by the fact that just one day after the
filing of the libel complaint, the Visayan Daily Star newspaper featured the
complaint prominently in its issue and that various local newspaper columnists
have also attacked him. Bautista adverts
to the alleged hostile environment against him in Bacolod City,
thus casting doubt as to his obtaining a fair and impartial trial should the
case be heard in Bacolod
City. Moreover, Bautista refers to his advanced age
and deteriorating health as impediments to his frequent travel to Bacolod City
for the trial of the case, which will be necessary as he is representing
himself in the trial.
In his Memorandum dated January
18, 2006, Court Administrator Presbiterio
Velasco, Jr. recommends the denial of the petition. He notes that it will be inconvenient for the
witnesses of the complaining party, most of whom are based in Bacolod City,
if they are required to travel to Metro Manila for trial. He likewise asserts that the concerns about
Bautista's health impeding his repeated travel from Metro Manila to Bacolod City
can be adequately addressed if Bautista obtains legal representation instead of
defending the case himself.
The considerations cited by the Court Administrator are
persuasive. However, he is conspicuously
silent on Bautista's claim regarding the prominence of the complainant's family
in Bacolod City
and the resulting hostile environment against Bautista in that city. In her Comment, Ciocon
virtually concedes her family's prominence in Bacolod City,
although she stresses that they are not wont to commit undue influence in the
administration of justice, adding in that regard that the trial court judge had
in fact thrice ruled against her contentions in the case.
It also bears noting that Ciocon's
Complaint-Affidavit specifically alleged that Bautista had deliberately
circulated the "malicious and defamatory letter" subject of the libel
suit "to prominent persons in Bacolod City
including the religious and the media", with a presumptive intent to
defame Ciocon's name within that locality wherein her
family has attained prominence.
The Court has constitutional authority to change venue in order
to avoid a miscarriage of justice under Section 5(4), Article VIII of the
Constitution. In applying the standard
"miscarriage of justice", the Court may evaluate which court would be
"in a better position to serve the interests of justice," taking into
account (a) the nature of the controversy, (b) the comparative accessibility of
the court to the parties and (c) other similar factors.
The nature of the controversy and the
identity of the parties, insofar as they relate to Bacolod City
and its denizens, do leave room for doubt as to whether a Bacolod City
court may be positioned to render an impartial verdict free from influences or
pressures that would undoubtedly linger, wittingly or unwittingly, within that
venue. Considering that these factors
would be eliminated if the venue of the trial is transferred from Bacolod City,
there is sufficient justification for the Court to grant the petition, if only
to leave no doubt as to its objective to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
However, there is no basis to transfer the venue to Metro Manila.
In her Comment, Ciocon
points out that Bautista, a prominent legal practitioner in his own right, has
in the course of his five (5) decades in practice acquired familiarity, if not
friendship, with most of the judges and legal practitioners in Metro Manila. The veracity of that claim, of equal import to
the allegations by Bautista of a hostile environment in Bacolod City,
could not be dismissed lightly, especially considering the paramount concern of
the Court in identifying which court "would be in a better position to
serve the interests of justice." Moreover,
inasmuch as Bautista and his witnesses may be inconvenienced with the travel to
Bacolod City,
the same could be said as to Ciocon and her witnesses
who may be compelled to travel to Metro Manila.
Even in granting this petition, the Court is hardly of the inclination
to foster convenience for one side to the prejudice of the other.
After due consideration, the Court deems that the RTC of Cebu City will be in the best position "to serve the
interests of justice." Cebu City
is sufficiently removed from proximity to Bacolod City
or Metro Manila to allow for a trial unbeclouded by
fears of pressure or partiality from either side. Considering that this Court agrees with the
Office of the Court Administrator that inconvenience in travel should not be a
factor, Cebu City a venue that would equally burden
either side in that respect. Finally, if
travel to Cebu
City would unduly prejudice the
health of Bautista as it allegedly would if the trial were held in Bacolod City,
the Court agrees with the observation of the Court Administrator that perhaps
his best recourse is to obtain legal representation from that locality.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to PARTIALLY GRANT the Petition. The Court hereby orders the transfer of venue
of Criminal Case No. 05-28-104 from the RTC of Bacolod
City, Branch 52, to the RTC of Cebu City. For this purpose, the Branch Clerk of Court of
the RTC of Bacolod City, Branch 52, is hereby
DIRECTED to forthwith transmit the records of the case to the Executive Judge
of the RTC of Cebu City, who is hereby ORDERED to
raffle said case to a branch of the said court therein, in accordance with
pertinent rules and with this Resolution.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court