Penchant for disregarding law runs in Aquino family

I was disturbed by President Aquino’s use of unpresidential language when he vented his anger at Chief Justice Renato Corona in support of the Department of Justice’s refusal to obey the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court on Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s watch-list order against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The President has just set a dangerous precedent that encourages Filipinos not to obey the Supreme Court and, for that matter, all courts of justice. This could lead to anarchy which, as a peace-loving Filipino, I hate to see happen.

But I think P-Noy’s penchant not to obey court orders runs in the family. Take the case of the “final” writ/alias writ of execution issued by the Quezon City RTC against Bank of Commerce in favor of RPN-9, IBC-13 and BBC-2 in Civil Case No. Q-89-3580. It is public knowledge that the bank is owned by P-Noy’s cousin Antonio Cojuangco (who contributed P100 million to P-Noy’s campaign) and uncle Eduardo Cojuangco (who contributed an undisclosed sum).

On Dec. 8, 2009, the Court of Appeals dismissed Bank of Commerce’s and Metrobank’s consolidated petitions, and upheld the RTC’s order and writ of execution against them. Only Metrobank filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Thus, as far as the Cojuangco bank is concerned, the decision became final on Dec. 27, 2009.

The RTC issued an alias writ of execution and order of release in March and August 2010. However, Bank of Commerce refused to obey the orders, falsely claiming that the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC’s order and writ of execution. Worse, the bank threatened Bank of the Philippine Islands and Banco de Oro of legal action if they released the garnished bank deposits.

Unable to secure the release of the deposits, the sheriff levied Bank of Commerce properties, forcing the bank to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning the very same writ of execution already affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals dismissed outright the petition and denied Bank of Commerce’s motion for reconsideration. The bank filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court questioning the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of its petition. It secured in April 2011 a TRO although it did not attach in its petition any pleading filed by RPN-9 with the Court of Appeals and raised questions of facts (which is prohibited as only questions of law are allowed). The case is now pending with the Supreme Court.

As stated earlier, only Metrobank brought the case to the Supreme Court. But after P-Noy won on May 11, 2010, Bank of Commerce became bold, threatening in writing the RTC judge and sheriff for implementing the alias writ of execution, and also the garnishee banks if they released the garnished deposits. BPI and BDO have not complied with the RTC’s alias writ of execution and order of release, and obeyed the Bank of Commerce’s order not to release the garnished deposits.

—F. CARMELO J. AQUINO,

111 Esteban Mayo St.,

Lipa City