CHOA v JUDGE CHIONGSON o The complaint arose from the alleged untruthful statements or
AM NO. MTJ-95-1063 falsehoods in the complainant’s Petition for Naturalization. (RTC
FEBRUARY 9, 1996
By: GUZMAN
Topic: DUTIES AS MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR
Petitioners: ALFONSO C. CHOA
Respondents: JUDGE ROBERTO S. CHIONGSON
Ponente: DAVIDE, JR.
RECIT-READY: In this case, Atty. Quiroz is the counsel of the complainant, Alfonso
Choa. In the said complaint, the respondent judge was being charged with grave
misconduct and grave bias and knowingly rendered an unjust judgment in a criminal
case, entitled, “Pp v Alfonso Choa”. In the said criminal case, was for Perjury and
initiated by the wife of the complainant, Leni Ong Choa. In the information filed, it
was stated that the complainant, willfully and unlawfully gave untruthful statements
in his Petition for Naturalization. In his Petition for Naturalization, the address of the
complainant’s wife is No. 46, Malaspina St. Villamonte, Bacolod City, however, the
said accused (complainant) knew that his wife and 2 children were not resided to the
said address. On the other hand, the complainant was residing in a different address,
wherein he has been carrying on an immoral and illicit relationship with another
woman. Then, the case was docketed and was assigned to the respondent Judge.
The respondent judge, found the complainant guilty of the crime of perjury. Then,
complainant moved for reconsideration. However, the respondent, denied the same.
Now, the complainant filed the instant complaint and prayed for the removal of the
respondent judge from his office. He alleged that the he gave an unjust judgement,
when failed to divulge the next-door-relationship between him and the family of Leni
Ong Choa. The respondent judge, refutes the charge, stating that he denies being
the next-door-neighbor of Leni Choa. Now, the Court Admin, through memorandum,
saying that the allegations of the complainant are devoid of any merit, also
recommended that Atty. Quiroz be reprimanded for assisting in the filing of a patently
unmeritorious complaint.
The SC ruled in favor of the Respondent Judge Chiongson, stating that the complaint
must be dismissed for lack of merit. According to the Court, the nature of the
complainant’s grievances relative to the judgment rendered by the respondent
Judge, may only be properly examined or ventilated in an appropriate judicial
proceeding, such as an appeal from judgment. On the other hand, Atty. Quiros was
recommended to be reprimanded and ordered him to appear the Court, explaining
why he should not be disciplined for filing patently unmeritorious complaint. Because,
as a member of the bar, he is bound by his oath; to maintain such action or
proceeding only as appear to him to be just; and lastly, to uphold the CPR.
FACTS
 Atty. Raymundo A. Quiroz, is the counsel of the complainant, Alfonso Choa.
 In the complaint, the respondent judge, is being charged with grave
misconduct, gross bias, and partiality, and having, knowingly rendered an
unjust judgment in Criminal Case No. 50322, entitled, “Pp v Alfonso C. Chua.
 The said criminal case, was for Perjury and initiated by the complainant’s
wife.
of Bacolod)
o In the information filed, it was indicated that the said accused,
knew that his wife, Leni Ong Choa, and their 2 children, were not
resided at the said address at No. 46, Malaspina St., Villamonte
Bacolod City, having left the aforesaid residence in 1984 or about
5 years earlier and were then residing at Hervias Subdivision.
o Contrary to his allegations in his verified Petition for Naturalization,
the accused while residing at 211, 106 St., Greenplain
Subdivision, has been carrying on an immoral and illicit
relationship with one Stella Flores Saludar, a woman not his wife
since 1984 and begotting 2 children.
o Thus, falsehoods and/or immoral and improper conduct are
grounds for disqualification on becoming a citizen of the
Philippines.
 So, the case docketed and was assigned to Branch III, where the respondent
is the presiding Judge.
 After the trial, the respondent Judge rendered judgment and found the
complainant guilty of the crime of perjury.
o He was sentenced the penalty of 6 mos and 1 day of prision
correctional and to pay the costs.
 Complainant moved for reconsideration, alleging that:
o There is no basis for the conviction, since his petition for
naturalization had been withdrawn and therefore had become
functus officion;
o The petition for naturalization is a pleading, hence, its allegations
are privileged;
o His prosecution violates the EPC of the Consti.
 However, the respondent denied the motion for reconsideration.
 Now the complainant filed the instant complaint and prayed for the removal
of the respondent Judge from his office, his allegations are:
o He is guilty of Grave Misconduct, gross bias and partiality, and
knowingly rendering an unjust judgment when intentionally failed
to divulge the next-door-neighbor relationship between him and
the family of Leni Ong Choa and to disqualify himself from sitting
in the criminal case on such ground as part of the grand design
and preconceived intention to unjustly convict the complainant of
the crime charged without due process.
 Respondent judge, refutes the charge, stating that:
o He denies being the next-door-neighbor of Leni Ong Choa, there
being a house belonging to the Sia Family, separating his house
and that of Leni Choa;
o He and the rest of the members of his family are not acquainted
with Leni Choa or any member of her family and had not
exchanged greetings nor is he even a nodding acquaintance of
Leni Choa or any member of her family.
 The respondent judge prays for the dismissal of the complaint for being
patently without merit.
  In the memorandum, duly approved by the Court Administrator, it was stated
that the allegations of the complainant are devoid of any merit.
o Regarding the next-door-neigbor, the Court Admin, said that it was
a petty under the circumstances, and does not necessarily mean
that he violated the Rules of Court for Disqualification of Judges.

ISSUE
 WON the respondent judge, is guilty of grave misconduct, gross bias, and
partiality, and having, knowingly rendered an unjust judgment in Criminal
Case No. 50322.

HELD/RATIO
 The Court ruled in favor of the Respondent Judge, the complaint is dismissed
for lack of merit. Also, Atty. Quiroz was ordered to show cause and explain
why he should not be disciplined for assisting in the filing of a patently
unmeritorious complaint.
 The Court said that the nature and character of the complainant’s grievances
relative to the respondent’s judgment finding the petitioner guilty of perjury
may only be properly ventilated in an appropriate judicial proceeding, such as
an appeal from the judgment.
 This kind of recourse, whether made in addition to a regular appeal from the
judgment, is clearly without any basis and cannot be tolerated for it robs
Judges of precious time which they could otherwise devote to the cases in
their courts or to the unclogging of their dockets.
 Atty. Quiros, as the counsel for the complaint, must have been aware of the
utter lack of merit of the charges against the respondent.
o As a Member of the Phil. Bar, he is bound:
 By his oath, not wittingly or willingly, promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit nor give aid nor
consent to the same.
 By Sec. 20©, Rule 138 of the RoC, to counsel or maintain
such action or proceedings only as appear to him to be
just.
 Lastly, to uphold the Code of Professional Responsibility.
o It was incumbent upon him to give a candid and honest opinion on
the merits and probable results of the complaint’s case, with the
end in view of respect for the law and legal processes. He should,
therefore, be required to show cause why no disciplinary action
should be taken against him for his apparent failure to observe the
foregoing duties and responsibilities.