The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered a regional trial court judge in Davao City to pay a fine of P700,000 after finding him guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct when he issued orders directing the execution and garnishment of the amount of $17 million against the subsidiaries and affiliates of Shell Oil Company, including Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (PSPC).
In an 18-page en banc decision written by Associate Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC upheld with modification the report and recommendation issued by the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) against Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 14 Presiding Judge George Omelio.
In its February 16, 2022 report submitted to the en banc, the JIB recommended to hold Omelio liable for gross ignorance of the law and be fined in the amount of P40,000.
But the SC modified the JIB’s recommendation when it declared that Omelio is actually guilty of two counts of gross ignorance of the law, one count of grave abuse of authority and one count of gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Because of this, the SC declared that the respondent judge should pay a fine of P700,000 within a period of not exceeding three months from the date of promulgation of the decision.
If unpaid, such amount will be deducted from Omelio’s accrued leave of credits.
“Our conception of good judges has been, and is, of men [and women] who have a mastery of the principles of law, who discharge their duties in accordance with law. Judges are the visible representations of law and justice, from whom the people draw the will and inclination to obey the law. They are expected to be circumspect in the performance of their tasks, for it is their duty to administer justice in a way that inspires confidence in the integrity of the justice system,” the SC stressed.
“The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary, as in the case at bar,” it said.
The case stemmed from the civil case entitled Abenon v. Shell Oil Company or the Abenon case, wherein Judge Omelio, ordered the garnishment of the amount of $17 million against Shell, including PSPC.
The Abenon case started on August 31, 1993 when thousands of banana plantation workers from over 14 countries instituted class suits for damages in the United States against Shell, Dow Chemical Company; Occidental Chemical Corporation; Standard Fruit Company; Standard Fruit and Steamship Co.; Dole Food Company, Inc.; (Dole Fresh Fruit Company; Chiquita Brands, Inc.; Chiquita Brands International, Inc.; Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A.; and Del Monte Tropical Fruit Co.
The banana plantation workers claimed to have been exposed to dibromochloropropane (DBCP) in the 1970s up to the 1990s while working in plantations that utilized it.
As a result, the workers suffered serious and permanent injuries to their reproductive systems.
DBCP is a pesticide used against roundworms and threadworms that thrive on and damage tropical fruits such as bananas and pineapples.
Early studies have shown that prolonged exposure to DBCP causes sterility.
US courts dismissed the cases on the ground of “forum of non conveniens”, which means that a court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction where another court, or forum may conveniently hear a case.
On May 3, 1996, 1,843 Filipino claimants filed a complaint for damages against the same foreign corporations before the trial court.
Before pre-trial, Chiquita Brands, Inc., Chiquita Brands International, Inc. (collectively, Chiquita), Dow Chemical Company (Dow), Occidental Chemical Corporation (Occidental), Shell Oil Company (Shell), Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., and Del Monte Tropical Fruit Co. (collectively, Del Monte) entered into a worldwide settlement in the United States with all the banana plantation workers under a compromise settlement.
The compromise agreement provided, among others, that the settlement amount should be deposited in an escrow account, which should be administered by a mediator.
The compromise agreement referred to in Chiquita was approved by the RTC of Panabo City in a December 20, 2002 Omnibus Order.
On December 26, 2002, the complainants in the Abenon Case moved for execution of the compromise judgment against Shell and the other defendants who were signatories thereto.
On April 15, 2003, the RTC of Panabo City granted the motion due to the signatories’ failure to present proof of compliance with the terms of the compromise agreement.
Due to security issues, the venue of the case was transferred from Panabo City to Davao City upon the approval of the SC and subsequently raffled to the sale of Judge Omelio.
Judge Omelio later on ruled that PSPC is an affiliate of Shell, thus, solidarily liable with the latter to pay the settlement amount of US$17 million.
For its part, PSPC maintained that it was deprived of its right to due process when Judge Omelio included it in the execution of the compromise agreement.
It argued that it was not a signatory to such agreement and that it was not an affiliate of Shell, thus, cannot be made solidarily liable for liabilities of the latter.
This led the PSPC to file for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction before the CA.
In response, Judge Omelio issued an order declaring that the CA injunction has no force and effect since it was signed by only two members of the CA division
On October 16, 2009, the CA granted PSPC’s application for an injunction. The respondent judge also issued an arrest warrant against the officials of Banco De Oro (BDO) due to indirect contempt of court for their refusal in releasing PSPC’s garnished funds.
This prompted the filing of a complaint against Judge Omelio before the Court.
In ruling against Judge Omelio, the SC said the CA validly issued the writ of injunction.
It also held that the judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law for citing BDO officials in direct contempt and grave abuse of authority for issuing a warrant of arrest against them.
The Court also found the respondent liable for gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code due to his manifest acts of partiality in favor of the complainants in the Abenon case.
It noted that his wife, Ma. Florida Omelio, was one of the claimants in another case for alleged DBCP-related injuries.
“Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The other elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not only render just, correct [,] and impartial decisions, but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality[,] and integrity,” the SC ruled.
