THE Supreme Court junked for lack of merit complaints lodged by a dissatisfied litigant against Court of Appeals Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and Florito S. Macalino.

The High Court also gave complainant Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco 10 days to show cause why he should not be cited for indirect contempt “for degrading the judicial office of respondent Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, and for interfering with the due performance of their work for the Judiciary.”

“Judicial officers do not have to suffer the brunt of unsuccessful or dissatisfied litigants’ baseless and false imputations of their violating the Constitution in resolving their cases and of harboring bias and partiality towards the adverse parties.”  

The case stemmed from an administrative complaint from Ongjoco, claiming to be the Chair of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the FH-GYMN Multi-Purpose and Transport Service Cooperative (FH-GYMN), charging the CA’s Sixth Division, composed of Enriquez, Bato, Jr. and Macalino with rendering an arbitrary and baseless decision unfavorable to FH-GYMN.

FH-GYMN filed a graft complaint with the Ombudsman against San Jose del Monte, Bulacan City councilors, who are members of the Committee on Transportation and Communications, for denying its request to authorize FH-GYMN Chair Ongjoco to issue motorized tricycle operators permit (MTOP) to its members.

When the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence, FH-GYMN elevated the case to the appellate court, but the latter’s Sixth Division denied FH-GYMN’s petition for review and later, its motion for reconsideration.

The High Court held that the CA’s Sixth Division’s decision showed that it has complied with the requirements of the Constitution contrary to Ongjoco’s claims.