Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Omico Mining and Industrial Corporation and Frederick Webber vs.

Judge Amador
Vallejos, Alfredo Catolico, and Leonardo Alcid
G.R. No. L-38974 March 25, 1975
Facts:
 Alfred Catolico filed a complaint against Omico Mining and Frederick Webber (President
and Chairman of the Board of Directors) alleging 2 causes of action. 1. Return of 10
certificates of stock of the corporation borrowed from him 2. Payment of his services as
legal counsel for the corporation.

o 1st cause: Catolico alleges that he is a stockholder of Omico Mining and holds 30
certificates of stock duly paid. He said that Omico Mining pleaded with him that
10 certificates of stock remain with them under their responsibility, jointly and
severally for the purpose of using the said certificates as part of collateral for a loan.
They promised to return the certificates upon approval or disapproval of loan
application. When it was evident that the loan will be disapproved, Omico again
pleaded the retention of the certificates because they were negotiating for the
purchase of Bunning and Company of Tuguegarao and they needed the certificates
for collateral. When the transactions failed, he demanded several times that
defendant return to him the 10 certificates.

o 2nd cause: defendants entered into a contract of personal and professional services
with him under the terms of which he was to head the corporation’s legal
department with the condition that he should render such services only after his
office hours “even into the dead wee hours of the night and wherever such services
would not run in conflict with his duties as a Judge”. Omico undertook to pay him
a yearly salary of 35k but if there is a case tried in court and the case won or the
company saved money, Catolico will be given a 10% commission of the amount
involved in litigation. He did his job. Their contract/ relations were severed. Omico
refused to pay him.

 Contention of Omico:
o 1st cause: certificates are in the name of Vicente Resonda
o 2nd cause: their stipulation about his professional services is illegal, void, and
unenforceable as Catolico is a judge who is prohibited from engaging in private
practice.
 RTC: rendered judgement in favor of Catolico (because Omico’s side was not able to
appear in court hence, evidence was presented ex parte)
 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction
to set aside the order and judgement of Judge respondent

Issue: W/N the contract between respondent and defendant is void for being contrary to law and
public policy
Decision: Petition GRANTED
Held: YES. The contract is void for being contrary to law and public policy because the contract
was entered into while Catolico was still a judge of CFI. Sec. 35 Rule 138 of the revised rules of
court prohibits the private practice of judges as their rights, duties, privileges, and functions of
office are so inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretions
and privileges of a judge. The inhibitory rule makes it obligatory upon the judicial officers
concerned to give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending
special favors to their own private interests and assure the public of their impartiality in the
performance of their functions. A contract whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy is considered inexistent and void from the
beginning.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen