Misleading advertisement against Chief Justice Demapan

This responds to the distortions and misleading impressions masquerading as a full-page political advertisement against the retention of Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan. Whether to support or oppose the retention of Chief Justice Demapan is a choice the Commonwealth will make on Nov. 5, 2005. However, the personal vendetta of a losing litigant should not serve as a reason for opposing the retention of any member of the judiciary.

The spurious allegations in the advertisement result from the Supreme Court decision in Manglona v. Tenorio, 2004 MP 17. I am familiar with the case and the material omissions and fallacies contained in the advertisement since I am the person who not only won the appeal but also the first trial of the case. The advertisement is deceptively misleading for these reasons:

1. The advertisement fails to inform that Supreme Court cases are decided by a panel of three judges. All three judges ruled in my favor on the appeal. This obviously means that the other two justices, like Chief Justice Demapan, concluded that Manglona was not entitled to any recovery. The advertisement does not mention or disclose this circumstance.

2. A motion to disqualify a justice on the basis of bias is to be made before the three-judge panel rules on the case. For instance, Timothy H. Bellas was initially appointed to serve as a Justice Pro Tem in this case. However, prior to the beginning of the oral arguments, my lawyer challenged Pro Tem Justice Bellas serving on the panel. Judge Anita Sukola from Guam was then appointed to serve on the panel as a Justice Pro Tem. Manglona, on the other hand, did not move to disqualify Justice Demapan until after the court ruled 3-0 in my favor. If Manglona believed Justice Demapan could not or would not be fair, then she had the time and opportunity to challenge Justice Demapan serving on the three-judge panel before the court heard the case.

3. Most importantly, the advertisement fails to mention the merits of the appeal or show that Manglona even deserved to win the lawsuit. The reason for this is that the facts and law were on my side and did not support her claim against me. Manglona sued me claiming the money she paid me to buy the land was a loan. She apparently made this claim as she changed her mind about going through with the land transaction. After trial in the Superior Court, the trial court ruled that the money was not a loan but refused to enter judgment in my favor and end the case. Instead, the judge admonished Manglona’s lawyer because he did a bad job representing Manglona. He then ordered a new trial so that Manglona and her lawyer may present a better case. After the new trial with a new lawyer, Judge Lizama ruled that Manglona was entitled to her money back but only because it would be unjust for me to keep the money Manglona paid for my land pursuant to an agreement. I appealed to the Supreme Court because I won the first trial and the judge wrongly gave Manglona a second chance to try her case on a new claim she never made. The court apparently did this to assist Manglona and her lawyer in her case against me. The three-judge panel of the Supreme Court determined that when the Superior Court determined that the money was not a loan as Manglona claimed, the case was over. In effect, the Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the fundamental principle that a judge cannot favor or assist one party to a case, especially when the party is represented by a lawyer.

I prevailed in Manglona v. Tenorio because the facts and law were on my side. The advertisement suggests that Manglona cannot accept this reality. Any person who examines the case or review the court file on the 12-year history of the litigation will conclude that the advertisement is merely a baseless attack on Chief Justice Demapan’s character by a disappointed litigant.

Margarita R. Tenorio
Saipan