By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

SUPERIOR Court Judge David A. Wiseman has voluntarily recused himself from any further proceedings in the Angel Malite Estate, saying he cannot in good conscience continue to preside over such proceedings because Judge Juan T. Lizama’s letter has publicly and erroneously proclaimed his prejudgment on an issue likely to come before the court.
But attorney Antonio M. Atalig, counsel for estate administrator Jesus Tudela, said Wiseman’s decision “raises questions as to the credibility of (the judge’s earlier) decision to disqualify Judge Lizama from the proceedings.”
Atalig said they are now “looking into this issue and our legal options.”
He added, “To protect the integrity of our judicial system, we, as officers of the court, must ensure fairness in the process.”
Wiseman, Atalig said, “should not have entertained the disqualification hearing on Judge Lizama in the first place.”
Wiseman in a voluntary recusal order on Wednesday, said Lizama’s July 17, 2006 letter to Presiding Judge Robert C. Naraja and its subsequent publication in his most recent letter, “not only seriously misrepresents what they discussed but also unfortunately unduly besmirches his reputation for impartiality to the extent that his impartiality with respect to civil action no. 97-0369 may be questioned.”
Wiseman’s order stated that the Malite case was assigned to him on March 28 by the presiding judge after he issued his decision on March 20 which disqualified Lizama from handling the case.
On March 28,, Lizama issued a letter to the presiding judge regarding the concerns and problems he had with Wiseman’s ruling and order mandating his recusal.
Wiseman said Lizama’s letter although a private communication directed to the presiding judge, was copied to the six lawyers involved in the Malite case and to Wiseman.
Wiseman said Lizama made reference to a confidential discussion he and Lizama had in chambers.
Wiseman said following that discussion, Lizama took the unprecedented step for a judge of placing his version of “our private in-chambers discussion” in a letter to the Presiding Judge on July 17, 2006.
Wiseman said Lizama has now released this letter as an attachment to his March 28 letter which was copied to the attorneys in this case.
Wiseman in his order said that “it is because of my deep concern that the reputation and integrity of the Superior Court will again come under question because of Judge Lizama’s unfortunate action, by disseminating in-chamber discussions and a letter to the presiding judge to persons outside the court, that I must recuse myself in order to ensure the efficient and just adjudication of this case in order to protect the interests of the real parties in interest—the rightful heirs of the Malite estate.”
Lizama’s letter to the presiding judge on July 17, 2006, according to Wiseman, incorrectly stated that “the motion to recuse me is partially based on my decision to allow the counsel for the administrator of the estate to receive attorney fees pursuant to a contract approved by the administrator. Prior to the Malite recusal motion, Judge Wiseman shared with me his opinion that this counsel did not deserve the contingency fee.”
Wiseman said Lizama’s letter was “inaccurate because his discussion with him was misconstrued and is also perhaps at least disingenuous because the motion to recuse Lizama was not based on his decision to award attorney fees to the attorneys of the estate administrator but was more accurately based on Lizama’s failure and then outright refusal to provide notice and opportunity for the Malite heirs to be heard with regard to the award of such attorney fees.”
In other words, Wiseman said, “and as the Supreme Court clearly stated in this matter, that Judge Lizama by failing to provide the Malite heirs reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the award of attorney fees in the Land Compensation case denied the Malite heirs due process.”
The Supreme Court, he added, “also bluntly noted that the contingency fee was awarded in a surreptitious manner.”
Wiseman said Lizama’s “inaccurate representation of the event” created the appearance that Wiseman had already formed an opinion on the matter of whether counsel for the estate administrator deserved attorney fees.
“Because this is a matter which has been remanded back to the Superior Court for further proceedings, and because I have been assigned to preside over the Malite case, it is inevitable that I would be called to rule on the issue whether to grant an award of attorney fees to counsel for the estate administrator,” the judge said in his order.
Atalig, in an interview, also criticized Steve Nutting, the counsel of the Malite heirs questioning the attorney’s fees received by Atalig and co-counsel Reynaldo Yana.
Nutting, according to Atalig, is “judge shopping.”
“In any litigation, one party loses, one party wins,” Atalig said. “When Judge Lizama decided against me in other cases, I never considered him biased. He simply decided the case as presented to him.”
Nutting, Atalig said, also “misinterpreted” the CNMI Supreme Court decision.
“There was no order for disgorgement — the high court ruling simply stated that the issue of fees should be heard in probate proceedings. The high court actually ruled against (Nutting),” Atalig said.
“All this legal maneuvering on his part, this judge shopping, is hurting the estate — it is prolonging this matter that should have been resolved a long time ago.”
Atalig said he has been working with the estate since 1992.
“The government wanted to award only $3,000 but through our work this amount was raised to $3.5 million. Where was Nutting then? His claim that he negotiated something for the estate remains a mystery for us. The settlement money was already in the works long before he came into the picture,” Atalig said.