Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Manila
EN BANC
|
RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. JUSTICES
ANTONIO T. CARPIO AND MARIA
LOURDES P.A. SERENO DATED SEPTEMBER 16, 2011 FILED BY ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEA
|
|
A.M.
No. 12-6-11-SC Present: CARPIO,
VELASCO,
JR., LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION,
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN, DEL
CASTILLO, ABAD,
VILLARAMA,
JR., PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
and SERENO, REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
JJ. Promulgated: June 13, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
PER CURIAM:
In
1996 complainant Magdaleno M. Pea filed an action against Urban Bank and certain
members of its Board of Directors before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of P28.5
million as compensation, attorneys fees, reimbursement of expenses, and
exemplary damages plus costs of suit.
The bank appealed the decision to the
Court of Appeals (CA) but Pea succeeded in getting the RTC to allow execution
of the decision in his favor pending appeal.
The defendants challenged the advance execution before the CA with the
result that the latter rendered judgment, stopping and annulling the same. On motion, however, the CA amended its
decision and allowed execution pending appeal because the bank in the meantime
ran into financial difficulties.
Nevertheless, the CA stayed the
execution insofar as three defendant directors were concerned after they posted
a P40 million bond in Peas favor.
Because the stay did not cover Urban Bank and the rest of its directors,
the sheriff levied on and sold some of their properties, including the banks
club shares in Makati Sports Club, Inc. (MSCI).
In any event, with the denial of
their motion for reconsideration, the defendants affected by the execution
pending appeal filed separate petitions for review of the CAs amended decision
before this Court in G.R. 145817, 145818,[1]
and 145822, which were eventually consolidated and assigned to the Courts
Member-in-Charge to whom the lower number was raffled, namely, to Justice
Antonio T. Carpio.
Following the lead of the three
defendant directors, Urban Bank filed with this Court a motion to approve a P40
million supersedeas bond for the stay of the execution of the RTC decision
pending adjudication of its appeal in the main case. The Court granted the motion by its
resolution of November 19, 2001 that reads:
Considering
the motion of petitioner Urban Bank, Inc. in G.R. No. 145817 to approve the
attached supersedeas bond issued by the Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. in the
amount of P40,000,000.00, posted by petitioner bank to secure the claims
of respondent against petitioner and to stay the execution pending appeal of
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Branch 62, in Civil Case
No. 754, entitled Atty. Magdaleno M. Pea vs. Urban Bank, Inc., et al., as
well as the opposition thereto of respondent Magdaleno M. Pea, the Court
resolves to [1] GRANT the motion; [2] APPROVE the supersedeas bond; and [3]
ORDER the stay of execution pending appeal of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Branch 62,
in Civil Case No. 754 as against petitioner.
With the issuance of the above
resolution, Export and Industry Bank (EIB), Urban Banks successor in interest,
requested MSCIs corporate secretary not to cancel or transfer Urban Banks
club shares which were previously sold at public auction. Because of ensuing
disputes between EIB and those who won the bids, on February 4, 2002 MSCI
sought clarification from the Court on whether its November 19, 2001 resolution
prohibited MSCI from transferring Urban Banks shares to the winning bidders.
Urban Bank itself filed an identical motion for clarification dated August 6,
2002.
On November 13, 2002 the Court,
acting on the two motions, stated that its approval of the supersedeas bond
suspended or stayed the running of the one-year period for the Bank to redeem
the properties sold at public auction and prohibited the transfer of Union
Banks MSCI club shares to the winning bidders.
On December 10, 2002 Pea filed an
urgent omnibus motion to expunge the banks motion for clarification and recall
the Courts November 13, 2002 resolution on the ground that he was neither
furnished a copy of that motion nor given an opportunity to be heard on
it.
On January 30, 2003 Pea also filed an
urgent motion to Inhibit and to resolve his urgent omnibus motion, enclosing as
Annexes B and C purported photocopies of pages 61 and 62 of the Courts
November 13, 2002 supplemental agenda (First Division), internal documents that
are regarded as highly confidential.
Both annexes had marginal handwritten notes on the right side which
supposedly recorded the Courts action on the items listed on the agenda. Annex B had on its left margin the
handwritten note that says: 10 AC. AC
are the initials of Justice Antonio T. Carpio to whom the corresponding items
were assigned as Member-in-Charge.
Pea alleged that, based on the
handwritten notes on the right hand margin of the November 13, 2002
supplemental agenda, the Court merely took note of the filing of the motion for
clarification, listed as Item 175 (f), and did not act further on it. Consequently, the resolution bearing that
date, which granted the motion, had been falsified.
Bothered by Peas statements
involving strictly confidential documents, the First Division of the Court
summoned him to appear before it on March 3, 2003. The purpose of the hearing
was to find out where he got his Annexes and if they were authentic. The
members of the Division told him outright that, while his Annex B was a copy of
the printed agenda, the handwritten notations on the same did not belong to any
of the Justices of the First Division.
On April 28, 2003 the Court directed
the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to conduct a formal investigation of
Atty. Pea for submitting a falsified document, Annex B, to the Court and to
submit its findings and recommendations. On the basis of the OBCs initial
Report of August 1, 2003 and upon resolution of the Court dated December 10,
2003, a formal charge of falsification was filed against Pea in A.C. 6332,
entitled Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated April 28, 2003.
On September 19, 2011 Pea filed the
present complaint against Justices Carpio and Sereno. Pea averred that Justice Carpio, as
Member-in-Charge of the consolidated cases, caused the issuance of the
falsified November 13, 2002 resolution which suspended and stayed the transfer
of MSCIs club shares from Urban Bank to those who won them in the bidding.
Pea repeated his claim that the Court merely took note of Urban Banks motion
for clarification and did not grant it.
Pea also pointed out that opposing counsel, Atty. Manuel Singson, got
an advance copy of the November 13 resolution, and faxed it to him on November
19, 2002, days before the Court released it for mailing.
With respect to Justice Sereno, Pea
alleged that, as Member-in-Charge to whom the main cases were re-raffled, she
unjustifiably refused to inhibit herself from the case notwithstanding that
Justice Carpios former law office, the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo Angangco Law
Office, had a significant role in her appointment to the Supreme Court. Pea said that, because of this, Justice
Sereno will attempt to protect Justice Carpio.
Pending consideration of Peas
present complaint, on October 19, 2011 the Second Division rendered a decision
in the consolidated cases (G.R. 145817, 145822, and 162562) respecting the
merits of Peas claim for compensation, among others, against Urban Bank and
the execution pending appeal of the RTCs decision. Apart from disposing of the principal actions
on their merits, in the per curiam Decision
of the Court en banc promulgated on April 17, 2012 in A.C. No.
6332, the Court found Pea guilty for violating Canons 8, 10 and 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility and for failing to give due respect to the
Courts and his fellow lawyers, and meted out to him the penalty of
disbarment.
Pea claimed that Justice Carpio
caused the issuance of the Courts November 13, 2002 resolution that granted
Union Banks motion for clarification when, based on the copy of the
supplemental agenda he submitted (his Annex B), the Court merely noted the
motion. But this charge has no
basis. The Court did not merely note the
motion. The item in the agenda included
several matters. The Courts action on
the first, as the Division chairman noted on his copy of the agenda, was SEE
RES which in the Courts action code meant the approval during its session of
the draft resolution that the Member-in-Charge submitted for consideration. As it happened, the draft resolution granted
the motion for clarification.
The Courts action on the other
matters in the item, including the motion for clarification, was uniformly
N. Under the code in use, this meant
that the Court was taking note of such other matters. The two actions, approving the submitted
draft of a resolution and noting the other matters are compatible. The Court noted the motion for clarification
and granted it as stated in the draft resolution.
Pea also sought to ascribe to
Justice Carpio the alleged fact that Atty. Singson, counsel for Urban Bank, got
an advance copy of the November 13, 2002 resolution and faxed it to him on
November 19, days before the Court released it for mailing. But, Pea has been unable to show that this
advance copy came from Justice Carpio.
Besides, the record shows that the First Division released the
resolution for dissemination on November 14, days before Atty. Singson faxed a
copy to Pea. Moreover, it was the
Division Clerk of Court, not Justice Carpio, who had the duty to release
decisions and resolutions for dissemination.[2]
In the case at bar, complainant also
seeks disciplinary action against Justice Carpio for allegedly taking
cognizance of Urban Banks Motion for Clarification of which respondent was
allegedly not furnished a copy of, and for issuing the November 13, 2002
clarificatory resolution without first requiring complainant to comment on
Urban Banks Motion. Moreover, the November 13, 2002 resolution allegedly caused
irreparable damage to complainant and other auction buyers and destroyed the
credibility and sanctity of valid auction sales.
Judicial remedies were available to
complainant in the main cases. In fact, the allegations in the present
complaint are a mere rehash of the allegations in complainants Urgent Omnibus
Motion (To Expunge Motion for Clarification and Recall of the 13 November 2002
Resolution) dated December 9, 2002 and Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve
Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated January 30, 2003 filed in the main
cases, which, in fact, have already been decided on October 19, 2011.
Pea charges Justice Sereno of
unfairly refusing to inhibit herself from taking part in the deliberation in the
main cases notwithstanding that Justice Carpios former law office supposedly
worked for her appointment in the Supreme Court. But the Court had already found in its April
17, 2012 per curiam decision in A.C. No. 6332 that this charge has no
extrinsic factual evidence to support it.
The charge is purely conjectural.
WHEREFORE,
Magdaleno M. Peas complaint against Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria
Lourdes P.A. Sereno is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
No Part, being subject of
complaint
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ON OFFICIAL LEAVE
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate
Justice
|
MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate
Justice
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No part; subject of the complaint. Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
[1] This petition filed by Teodoro Borlongan of Urban Bank was denied with finality in the resolution dated April 16, 2001 of the First Division. Thereafter, G.R. No. 145817 was consolidated with G.R. No. 145822 on November 12, 2001 and with G. R. No. 162562, on January 10, 2005.
[2] Resolution dated November 28, 2011
in G.R. Nos. 145817, 145822 and 162562, citing the Internal Rules of the
Supreme Court, Rule 13, Section 10.