Case Digest (A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J)
Facts:
Ethelwoldo E. Fernandez, Antonio A. Henson and Angel S. Ong v. Court of Appeals Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr., Isaias P. Dicdican and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J, December 9, 2013, Supreme Court En Banc, Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Complainants were members (at various times) of the Board of Directors of Nationwide Development Corporation (NADECOR). Following the August 15, 2011 annual stockholders meeting, litigation ensued in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig, Branch 159 (SEC Case No. 11-164), where the RTC, by Order dated December 21, 2011, declared the August 15, 2011 meeting null and void and directed NADECOR to hold a new meeting. The RTC order also directed issuance of a new notice and set other remedial directions.
Several certiorari petitions were filed in the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC order: CA-G.R. SP Nos. 122782, 122784, 122853 and 122854. The CA 11th Division granted a TRO in CA-G.R. SP No. 122784 on January 16, 2012, directing respondents to comment within ten days; other divisions handled the other petitions and the cases were eventually consolidated by various CA orders in February–March 2012.
An internal CA reassignment occurred when Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, original ponente for the consolidated matters, took wellness leave (June 1–15, 2012). By Office Order No. 201-12-ABR (raffle, May 31, 2012) Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. was designated acting senior member of the (former) Special 14th Division to act on matters submitted to that Division, “except ponencia.” On June 6–7, 2012 petitioners filed urgent motions alleging new developments (rescission of MOUs with St. Augustine and a proposed 25% stock subscription by Queensberry) and the consolidated petitions, forwarded to Justice Bato on June 8, 2012, were acted upon without a formal oral hearing because a NADECOR stockholders meeting was scheduled for June 13, 2012.
On June 13, 2012 the Special 14th Division, through a Resolution penned by Justice Bato with Justices Dicdican and Peralta concurring, granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the RTC order, enjoining the hold-over Board and freezing actions taken at the June 13 meeting pending resolution; it required posting of P500,000 bond. The Resolution allowed the Board elected August 15, 2011 (the New Board) to continue to act and enjoined the Old Board’s hold-over actions, a result that conflicted in effect with the earlier TRO issued by the 11th Division.
Complainants then filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 202257 et al.) which this Court dismissed on July 18, 2012 for lack of personality because they were non-parties to the consolidated CA petitions. Thereafter the present verified administrative complaint (A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201-CA-J) was filed before the Supreme Court on July 9, 2012, charging the three CA Justices with grave misconduct, conduct detrimental to the service, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence and manifest partiality for (a) acting on unverified motions and issuing a writ of preliminary injunction without hearing as required by Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court and IRCA; (b) usurping the office of the ponente while Justice Lantion was on leave; and (c) exceeding authority by having Justice Bato, an acting m...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Do the complainants have legal personality (standing) to maintain an administrative complaint against the CA Justices for issuing the writ of preliminary injunction?
- Did the CA Justices (especially Justice Bato as acting senior member) commit grave misconduct or otherwise act beyond their authority by granting the writ of preliminary injunction without a hearing and witho...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)