Case Digest (A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC)
Facts:
In re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, Petitioner in Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC, G.R. Nos. 178831-32, 179240-41, 179120 and 179132-33, February 24, 2009, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.
The matter arose from the unauthorized public circulation on December 9, 2008 of an apparent xerox copy of an unpromulgated ponencia of Retired Justice Ruben T. Reyes (the “Gilbert copy”) in the consolidated cases involving Limkaichong v. COMELEC, Villando v. COMELEC, Biraogo v. Nograles and Limkaichong, and Paras v. Nograles. On July 15, 2008 Justice Reyes circulated a draft printed on Gilbert paper that had been authenticated and signed by 14 Justices; during lunch the En Banc agreed to withhold promulgation because many Justices had only concurred “in the result.” Justice Antonio T. Carpio was asked to prepare Reflections; oral arguments were set. Despite the hold, the Gilbert copy was transmitted to the Office of the Chief Justice (OCJ) at about 3:30 p.m. on July 15, retrieved on July 16, and thereafter kept in the Office of Justice Reyes.
Following Biraogo’s press conference and distribution of an undated letter and a photocopy of the unpromulgated ponencia, the Court, by Resolution dated December 10, 2008, created an Investigating Committee (composed initially of Justices Quisumbing, Ynares‑Santiago and Carpio) to determine responsibility for the leak and ordered Mr. Louis C. Biraogo to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt. After recusals and substitutions the committee (Quisumbing, Corona, Carpio Morales) conducted hearings on December 15–16, 2008 and January 14, 16, 19–22, 2009 and heard numerous witnesses including the custodian/staffer Armando A. Del Rosario, aide Rodrigo E. Manabat, Jr., Judicial Staff Head Atty. Rosendo B. Evangelista, various Associate Justices, OCJ staff, the En Banc Clerk of Court, security personnel and Retired Justice Ruben T. Reyes himself.
The committee summarized testimony showing the circulation and signing sequence (including a reprinted signature page 36), the transmission to the OCJ on July 15 and retrieval on July 16, and custody of the Gilbert copy by Del Rosario in a sealed brown envelope kept in an unlocked drawer until December 10. The photocopy in Biraogo’s possession bore a different cover (agenda date July 15, Item No. 52) than the committee’s Gilbert copy (agenda date July 29, Item No. 66), and other textual variances suggested the leak derived from an earlier draft rather than from the OCJ or other Justices’ offices. The committee concluded the leak was intentional, that circumstantial evidence pointed to the Office of Justice Reyes (and, by inference, to Justice Reyes himself), and recommended administrative penalties: an indefinite suspension from the practice of law and a P500,000 fine (charged against retirement benefits) for Justice Reyes, and fines of P10,000 and P5,000 for Atty. Evangelista and Del Rosario respectively.
The Court En Banc received and reviewed the committee’s report and, by per curiam decision, adopted the findings and approved the r...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the Supreme Court retain jurisdiction to investigate and impose administrative discipline for alleged misconduct committed by a justice during incumbency after his retirement?
- Was there sufficient evidence to hold Retired Justice Ruben T. Reyes administratively liable for the unauthorized release of the unpromulgated ponencia?
- Were Atty. Rosendo B. Evangelista and Armando A. Del Rosario administratively liable for their roles in the custody and handling of the Gilbert copy?
- What sanctions, if any,...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)