Case Digest (A.M. No. 12-6-11-SC)
Facts:
Re: Letter-Complaint Against Hon. Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno dated September 16, 2011 filed by Atty. Magdaleno M. Pena, A.M. No. 12-6-11-SC, June 13, 2012, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.In 1996 Magdaleno M. Pena sued Urban Bank and several members of its board before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bago City for recovery of agents’ compensation and attorneys’ fees; the RTC awarded Pena approximately P28.5 million. Urban Bank appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). Pena obtained execution pending appeal from the RTC; the CA initially annulled that execution but later amended its ruling to allow execution pending appeal because the bank was in financial distress. The CA nevertheless stayed execution as to three directors who posted a P40 million bond; other properties of Urban Bank — including its club shares in Makati Sports Club, Inc. (MSCI) — were levied and sold at auction.
Separate petitions for review of the CA’s amended decision were filed in the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 145817, 145818, and 145822; later related matters also involved G.R. No. 162562). These petitions were consolidated and, as raffled, were assigned to the Member‑in‑Charge, Justice Carpio. Urban Bank moved in the Supreme Court to approve the P40 million supersedeas bond and to stay execution pending appeal; by resolution dated November 19, 2001 the Court granted and approved the bond and ordered a stay as against the bank.
Because of disputes after the sheriff’s auction, MSCI asked the Court on February 4, 2002 whether the November 19, 2001 resolution prohibited MSCI from transferring Urban Bank’s shares to the auction winners; Urban Bank filed an identical motion for clarification on August 6, 2002. On November 13, 2002 the Court, acting on those motions, issued a resolution stating that approval of the supersedeas bond suspended the one‑year redemption period for properties sold at auction and prohibited the transfer of Urban Bank’s MSCI shares to the winning bidders.
Pena filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion on December 10, 2002 to expunge the motion for clarification and recall the November 13 resolution, asserting he had not been furnished a copy nor given opportunity to be heard. On January 30, 2003 he filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve his omnibus motion, attaching as Annexes B and C purported photocopies of pages of the Court’s November 13, 2002 supplemental agenda. Annex B bore marginal handwritten notations, including the initials “AC,” which Pena attributed to Justice Carpio, and from which he inferred the published resolution had been falsified.
The First Division summoned Pena on March 3, 2003; the Division members advised that while Annex B copied the printed agenda, the marginal handwriting did not belong to any Justice of the First Division. On April 28, 2003 the Court directed the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to investigate Pena’s submission; the OBC’s initial report of August 1, 2003 led to the filing of a formal charge of falsification against Pena (A.C. No. 6332). Over the years the underlying civil matters continued and were the subject of further rulings; on October 19, 2011 the Second Division rendered a decision on the consolidated civil cases, and on April 17, 2012 the Court en banc, in a per curiam decision in A.C. No. 6332, found Pena guilty of violating Canons 8, 10 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and disbarred him.
On September 19, 2011 Pena filed the present administrative complaint against Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. He alleged that Justice Carpio, as Member‑in‑Charge, caused issuance of a falsified November 13, 2002 resolution that contradicted the handwritten agenda notation and that an advance copy of the resolution was leaked (he said Atty. Manuel Singson faxed it to him on November 19, 2002). As to Justice Sereno, Pena alleged she should have inhibited herself when the main cases were re‑raffled to her because Justice Carpio’s former law office had allegedly played a role in her appointment.
The Court considered the allegations alongside the record: the agenda item contained several matters, the Division chairman’s notation showed the first matter had the action code “SEE RES” (approval of a draft resolution), while the other matters bore the code “N” (noted). The Court explained that taking note of a motion and approving a submitted draft resolution are compatible actions. The record also showed dissemination/release of the November 13 resolution on November 14, prior to the fax Pena said he received on November 19, and that the Division Clerk, not Justice Carpio, had the duty to release the resolution (Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13, S...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should Magdaleno M. Pena’s administrative complaint against Justices Carpio and Sereno be dismissed for lack of merit (procedural sufficiency and availability of judicial remedies)?
- Did Justice Carpio issue or cause a falsified November 13, 2002 resolution in the consolidated civil cases?
- Was Justice Sereno required to inhibit herself from part...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)