Re: Carpio

Factual Background

In 1996, Pena filed an action before the RTC of Bago City against Urban Bank and certain members of its Board of Directors for recovery of agents compensation and attorneys fees and related awards, arising from services Pena claimed to have rendered in evicting occupants from a bank property in Pasay City. The RTC rendered judgment ordering the defendants to pay Pena P28.5 million comprising compensation, attorneys fees, reimbursement of expenses, and exemplary damages, plus costs of suit.

The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but Pena obtained the CA’s allowance of execution pending appeal. The defendants challenged the advance execution before the CA, and the CA rendered judgment stopping and annulling the advance execution. On motion, however, the CA amended its decision to allow execution pending appeal because the bank had meanwhile encountered financial difficulties. The CA nevertheless stayed execution insofar as three defendant directors were concerned after they posted a P40 million bond in Pena’s favor.

Because the stay did not cover Urban Bank and the other directors, the sheriff levied on and sold several of their properties, including Urban Bank’s MSCI club shares. As the story continued, Urban Bank—later succeeded in interest by Export and Industry Bank (EIB)—filed with the Supreme Court a motion seeking approval of a supersedeas bond of P40 million to stay execution pending adjudication of the appeal in the main case.

Supreme Court Resolution Approving Supersedeas Bond and Its Effects

In G.R. No. 145817, the Court granted Urban Bank’s motion to approve the attached supersedeas bond issued by Malayan Insurance Co., Inc., in the amount of P40,000,000.00. In its resolution dated November 19, 2001, the Court expressly granted the motion, approved the bond, and ordered the stay of execution pending appeal of the RTC decision in Civil Case No. 754 as against Urban Bank.

After the Court’s resolution, EIB requested MSCI’s corporate secretary not to cancel or transfer Urban Bank’s club shares that had already been sold at public auction. Disputes then emerged between EIB and the auction winners regarding whether the shares could be transferred. In response, MSCI sought clarification from the Supreme Court on February 4, 2002, and Urban Bank filed a similar motion for clarification dated August 6, 2002.

Acting on these motions, the Court issued a resolution dated November 13, 2002. The Court 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 Urban Bank’s MSCI club shares to the winning bidders.

Pena’s Motions to Expunge and Allegations of Falsification

Pena reacted promptly and filed an urgent omnibus motion on December 10, 2002 to expunge Urban Bank’s motion for clarification and to recall the Court’s November 13, 2002 resolution. He argued that he was neither furnished a copy of the motion for clarification nor given an opportunity to be heard.

On January 30, 2003, Pena filed an urgent motion to inhibit and to resolve his omnibus motion, attaching as annexes Annexes B and C purported photocopies of pages 61 and 62 of the Court’s November 13, 2002 supplemental agenda (First Division). He characterized these pages as internal documents regarded as highly confidential. According to Pena, marginal handwritten notes suggested that the Court merely took note of the filing of the motion for clarification (listed as Item 175(f)) and did not actually act upon it. He further alleged that the resolution granting the motion had been falsified.

Because of these claims involving supposedly confidential internal documents, the First Division summoned Pena for a hearing on March 3, 2003 to determine where he obtained the annexes and whether they were authentic. The Court’s narrative records that the members told him that while his Annex B was a copy of the printed agenda, the handwritten notations on it 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 conduct a formal investigation of Pena for submitting a falsified document and to submit its findings and recommendations. After an initial report dated August 1, 2003, and upon resolution of the Court on December 10, 2003, a formal charge of falsification was filed against Pena in A.C. No. 6332, “Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated April 28, 2003.”

In this background, the en banc decision later noted that in a per curiam Decision promulgated on April 17, 2012 in A.C. No. 6332, the Court found Pena guilty for violating Canons 8, 10 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and it disbarred him. The present complaint thus unfolded against the same factual orbit of Pena’s earlier allegations of falsification and alleged procedural irregularity.

Administrative Complaint Against Justices Carpio and Sereno

Against this backdrop, Pena filed the letter-complaint dated September 16, 2011 against Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno.

Pena asserted that Justice Carpio, as Member-in-Charge in the consolidated cases, caused the issuance of the falsified November 13, 2002 resolution that allegedly suspended and stayed the transfer of Urban Bank’s MSCI club shares to the auction winners. He repeated his position that the Court merely took note of Urban Bank’s motion for clarification and did not grant it. He also claimed that Atty. Manuel Singson, counsel for Urban Bank, obtained an advance copy of the November 13, 2002 resolution and faxed it to Pena on November 19, 2002, days before its release for mailing.

As to Justice Sereno, Pena alleged that, since the main cases were re-raffled to her, she unjustifiably refused to inhibit herself. His theory was that Justice Carpio’s former law office, Villaraza Cruz Marcelo Angangco Law Office, had a significant role in her appointment to the Supreme Court, leading Pena to believe that Justice Sereno would protect Justice Carpio.

Proceedings and Related Developments in the Main Consolidated Cases

While the present complaint was pending, the Court’s narrative states that on October 19, 2011, the Second Division rendered a decision in the consolidated cases respecting the merits of Pena’s claim for compensation against Urban Bank and, among other issues, the execution pending appeal of the RTC’s decision. Separate from this, the administrative case against Pena for falsification culminated in the en banc April 17, 2012 per curiam decision in A.C. No. 6332, which included findings of professional misconduct and the penalty of disbarment.

With respect to Pena’s charges against Justice Carpio, the decision recounts that Pena’s central attempt was to attribute to Justice Carpio the issuance of a resolution granting clarification, contrary to his alleged view that the Court only took note. The Court framed this as a charge without basis, after examining the Court’s actions as reflected in the agenda coding and draft resolution processes.

The Court’s Treatment of the Allegation of Falsification and Procedural Action

The Court rejected the claim that it merely took note of Urban Bank’s motion for clarification. It explained that the November 13, 2002 agenda item included multiple matters and that the Court’s action depended on the agenda code used in its internal proceedings. It stated that for the first matter in the item, the action was “SEE RES”. The decision clarified that under the Court’s action code, “SEE RES” meant the approval, during the Court’s session, of the draft resolution submitted by the Member-in-Charge. The record indicated that the draft resolution granted the motion for clarification.

The Court further explained that for the other matters in the same item, including the motion for clarification, the action code was “N.” Under the Court’s code, it meant the Court took note of such other matters. The Court held that the approval of the submitted draft resolution and the notation taking of other matters were compatible actions. Thus, the Court concluded that the factual basis of Pena’s claim—that the Court did not grant the motion—was unsupported.

The Court also addressed Pena’s attempt to link alleged advance notice to Justice Carpio through Atty. Singson. It held that Pena failed to show that any “advance copy” came from Justice Carpio. It added that the record showed the First Division released the resolution for dissemination on November 14, before Atty. Singson faxed Pena a copy on November 19. The Court further stressed that the duty to release decisions and resolutions for dissemination belonged to the Division Clerk of Court, not to Justice Carpio.

The Court’s Treatment of the Motion to Inhibit Allegation Against Justice Sereno

The Court also rejected Pena’s claim that Justice Sereno should have inhibited herself from participating in the main cases. The Court refere