Peña vs. Carpio and Sereno

A disciplinary complaint against Justices for alleged falsification, leakage, and bias must be dismissed for lack of merit where the charges are unsupported by extrinsic evidence, are negated by the Court’s own records and action codes, or merely rehash matters subject to judicial remedies in the main case.

Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña was the plaintiff in a 1996 action against Urban Bank and certain members of its board before the RTC of Bago City, Negros Occidental, for recovery of agent’s compensation and attorney’s fees. The case generated consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court, G.R. Nos. 145817, 145818, and 145822, which were assigned to Justice Antonio T. Carpio as Member-in-Charge and later re-raffled to Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. Peña was also the respondent in A.C. No. 6332, where the Court en banc later found him guilty of violating Canons 8, 10, and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and disbarred him. The present administrative matter concerns Peña’s letter-complaint against the two Justices arising from the internal handling of those consolidated cases.

In 1996, Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña filed an action against Urban Bank and certain members of its Board of Directors before the Regional Trial Court of Bago City, Negros Occidental, for recovery of agent’s compensation and attorney’s fees allegedly for services he rendered in evicting the occupants of a bank property in Pasay City. The RTC rendered judgment ordering the defendants to pay Peña P28.5 million as compensation, attorney’s fees, reimbursement of expenses, and exemplary damages, plus costs of suit. The bank appealed to the Court of Appeals, but Peña 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, which initially stopped and annulled it; on motion, however, the CA amended its decision and allowed execution pending appeal because the bank had run into financial difficulties. The CA stayed execution as to three defendant directors after they posted a P40 million bond in Peña’s 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 bank’s club shares in Makati Sports Club, Inc. (MSCI).

With the denial of their motion for reconsideration, the defendants affected by the execution pending appeal filed separate petitions for review of the CA’s amended decision before the Supreme Court in G.R. Nos. 145817, 145818, and 145822, which were eventually consolidated and assigned to Justice Antonio T. Carpio as Member-in-Charge. Urban Bank filed a motion to approve a P40 million supersedeas bond for the stay of execution of the RTC decision pending adjudication of its appeal. By resolution dated November 19, 2001, the Court granted the motion, approved the supersedeas bond, and ordered the stay of execution pending appeal of the RTC decision as against petitioner. Thereafter, Export and Industry Bank (EIB), Urban Bank’s successor in interest, requested MSCI’s corporate secretary not to cancel or transfer Urban Bank’s club shares previously sold at public auction. Because disputes arose between EIB and the winning bidders, MSCI sought clarification on February 4, 2002 on whether the November 19, 2001 resolution prohibited MSCI from transferring Urban Bank’s shares to the winning bidders. Urban Bank itself filed an identical motion for clarification dated August 6, 2002. On 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 the bank’s MSCI club shares to the winning bidders.

On December 10, 2002, Peña filed an urgent omnibus motion to expunge the bank’s motion for clarification and recall the Court’s 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, Peña 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 Court’s November 13, 2002 supplemental agenda (First Division), internal documents regarded as highly confidential. Both annexes had marginal handwritten notes on the right side which supposedly recorded the Court’s action on the items listed on the agenda. Annex B had on its left margin the handwritten note “10 AC”; “AC” are the initials of Justice Antonio T. Carpio, to whom the corresponding items were assigned as Member-in-Charge. Peña 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 Peña’s statements involving strictly confidential documents, the First Division summoned him to appear before it on March 3, 2003 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. Peña for submitting a falsified document, Annex B, to the Court and to submit its findings and recommendations. On the basis of the OBC’s initial Report of August 1, 2003 and upon resolution of the Court dated December 10, 2003, a formal charge of falsification was filed against Peña in A.C. No. 6332, entitled Re: Supreme Court Resolution dated April 28, 2003.

On September 19, 2011, Peña filed the present complaint against Justices Carpio and Sereno. Peña 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 MSCI’s club shares from Urban Bank to those who won them in the bidding. Peña repeated his claim that the Court merely took note of Urban Bank’s motion for clarification and did not grant it. Peña 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, Peña 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 Carpio’s former law office, the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo Angangco Law Office, had a significant role in her appointment to the Supreme Court. Peña said that, because of this, Justice Sereno “will attempt to protect Justice Carpio.”

Pending consideration of Peña’s present complaint, on October 19, 2011, the Second Division rendered a decision in the consolidated cases (G.R. Nos. 145817, 145822, and 162562) respecting the merits of Peña’s claim for compensation, among others, against Urban Bank and the execution pending appeal of the RTC’s 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 Peña 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. In the present case, the Court found that the item in the agenda included several matters; the Court’s action on the first, as the Division chairman noted on his copy of the agenda, was “SEE RES,” which in the Court’s action code meant approval during its session of the draft resolution that the Member-in-Charge submitted for consideration; the draft resolution granted the motion for clarification. The Court’s action on the other matters in the item, including the motion for clarification, was uniformly “N,” which meant that the Court was taking note of such other matters. The two actions were compatible: the Court noted the motion for clarification and granted it as stated in the draft resolution. The record also showed that the First Division released the resolution for dissemination on November 14, days before Atty. Singson faxed a copy to Peña, and that the Division Clerk of Court, not Justice Carpio, had the duty to release decisions and resolutions for dissemination. The Court further noted that judicial remedies were available to complainant in the main cases and that the allegations in the present complaint were a mere rehash of his earlier motions, which had already been decided on October 19, 2011. As to Justice Sereno, the Court had already found in its April 17, 2012 per curiam decision in A.C. No. 6332 that the charge had no “extrinsic factual evidence to support it” and was purely conjectural.

• Falsification of the November 13, 2002 Resolution: Peña alleged 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 MSCI’s club shares from Urban Bank to the winning bidders; based on the handwritten notes on the supplemental agenda, the Court merely took note of the motion for clarification, listed as Item 175 (f), and did not act further on it.
• Advance Copy/Leak: Peña pointed out that opposing counsel, Atty. Manuel Singson, got an advance copy of the November 13, 2002 resolution and faxed it to him on November 19, 2002, days before the Court released it for mailing.
• Failure to Require Comment/Notice: Peña sought disciplinary action against Justice Carpio for allegedly taking cognizance of Urban Bank’s Motion for Clarification, of which Peña was allegedly not furnished a copy, and for issuing the November 13, 2002 clarificatory resolution without first requiring complainant to comment on the motion.
• Damage to Auction Sales: Peña alleged that the November 13, 2002 resolution caused irreparable damage to him and other auction buyers and destroyed the credibility and sanctity of valid auction sales.
• Inhibition of Justice Sereno: Peña charged Justice Sereno with unfairly refusing to inhibit herself from taking part in the deliberation in the main cases notwithstanding that Justice Carpio’s former law office, the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo Angangco Law Office, supposedly worked for her appointment in the Supreme Court; because of this, she “will attempt to protect Justice Carpio.”

• Falsification of the November 13, 2002 Resolution: Whether Justice Carpio caused the issuance of a falsified November 13, 2002 resolution granting Urban Bank’s motion for clarification when the supplemental agenda allegedly showed that the Court merely took note of the motion.
• Advance Copy/Leak: Whether Justice Carpio was responsible for opposing counsel Atty. Manuel Singson’s advance copy of the November 13, 2002 resolution.
• Failure to Require Comment/Notice: Whether Justice Carpio should be disciplinarily liable for taking cognizance of Urban Bank’s Motion for Clarification and issuing the November 13, 2002 resolution without requiring complainant to comment.
• Inhibition of Justice Sereno: Whether Justice Sereno should be disciplined for refusing to inhibit herself from the main cases due to Justice Carpio’s former law office’s alleged role in her appointment to the Supreme Court.

• Falsification of the November 13, 2002 Resolution: No. The Court did not merely note the motion; the agenda action “SEE RES” meant approval of the draft resolution granting clarification, while “N” meant taking note of other matters, and the two actions were compatible.
• Advance Copy/Leak: No. Peña failed to show the advance copy came from Justice Carpio; the First Division released the resolution for dissemination on November 14, before Atty. Singson faxed it, and the Division Clerk of Court had the duty to release it.
• Failure to Require Comment/Notice: No. Judicial remedies were available in the main cases, and the allegations were a mere rehash of Peña’s earlier motions already decided on October 19, 2011.
• Inhibition of Justice Sereno: No. The charge was purely conjectural and had already been found in A.C. No. 6332 to have no extrinsic factual evidence to support it.

• Falsification of the November 13, 2002 Resolution: The charge had no basis because the Court did not merely note the motion. The item in the agenda included several matters. The Court’s action on the first, as the Division chairman noted on his copy of the agenda, was “SEE RES,” which in the Court’s action code meant approval during its session of the draft resolution that the Member-in-Charge submitted for consideration. The draft resolution granted the motion for clarification. The Court’s action on the other matters in the item, including the motion for clarification, was uniformly “N,” which meant that the Court was taking note of such other matters. The two actions were compatible: the Court noted the motion for clarification and granted it as stated in the draft resolution. Thus, the claim that the November 13, 2002 resolution was falsified because the agenda merely noted the motion failed.
• Advance Copy/Leak: Peña 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. Peña, however, was unable to show that this advance copy came from Justice Carpio. Besides, the record showed that the First Division released the resolution for dissemination on November 14, days before Atty. Singson faxed a copy to Peña. Moreover, it was the Division Clerk of Court, not Justice Carpio, who had the duty to release decisions and resolutions for dissemination. No disciplinary liability could attach to Justice Carpio on this ground.
• Failure to Require Comment/Notice: Judicial remedies were available to complainant in the main cases. In fact, the allegations in the present complaint were a mere rehash of the allegations in complainant’s 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 Respondent’s Urgent Omnibus Motion dated January 30, 2003 filed in the main cases, which had already been decided on October 19, 2011. The administrative complaint could not substitute for the judicial remedies that were available and already resolved.
• Inhibition of Justice Sereno: Peña charged Justice Sereno of unfairly refusing to inhibit herself from taking part in the deliberation in the main cases notwithstanding that Justice Carpio’s 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 had no “extrinsic factual evidence to support it.” The charge was purely conjectural and could not sustain disciplinary action.

• Disciplinary complaints against members of the Judiciary require factual substantiation — A complaint against a Justice cannot prosper on conjectural allegations or unsupported inferences. The Court dismissed the charge against Justice Sereno because it was purely conjectural and had already been found in A.C. No. 6332 to lack extrinsic factual evidence; the charge against Justice Carpio for the alleged advance copy failed because Peña could not show the copy came from him.
• Judicial remedies in the main case and rehash — Where the acts complained of were subject to judicial remedies in the main cases and the administrative allegations merely rehash motions already filed and decided, the administrative complaint is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court noted that Peña’s present allegations repeated his Urgent Omnibus Motion dated December 9, 2002 and Urgent Motion to Inhibit dated January 30, 2003, which had already been decided on October 19, 2011.
• Internal Court action codes — The Court explained that “SEE RES” means approval during session of the draft resolution submitted by the Member-in-Charge, while “N” means taking note of other matters. These actions are compatible; thus the November 13, 2002 resolution granting the motion for clarification was not falsified merely because the agenda also noted the motion.
• Duty to release decisions and resolutions — Under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, Rule 13, Section 10, the Division Clerk of Court, not the Member-in-Charge, has the duty to release decisions and resolutions for dissemination. This defeated the claim that Justice Carpio caused an advance copy to be sent to opposing counsel.

• “The Court noted the motion for clarification and granted it as stated in the draft resolution.” — This passage resolves the falsification charge by explaining that the agenda action “SEE RES” approved the draft resolution granting clarification while “N” merely noted other matters, making the two actions compatible.
• “But, Peña has been unable to show that this advance copy came from Justice Carpio.” — This states the evidentiary basis for rejecting the charge that Justice Carpio caused the alleged advance copy of the November 13, 2002 resolution to reach opposing counsel.
• “Judicial remedies were available to complainant in the main cases.” — This is the Court’s reason for dismissing the administrative complaint insofar as it rehashed matters that could have been and were raised in the main cases.
• “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.” — This passage disposes of the inhibition charge against Justice Sereno by relying on the prior finding that the accusation lacked extrinsic factual support.

• Canons 8, 10, and 11, Code of Professional Responsibility — In A.C. No. 6332, the Court found Peña guilty of violating these canons for failing to give due respect to the Courts and his fellow lawyers, and disbarred him. This prior finding was cited in dismissing the inhibition charge against Justice Sereno as purely conjectural.
• Rule 13, Section 10, Internal Rules of the Supreme Court — Cited in the resolution dated November 28, 2011 in G.R. Nos. 145817, 145822, and 162562, it places the duty to release decisions and resolutions for dissemination on the Division Clerk of Court, not the Member-in-Charge. This supported the rejection of the charge that Justice Carpio caused the advance copy received by opposing counsel.

Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur. Carpio, J., no part, being subject of complaint; Sereno, J., no part, subject of the complaint; Velasco, Jr., J., on official leave.