Philippine Business Today

The Government Service Insurance System wants the Supreme Court to step into the dispute in the Court of Appeals among justices claiming jurisdiction over a case involving the GSIS and Manila Electric Co. (Meralco).

GSIS chief legal counsel Estrella Elamparo said the protest by two appellate court justices over the manner by which the case ended up being decided by a division other than the one that originally heard it showed there was a serious problem in the Court of Appeals.

The case stemmed from a Meralco petition to void a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) order blocking the election of Meralco directors during a stockholders meeting last May. The SEC order was issued upon the plea of the GSIS.

On July 23, the CA’s 8th Division issued a ruling that favored Meralco, to the consternation of 9th Division members who had been hearing the case.

Elamparo said the Supreme Court should get involved because the issue undermined the justice system.

“We will await the outcome of the CA’s action on this travesty of justice to determine what actions will be undertaken by the GSIS. With all due respect to the CA, I think the matter now deserves the attention of the Supreme Court,” Elamparo said.

For its part, the Court of Appeals has scheduled an en banc session on Thursday to discuss the issue.

Justices Jose Sabio and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, 9th Special Division chair and member, respectively, had protested the promulgation of a decision by the 8th Division which is headed by Justice Bienvenido Reyes with Justices Antonio Bruselas Jr. and Vicente Roxas, the ponente as members. Roxas was also a member of the 9th Division.

The 9th Division originally heard the oral arguments in the case. Later, a reorganization took place in the Court of Appeals and Roxas was transferred to the 8th Division, the CA said in a statement it sent to the Philippine Daily Inquirer (parent company of INQUIRER.net).

Court was reorganized

Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, however, on queries made by Reyes and Roxas, issued an opinion which stated it was the 9th Division that should rule on the Meralco case.

Vasquez issued his opinion on July 24, but the 8th Division had issued its decision the day before, on the 23rd.

Sabio said the circumstances surrounding the promulgation of the decision were “fishy” and “quite disturbing,” and called for an investigation.

Lawyer Sylvette Tankiang, of the Villaraza, Cruz, Marcelo and Angangco law firm which represents Meralco in the case, had said that since Roxas was transferred to the 8th Division, he brought the case along with him because he was the ponente, or the designated writer of the decision.

But Elamparo said the 8th Division could not have ruled on the Meralco petition because its members had not heard the arguments. She described the circumstances as “highly irregular” and in violation of court rules.

She also described the decision as a “patent nullity,” and said criminal, civil and administrative charges should be filed.

“It did not come as a surprise, the criticisms aired by Justice Sabio and Justice Vidal. For what was done was an affront to justice in general and to the sitting justices of the 9th in particular,” she said.

No irregularity

The Court of Appeals, however, ruled out any irregularity in the issuance of the decision by the 8th Division.

Manuel Cervantes, CA assistant clerk of court, said the court’s rules provide that “the case goes with the ponente.”

In this case, the ponente was Roxas, Cervantes said.

He explained that the 9th Special Division was originally chaired by Reyes with Roxas and Vidal as members.

Reyes, however, was on leave when the Meralco petition for a TRO was filed, Cervantes said, and Sabio replaced him as acting chair.

“But due to the retirement of some justices, Justice Vidal was reassigned to the 6th Division while Reyes and Roxas were transferred to the 8th Division together with a new member, Justice Bruselas,” Cervantes said. Reyes, he said, became 8th Division chair.

Sabio, meanwhile, was transferred to the 6th Division and became its chair.

And since the rule is that the case goes with the ponente, the 57-page decision was issued by the division of which Justice Roxas was now a part, he said.

< Prev		Next >