Ducky Paredes

“(S)houldn’t there be a Supreme Court review not only of the decisions of the CA but also on the integrity of the way its justices ruled on specific cases?”by Ducky ParedesIt could only happen in the Philippines! This one is for Ripley’s “Believe it or Not”!Talk amongst lawyers has always been that the Court of Appeals is for sale, that, for the right amount, one can get any result that money can buy from the CA. As a non-lawyer who has never had to go to the CA for anything, I take such talks with equanimity, often dismissing them as idle losers’ talk. Who else would a poor loser blame for losing a legal argument if not the court? Certainly, he can’t say that the other side had the better lawyer, could he?Sometimes, though, the CA itself seems to provide the proof of the pudding. For instance, our entry for Ripley’s “Believe it or Not” would go this way: “Where is a case heard and argued before one court decided on by another which has never even heard any of the lawyers arguing the case?” The answer: The Eighth Division of the Philippine Court of Appeals (CA) decided on a case that was raffled to and heard by the CA’s Special Ninth Decision.If it did not actually happen, this would only be another tall tale –another apochrypal story about just how God-awful our system of justice really is! But it did happen. So, what does this do to our justice system?It was on July 23 when the CA’s Eighth Division – chaired by Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes, and with Associate Justices Vicente Roxas and Apolinario Bruselas – dismissed a complaint filed by the GSIS against Meralco before the SEC.Even without going through the arguments raised by the contending parties, two things stand out as incredible about this case.First anomaly: Reyes’ 8th deprived the CA’s 9th Division chaired by Associate Justice Jose Sabio of the right to promulgate a decision on the case before it.To add insult to injury, the parties to the case were not informed of its transfer dubbed as “mysterious” by the feisty chief legal counsel of GSIS, Atty. Estrella Elamparo. They only came to know of the transfer on the day of the promulgation itself.Second, the 8th went over and above the petition filed by Meralco before the 9th, which questioned only the jurisdiction of the SEC over the GSIS complaint against Meralco while seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the SEC’s decision.What did the CA do? Much more than the client, Meralco, bargained for. The CA dismissed the GSIS complaint filed with the SEC, when it should have simply declared the case to be outside of the regulatory body’s jurisdiction. How can a court rule on a matter that has not even been brought up by any of the litigants? Should it not be limited to the questions brought before it?In effect, the Eighth division of the CA took it upon itself to appreciate facts and  events that were pending with the SEC and not the CA. Justice Reyes’ 8th not only decided a case that was before the CA’s 9th, the 8th also ruled that the SEC was wrong to accept the GSIS petition, something that  Meralco did not even ask the Court.Plus, the 8th also ordered sanctions to be imposed on Elamparo and  the other GSIS lawyers for usurping the function of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) by acting as GSIS counsel. What is this? Is it some kind of proof that the CA does not have any integrity that it even goes beyond what the customer was asking for?The best explanation on this one has to be that the decision was so hurried  that theCA justices of the 9th Division never had the time to look at the GSIS charter that expressly states that the GSIS legal department must represent the state pension fund in court cases. I have to believe the GSIS is mandated to follow its own charter. Right? So, how could the CA be so stupid as to make such a silly, petty mistake?The only common denominator between the CA’s 9th Special Division and the 8th is Justice Vicente Roxas, who is a member of both. The ponente in this one was Justice Roxas. In effect, he heard the case as one of the members of the 9th and wrote the decision for the members of the 8th. Since the two other members of the 8th knew nothing about this case, it all had to be Roxas’ doing.Before this brouhaha, the GSIS had sought the inhibition of Roxas because of the two pending cases against him which tend to undermine his credibility. Also, reports from amongst the panero fraternity have surfaced that on the day the CA issued the TRO against the SEC, Roxas was seen meeting with Meralco lawyers.The case before the CA was the GSIS complaint filed by the GSIS before the SEC, seeking the non-inclusion of un-validated proxy votes in the last board election held by Meralco.The SEC issued a cease and desist order (CDO) against Meralco, but the Lopez-controlled firm disobeyed the CDO, won the  board that it wanted installed; then, ran to the CA for relief. One can say that Meralco got more than it bargained for.The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) has declared the decision as a “patent nullity.”GSIS chief legal counsel and spokesperson Atty. Estrella Elamparo notes that Justice Jose Sabio, who chaired the Special Ninth Division, was unceremoniously excluded in the promulgation of the case, which should have stayed in his division in the first place; also, none of the parties involved in the case was notified of the “mysterious and sudden transfer of the case.” Elamparo points out that while Meralco had filed a motion for Justice Sabio to relinquish his chairmanship of the Ninth in favor of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the plea was never resolved.Elamparo says: “The Eighth Division blatantly exceeded its authority when it dismissed a petition filed by the GSIS before the SEC. It thus dismissed a case that was not even pending before it. Such dismissal was not even prayed for by Meralco in its petition with the Court of Appeals.”Elamparo explains that Republic Act 8291 expressly states that it is the legal department of the GSIS which should act as counsel for the state pension fund: “The decision asked the Supreme Court to discipline and impose sanctions against the GSIS lawyers for unauthorized practice of law and allegedly for violating rule on forum shopping.”This is unprecedented and is a clear attempt to prevent and derail the GSIS lawyers from performing their functions.”Without passing judgment on the fitness of the CA justices involved in the case, shouldn’t there be a Supreme Court review not only of the decisions of the CA but also on the integrity of the way its justices ruled on specific cases?Clearly, the legal rumor mill has been given much new fodder on which to munch.# # # #hvp (07.30.08)