SCP hits CA justices

Last week, three members of the Court of Appeals were asked to be formally investigated by the Steel Corporation of the Philippines for allegedly railroading a case.

On Jan. 28, 2010, Banco de Oro filed a petition for certiorari against the Oct. 28, 2009 order of the RTC Batangas Branch in the case entitled “In the Matter of the Petition to have Steel Corporation Placed Under Corporate Rehabilitation with Prayer for the Approval of the Rehabilitation Plan” with Equitable PCI Bank, Inc. as petitioner allegedly for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion. The Petition, docketed as CA-GR No. 112175, was raffled to Associate Justice Normandie Pizarro of the 11th Division.

On March 2, 2010, SCP asked that the case be consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 107535 (Vitarich Corp. vs. Judge Danilo Manalastas, et.al.) on the ground that they involved the same question of law.

After more than a year or on Jan. 19, 2011, Justice Pizarro and the Special Seventh Division granted SCP’s motion for consolidation subject to the conformity of the assigned ponente in the latter case.

On Feb. 14, BDO asked the Special Seventh Division to reconsider its order granting the consolidation sought for by SCP. This was granted by the court. 

Then on Feb. 21, SCP’s management said it was completely flabbergasted when it received a copy of a notice of decision formally informing it that on Feb. 13, 2012, a decision was rendered on the instant case by the Special Fourth Division with J. Pizarro as ponente and concurred in by Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Ramon Bato, Jr.  

SCP said that Justice Bato was brought into the case only on Feb. 8, 2012 (vice Justice Rodil Zalameda who had inhibited) and concurred in the decision after a mere five days from the time the case was re-raffled to him.         

To aggravate matters and in its inordinate rush to judgment and railroad the decision, SCP said that the Special Fourth Division committed procedural shortcuts and irregularities that are in clear violation of the Court’s Internal Rules.

The SCP, through its legal counsel Atty. Nonnatus Chua, maintained that members of the CA’s Special Fourth Division chaired by Justice Rebecca de Guia-Salvador with Justices Pizarro and Bato as members, committed “irregularities and procedural shortcuts” in violation of the 2009 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.

In the SCP letter to the CA presiding justice dated March 7, Chua narrated the chronology of events and the several instances where the Special Fourth Division committed procedural shortcuts and irregularities “in its inordinate rush to judgment and railroad the decision.”

Chua said the first glaring shortcut was the raffle made on February 8, 2012 to Justice Bato, Jr. who took over from Justice Rodil Zalameda after the latter inhibited.

On this matter, Chua pointed out that the 2009 IRCA provides that “(W)hen a Justice to whom a case is assigned inhibits himself/herself, is suspended, or is on leave of absence for at least six consecutive months, the case shall be re-raffled to another Justice in the same station, and in the latter case, upon motion of any of the parties, both with right of replacement with another case of similar nature and status.”

“Thus, when the case was re-raffled to Justice Bato, Jr. after Justice Zalameda inhibited, SCP is now entertaining doubts if the same was made in compliance with the open and transparent mandate of the rules because of what transpired later,” Chua said.

The SCP, is likewise, puzzled on how the new Justice (Bato) to whom the case was re-raffled was apparently able to read the entire records of the case and sign the assailed decision in an incredibly short span of five days from the time he was officially assigned to the case.

“This suspicious circumstance raises some questions on how the Justice was actually able to do so without compromising his decision,” Chua said.    

Chua said another glaring procedural shortcut was committed by the Special Fourth Division when there was no resolution issued declaring the case submitted for decision before the actual decision was promulgated on Feb. 13, 2012.

Records show that the last resolution issued by the Special Fourth Division (before the actual decision was rendered) was dated November 29. 2011 wherein the former Special Seventh Division directed SCP to file its comment and to show cause why a writ of preliminary injunction should not be issued.

“A clear reading of the said resolution would indicate that there was still a pending incident which was the petitioner’s prayer for injunctive relief. Nowhere in the resolution can one find a declaration that the case was already submitted for decision which is clearly required by the IRCA before a case is actually decided,” Chua explained. 

The SCP further noted that the February 13, 2012 Notice of Decision was sent to only four parties (two counsels for SCP, counsel for BDO and Presiding Judge of Branch 4, RTC Batangas) when previously, the Court furnished copies of all its resolutions to all parties (numbering about 35) included in a 4-page mailing list.        

It said that with the foregoing fundamental and basic flaws in the manner by which the assailed decision was rendered, the integrity of the decision on the merits now stands on shaky grounds because it was promulgated prematurely and hastily in violation of the IRCA.

SCP’s management is now requesting that, given the mysterious circumstances surrounding the manner by which the assailed decision was rendered, a formal investigation be made to ferret out the truth behind the perceived railroading of the decision and if warranted, vacate the said decision and have the instant case re-raffled to another ponente.

For comments, e-mail at [email protected]