SC, JBC neutrality depends on Puno

Weeks ago constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, begged Gloria Arroyo to not name a new Chief Justice during the election ban. Doing so, he said, would raise a constitutional issue that Supreme Court justices must adjudicate and likely even fight over. Worse than that is coming true today. The top two nominees for the prime judicial post, senior Justices Antonio Carpio and Renato Corona, are sniping at each other. And it looks like this is just the start.

All this is due to stubbornness. By insisting through her American spokesman on an imagined duty to fill up a judiciary vacancy, Arroyo is further tarnishing the Supreme Court. Her packing the Court with loyalists already stained its image. More mud came via their cover-up ruling on her executive privilege in the ZTE scam. Now she’s dragging down the Court along with her 65-percent unpopularity. It’s obvious she wants to co-opt a co-equal branch of government.

At this point only Chief Justice Reynato Puno can stop anymore slide. As head of the Court and the nominating Judicial and Bar Council, he can avert not only squabbling but also constitutional crisis. For one, Puno can cause Corona to substantiate insinuations against Carpio or forever hold his peace. He can heed Carpio’s call for a full investigation of Corona’s gripe. Most important, he can whoa the mulish Arroyo by following the many precedents against a departing President’s midnight appointments.

* * *

This is a case of the court awarding P60 million to an “invisible” complainant on the basis of “invisible” evidence. Done in record time of two days, after dragging for ten years. And more odd twists.

Petitioner Andrew James McBurnie met respondent Eulalio Ganzon early 1999. Australian McBurnie was then employed by Pan Pacific Hotel but for reasons untold about to be fired. He proposed to Filipino Ganzon the building of a resort hotel in the Philippines. They agreed on the concept, but no concrete terms were agreed upon since no funds were yet available.

McBurnie’s tenure with Pan Pacific was terminated and, he claimed, began feasibility studies of his proposal. He also requested Ganzon to stand as “sponsor-employer” in securing an alien employment permit and work visa to avoid deportation. Ganzon signed an “Employment Contract” for the purpose in May 1999, but for use only if capital became ready in Sept. No money was ever raised, so no alien permit and visa were issued. McBurnie and Ganzon last met Oct. 1999. Nov., the foreigner left Manila for Australia. Dec., McBurnie wrote Ganzon to send his personal stuff to Australia, for which he would reimburse him later.

On Oct. 4, 2002, came a surprise. Supposedly this is the date when McBurnie filed a complaint of illegal dismissal against Ganzon before the National Labor Relations Commission. The NLRC’s stamped receipt date was handwritten over with another date — a few days before the three-year prescription to file a labor suit.

The complaint sheet makes it look like McBurnie was in Quezon City on filing date. Yet immigration files showed him to have left Nov. 26, 1999, never to return. McBurnie never attended any of the 14 hearings at NLRC. Only counsel Arnel Dolendo represented him, and only on certain dates.

Sept. 2004, arbiter Salimathar Nambi ruled in favor of McBurnie and awarded him the following for the claimed one-and-a-half months’ work: US$985,162, plus interest; P2 million damages; 10 percent attorney’s fees.

Ganzon immediately moved for reduction of appeal bond for patent nullity of the ruling, and for reconsideration with cash bond of P100,000. Mar. 2005, NLRC denied the reduction and required Ganzon to post bond of P54,083,910. When Ganzon failed to do so, the NLRC denied reconsideration in July.

Ganzon in Aug. ran to the Court of Appeals for a restraining order, which was granted. Mar. 2006, while the case was pending in the CA, the NLRC dismissed Ganzon’s appeal for not posting the P54,083,910-bond. June 2006, the NLRC trashed Ganzon’s protest of the Mar. 2006 ruling. Aug. 2006, Ganzon again asked the CA to restrain NLRC. Sept. 2006, again while case was pending with CA, the NLRC issued a writ of execution. McBurnie, through counsel, subsequently garnished Ganzon’s deposits and began auctioning off his real property. Dec. 2006, CA issued a 60-day restraint and consolidated the two petitions.

Feb. 2007, CA stopped NLRC and McBurnie from executing the assailed rulings. May 2007, CA upheld Ganzon’s petitions.

June 2007, McBurnie through counsel questioned before the Supreme Court the CA ruling. July 2007, the SC 1st Division dismissed McBurnie’s case. Oct. 2007, the division dismissed the appeal with finality. Nov. 2007, division denied a second motion for reconsideration.

Back at CA, Oct. 2008, came a ruling: the NLRC gravely had abused discretion in imposing on Ganzon the P54-million bond and dismissing his appeals.

Back to SC, Mar. 2009, McBurnie petitioned for review of CA ruling. Aug. 2009, SC 3rd Division directed McBurnie to rebut Ganzon’s contentions. Sept. 16, 2009, McBurnie had not yet replied, but his case was submitted for resolution. Sept. 18, 2009, still no reply from McBurnie, the 3rd Division decided in his favor — ordering Ganzon to pay up P60 million. Meanwhile, on Nov. 17, 2009, the NLRC, complying with the CA’s Oct. 2008 ruling and uninformed by McBurnie of the petition for review before the SC, promulgated the reversal of the arbiter’s 2004 decision.

Feb. 2010, SC 3rd division denied Ganzon’s motion for recon of Dec. 2009. The latest on the case: Ganzon is begging the division to accept a second such motion.

* * *

“Listening is a form of creativity. Through it you make others free. To listen to your child is to give him a taste and a sense of freedom.” Shafts of Light, Fr. Guido Arguelles, SJ

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]