A.M. No. 12-6-11-SC; June 13, 2012
RE: LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. JUSTICES ANTONIO T. CARPIO AND MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña filed a letter-complaint against Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno. The complaint stemmed from consolidated cases (G.R. Nos. 145817, 145822, and 162562) involving a civil case for agent’s compensation against Urban Bank. The Supreme Court, upon Urban Bank’s motion, approved a supersedeas bond and ordered a stay of execution pending appeal via a Resolution dated November 19, 2001. Subsequently, motions for clarification were filed regarding the effect of this stay on previously auctioned properties, including club shares. The Court issued a clarificatory Resolution on November 13, 2002, stating the stay suspended the redemption period and prohibited the transfer of shares.
Peña alleged that Justice Carpio, as Member-in-Charge, caused the issuance of a “falsified” November 13, 2002 Resolution. He based this on a purported confidential supplemental agenda page with handwritten notes, which he claimed showed the Court merely took note of the motion and did not grant it. He also insinuated Justice Carpio provided an advance copy to opposing counsel. Against Justice Sereno, Peña charged her with refusing to inhibit herself from deliberations, alleging Justice Carpio’s former law office supported her appointment, creating bias.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint against Justices Carpio and Sereno for alleged misconduct in relation to the November 13, 2002 Resolution and the inhibition issue has merit.

RULING

The Court En Banc dismissed the complaint for utter lack of merit. The allegations against Justice Carpio are a mere rehash of issues already raised and resolved in the main consolidated cases through Peña’s own prior motions. The Court found no falsification. The November 13, 2002 Resolution was a legitimate act of the Court’s First Division, properly released by the Division Clerk of Court—not unilaterally by Justice Carpio. The document Peña submitted as Annex B was deemed inauthentic, as the handwritten notations did not belong to any Justice of the Division, a fact established in a prior proceeding (A.C. No. 6332) where Peña was formally charged for submitting a falsified document.
The charge of providing an advance copy is baseless. The record shows the Resolution was released for dissemination on November 14, 2002, and it is the Clerk of Court’s duty to release resolutions, not a single Justice’s. The claim against Justice Sereno is purely conjectural and lacks any extrinsic factual evidence, as already ruled in the Court’s prior per curiam decision. The complaint constitutes an improper attempt to use an administrative proceeding to collaterally attack final judicial actions, for which adequate judicial remedies were available and had been exhausted. No evidence of bad faith, malice, or corrupt intent was presented to warrant administrative sanction against the Justices.