PRIVATE RESPONDENT MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, pro se, respectfully states:
1. Despite all the obstacles respondent has had to hurdle in his quest for justice against Urban Bank and its officials, he has remained steadfast in his belief that ultimately, he will be vindicated and the wrongdoers will get their just deserts [sic]. What respondent is about to relate however has, with all due respect, shaken his faith in the highest Court of the land. If an anomaly as atrocious as this can happen even in the august halls of the Supreme Court, one can only wonder if there is still any hope for our justice system.
2. Private respondent wishes to make clear that he is not making a sweeping accusation against all the members of this Honorable Court. He cannot however remain tight-lipped in the face of the overwhelming evidence that has come to his knowledge regarding the actuation of the ponente of this Honorable Division.
3. In the evening of 19 November 2002, private respondent received a call from the counsel for petitioners, Atty. Manuel R. Singson (through his cell phone number 09189137383) who very excitedly bragged that they had been able to secure an order from this Honorable Court suspending the redemption period and the consolidation of ownership over the Urban Bank properties sold during the execution sale. Private respondent was aghast because by them, more than two weeks had lapsed since the redemption period on the various properties had expired. At that juncture in fact, Certificates of Final Sale had already been issued to the purchasers of the properties. The only step that had to be accomplished was the ministerial act of issuance of new titles in favor of the purchasers.
4. Private respondent composed himself and tried to recall if there was any pending incident with this Honorable Court regarding the suspension of the redemption period but he could not remember any. In an effort to hide his discomfort, respondent teased Atty. Singson about bribing the ponente to get such an order. Much to his surprise, Atty. Singson did not even bother to deny and in fact explained that they obviously had to exert extra effort because they could not afford to lose the properties involved (consisting mainly of almost all the units in the Urban Bank Plaza in Makati City) as it might again cause the bank (now Export Industry Bank) to close down.
5. Since private respondent himself had not received a copy of the order that Atty. Singson was talking about, he asked Atty. Singson to fax him the “advance” copy that they had received. The faxed “advance” copy that Atty. Singson provided him bore the fax number and name of Atty. Singsons law office. A copy thereof is hereto attached as Annex “A”.
6. Private respondent could not believe what he read. It appeared that a supposed Motion for Clarification was filed by petitioners through Atty. Singson dated 6 August 2002, but he was never furnished a copy thereof. He asked a messenger to immediately secure a copy of the motion and thereafter confirmed that he was not furnished a copy. His supposed copy as indicated in the last page of the motion was sent to the Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz (ACCRA) Law Offices. ACCRA, however, was never respondents counsel and was in fact the counsel of some of the petitioners. Respondents copy, in other words, was sent to his opponents.
7. The Motion for Clarification was thus resolved without even giving respondent an opportunity to comment on the same. In contrast, respondents Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 19 November 2001 had been pending for almost a year and yet petitioners motions for extension to file comment thereon [were] being granted left and right.
8. In view of these circumstances, private respondent filed on 10 December 2002, an Urgent Omnibus Motion (to Expunge Motion for Clarification and Recall of the 13 November 2002 Resolution). He filed a Supplement to the said motion on 20 December 2002.
9. While private respondent was waiting for petitioners to respond to his motion, he received sometime last week two documents that confirmed his worst fears. The two documents indicate that this Honorable Court has not actually granted petitioners Motion for Clarification. They indicate that the supposed 13 November 2002 Resolution of this Honorable Court which Atty. Singson had bragged about WAS A FALSIFIED DOCUMENT!
10. What private respondent anonymously received were two copies of the official Agenda of the First Division of this Honorable Court for 13 November 2002, the date when the questioned Resolution was supposedly issued. In both copies (apparently secured from the office of two different members of the Division, one of which is the copy of the ponente himself), it is clearly indicated that the members of the Division had agreed that petitioners Motion for Clarification and Urgent Motion to Resolve were merely NOTED and NOT GRANTED contrary to what was stated in the 13 November 2002 Resolution. This makes the 13 November 2002 Resolution (at least the version that was released to the parties) a falsified document because it makes it appear that a Resolution was issued by the First Division granting petitioners Motion for Clarification when in fact no such Resolution exists. The real Resolution arrived at by the First Division which can be gleaned from the Agenda merely NOTED said motion. Copies of the two Agenda are hereto attached as Annexes “B” and “C.”
11. At this point, private respondent could not help but conclude that this anomaly was confirmatory of what Atty. Singson was bragging to him about. The clear and undeniable fact is the Honorable members of this Division agreed that petitioners Motion for Clarification would only be NOTED but the ponente responsible for the 13 November 2002 Resolution misrepresented that the same was GRANTED.
12. Respondent is not just speculating here. He is CERTAIN that the ponente has a special interest in this case. Recently, he also found out that the ponente made a special request to bring this case along with him when he transferred from the Third Division to the First Division. Respondent has a copy of the Resolution of this Honorable Court granting such request (hereto attached as Annex “D”). Indeed, this circumstance, considered with all the foregoing circumstance, ineluctably demonstrates that a major anomaly has occurred here.
13. In view of these, private respondent is compelled to move for the inhibition of the ponente from this case. This matter should be thoroughly investigated and respondent is now carefully considering his legal options for redress. It has taken him seven years to seek vindication of his rights against petitioners, he is not about to relent at this point. In the meantime, he can longer expect a fair and impartial resolution of this case if the ponente does not inhibit himself.
14. This Honorable Court has time and again emphasized the importance of impartiality and the appearance of impartiality on the part of judges and justices. The ponente will do well to heed such pronouncements.
15. Finally, it is has now become incumbent upon this Honorable Court to clarify its real position on the 19 November 2001 Resolution. It is most respectfully submitted that in order to obviate any further confusion on the matter, respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 09 December 2002 (as well as the Supplement dated 19 November 2002) should be resolved and this Honorable Court should confirm that the stay order contained in the 19 November 2001 Resolution does not cover properties already sold on execution. xxx (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
The executive session started at 10:20 a.m. Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. formally opened the executive session and then requested Associate Justice Jose C. Vitug to act as chair. Justice Vitug stated that the executive session was called because the Court is perturbed by some statements made by respondent Atty. Magdaleno Peña involving strictly confidential matters which are purely internal to the Court and which the latter cites as grounds in his “Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion.”
Respondent/movant Atty. Magdaleno Peña and counsel for petitioner Atty. Manuel R. Singson attended the session.
The matters under inquiry were how respondent was able to obtain copies of the documents he used as annexes in his motion to inhibit, and whether the annexes are authentic.
The court also clarified that these matters were to be taken as entirely different and apart from the merits of the main case.
Justice Vitug called the attention of respondent to the three (3) annexes attached to the motion to inhibit, Annexes “B”, “C” and “D,” questioned how the latter was able to secure copies of such documents which are confidential to the Court and for the sole use of the Office of the Clerk of Court, First Division and the Justices concerned.
Annex “B” is alleged to be a photocopy of the supplemental agenda of the First Division for November 13, 2002 (pages 61-62), with an entry in handwriting reading “10 AC” on the left side and what appear to be marginal notes on the right side of both pages. Annex “C” is alleged to be a photocopy of the same supplemental agenda of the First Division for November 13, 2002, with marginal notes on the right side of pages 61-62. Annex “D” appears to be a photocopy of the resolution dated September 4, 2002 of the Third Division transferring the instant case to the First Division (an internal resolution).
Atty. Peña was made to understand that all his statements taken during this executive session were deemed under oath. Atty. Peña acceded thereto.
Atty. Peña was asked whether he knows any personnel of the Court who could possibly be the source. Atty. Peña replied in the negative and added that he obtained those documents contained in the annexes through ordinary mail addressed at his residence in Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, sometime in the second or third week of January 2003; but failed to give the exact date of his receipt. He said Annexes “B” and “C” were contained in one envelope while Annex “D” was mailed in a separate envelope. He did not bring the envelopes but promised the Court he would do his best to locate them. On questions by the Chief Justice, Atty. Peña admitted that the envelopes may no longer be found. He was unable to respond to the observation of the Chief Justice that the Court would be in no position to know whether the envelopes he would later produce would be the same envelopes he allegedly received. Atty. Peña further admitted that his office did not stamp “Received” on the envelopes and the contents thereof; neither did he have them recorded in a log book.
When asked by the Chief Justice why he relied on those annexes as grounds for his motion to inhibit when the same were coursed only through ordinary mail under unusual circumstances and that respondent did not even bother to take note of the postal marks nor record the same in a log book, Atty. Peña answered that he was 100% certain that those documents are authentic and he assumed that they came from Manila because the Supreme Court is in Manila.
At this juncture, Atty. Peña was reminded that since he assured the authenticity of Annexes “B”, “C” and “D”, he should be willing to accept all the consequences if it turns out that there are no such copies in the Supreme Court or if said annexes turn out to be forged. Atty. Peña manifested that he was willing to accept the consequences.
When further asked by the Court whether he had seen the original that made him conclude that those photocopies are authentic, he replied in the negative, but he believed that they are official documents of the Court inasmuch as he also received a copy of another resolution issued by the Court when the same was faxed to him by Atty. Singson, counsel for petitioner.
Atty. Peña expressed his disappointment upon receiving the resolution because he was not even furnished with a copy of petitioners motion for clarification, which was resolved. He found out that his copy was addressed to Abello Concepcion Regala and Cruz Law Offices, which was never respondents counsel and was in fact the counsel of some of the petitioners.
He also expressed misgivings on the fact that the motion for clarification was acted upon even without comment from him, and he admitted that under said circumstances, he made imputation of bribery as a joke.
As to the statement of the Chief Justice making it of record that Justice Carpio and Justice Azcuna denied that Annex “B” is their copy of pp. 61 and 62 of the agenda, Justice Carpio also said that per verification, Annex “B” is not Justice Santiagos copy. Thus, Justice Carpio added that Annex “B” does not belong to any of the Justices of the First Division. It was also pointed out that each of the Justices have their respective copies of the agenda and make their own notations thereon. The official actions of the Court are contained in the duly approved minutes and resolutions of the Court.
Meanwhile, Justice Vitug called the attention of both Atty. Peña and Atty. Singson to paragraphs 3 and 4 of respondents “Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion, which contain the following allegations: “(Atty. Singson) very excitedly bragged that they had been able to secure an order from this Honorable Court suspending the redemption period and the consolidation of ownership over the Urban Bank properties sold during the execution sale. Private respondent was aghast because by then, more than two weeks had lapsed since the redemption period on the various properties had expired. In an effort to hide his discomfort, respondent (Atty. Peña) teased Atty. Singson about bribing the ponente to get such an order. Much to his surprise, Atty. Singson did not even bother to deny and in fact explained that they obviously had to exert extra effort because they could not afford to lose the properties involved.”
For his part, Atty. Singson admitted that he faxed a copy of the resolution dated November 13, 2002 to Atty. Peña and expressed his belief that there was nothing wrong with it, as the resolution was officially released and received by his office. He explained that his staff merely copied the parties in the resolution of February 13, 2002 when the motion for clarification was prepared. Hence, the respondent was inadvertently not sent a copy.
Atty. Singson further denied the allegations made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the motion to inhibit, reasoning that all he said was about the suspension of the redemption period which was the subject of the motion for clarification. Atty. Singson branded as false the allegation of Atty. Peña that he, Atty. Singson, resorted to bribery in order that the suspension of the redemption period would be granted.
On questions by the Chief Justice, Atty. Peña admitted that he was only joking to Atty. Singson when on the cellular phone he intimated that Justice Carpio could have been bribed because he has a new Mercedes Benz. When pressed many times to answer categorically whether Atty. Singson told him that Justice Carpio was bribed, Atty. Peña could not make any candid or forthright answer. He was evasive.
After further deliberation whereby Atty. Peña consistently replied that his only source of the documents in the annexes is the regular mail, the Court Resolved to require Atty. Magdaleno Peña within fifteen (15) days from today to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be held in contempt and be subjected to disciplinary action as a lawyer if he will not be able to satisfactorily explain to Court why he made gratuitous allegations and imputations against the Court and some of its members that tend to cast doubt or aspersion on their integrity.
Atty. Manuel Singson was also required to submit within fifteen (15) days from today his response to the allegations of Atty. Peña, particularly those in paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of respondents motion to inhibit.
The Court excused Attys. Peña and Singson from the executive session at 11:35 a.m. and resumed its regular session on the agenda.
In connection with the pleadings filed in these cases, the Court Resolves to GRANT the motion by counsel for petitioner praying that intervenor-movant Unimega Properties Holdings Corp. be directed to furnish aforesaid counsel with a copy of the motion for reconsideration and intervention and that they be granted an additional period of ten (10) days within which to file comment thereon and require said intervenor-movant to SUBMIT proof of such service within five (5) days from notice.
The manifestation and comment of petitioners in G.R. No. 145882, Benjamin de Leon, et al., on the motion for reconsideration with intervention by Unimega Property Holdings Corp. is NOTED. (Emphasis supplied)
PRIVATE RESPONDENT MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, pro se, respectfully submits the following explanation in compliance with the Resolution of this Honorable Court dated 3 March 2003:
1. This Honorable Court in its 3 March 2003 Resolution required respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and be subjected to disciplinary action as a result of the allegations he made in his “Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion” dated 30 January 2003. As this Honorable Court stated during the 3 March 2003 hearing, the members of the Court were “perturbed” by some statements respondent made in the motion.
2. At the outset, respondent wishes to apologize for the distress his statements may have caused the members of this Honorable Court. While such distress may have been the unavoidable consequence of his motion to inhibit the ponente, it was certainly not his intended result.
3. In the course of the discussion during the 3 March 2003 hearing, it appeared that this Honorable Court was most concerned with how respondent was able to secure Annexes “B” and “C” of his motion (referring to the two copies of the Supplemental Agenda of the First Division for 13 November 2002) and why respondent used those documents as basis for his Urgent Motion to Inhibit.
4. Respondent had explained that he received the two annexes by ordinary mail at his residence in Brgy. Ubay, Pulupandan, Negros Occidental sometime during the second week of January. The sender of the document was unknown to respondent because there was no return address. Despite efforts to locate the envelope in which these documents came, he was unable to do so.
5. Respondent has no record keeper or secretary at his residence. Since he is often in Manila on business, it is usually the househelp who gets to receive the mail. While he had given instructions to be very careful in the handling of documents which arrive by registered mail, the envelopes for Annexes “A” and “B” may have been misplaced or disposed by the househelp because it did not bear the stamp “registered mail.”
6. When respondent read the documents, he had absolutely no reason to doubt their authenticity. For why would anyone bother or go to the extent of manufacturing documents for the benefit of someone who does not even know him? The documents contained a detailed list of the incidents deliberated by this Honorable Court on 13 November 2002. Definitely, not just anyone could have access to such information. Moreover, respondent subsequently received another mail from apparently the same sender, this time containing a pink copy of this Honorable Courts 4 September 2002 Resolution (Annex “D”, Urgent Motion to Inhibit) transferring this case from the Third Division to the First Division. The receipt of this last document somehow confirmed to respondent that whoever sent him the copies of the Supplemental Agenda really had access to the records of this Honorable Court.
7. Respondent wishes to reiterate that the main basis of his motion to inhibit was the information relayed to him by Atty. Singson during their telephone conversation on 19 November 2002. As stated in respondents Urgent Motion to Inhibit, while Atty. Singson did not categorically claim that they had bribed the ponente to secure the 13 November 2002 resolution, however, he made no denial when respondent, in order to obtain information, half-seriously remarked that this was the reason why the ponente had a brand new car. Atty. Singson retorted that obviously, they had to take extra-ordinary measures to prevent the consolidation of ownership of the properties sold as the bank may again close down. Indeed, one would normally be indignant upon being accused of bribery but Atty. Singson even chuckled and instead justified their “extra-ordinary” efforts.
8. Respondent very well knew that mere suspicion was not enough. An implied admission of bribery on the part of Atty. Singson, sans evidence, may not have been sufficient basis for a motion to inhibit. However, respondent did not have to look far for evidence. Atty. Singson in not denying the allegation of bribery is considered an admission by silence, under Section 32 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Further, Atty. Singson faxed to him the “advance copy” of the 13 November 2002 Resolution. To respondent, that was solid evidence and in fact to this day, Atty. Singson fails to explain exactly when, from whom, and how he was able to secure said advance copy. The records of this Honorable Court disclosed that Atty. Singsons official copy of the 13 November 2002 Resolution was sent to him by registered mail only on 20 November 2002 (a copy of the daily mailing report is hereto attached as Annex “A”). Why then was he able to fax a copy to respondent on 19 November 2002 or a day before the resolution was released for mailing?
9. Despite all these, respondent hesitated to file a motion to inhibit. He only finally decided to proceed when he received the copies of the Supplemental Agenda. To emphasize, the Supplemental Agenda merely confirmed what Atty. Singson had earlier told him. Contrary to the apparent impression of this Honorable Court, respondents motion is not primarily anchored on anonymously received documents but on the word of petitioners counsel himself. The copies of the Supplemental Agenda are merely corroborative (albeit extremely convincing) evidence.
10. Indeed, any conscientious lawyer who comes into possession of the information relayed by Atty. Singson and the copies of the Supplemental Agenda would bring them to the attention of this Honorable Court. In doing so, respondent was compelled by a sense of duty to inform this Honorable Court of any apparent irregularity that has come to his knowledge. It was not done out of spite but a deep sense of respect.
11. In all honesty, respondent had been advised by well-meaning friends to publicize the incident and take legal action against the parties involved. Instead, respondent decided that a motion to inhibit before this Honorable Court was the most appropriate channel to ventilate his concerns. Respondent is not out to cast aspersions on anybody, most especially members of this Honorable Court. He had to file the Urgent Motion to Inhibit because he sincerely believed, and still firmly believes, that he could not get impartial justice if the ponente did not recuse himself.
12. Respondent sincerely regrets that documents considered confidential by this Honorable Court leaked out and assures this Honorable Court that he had absolutely no hand in securing them. Respondent just found himself in a position where he had to come out with those documents because his opponent was crude enough to brag that their “extra-ordinary” efforts to secure a stay order from a certain ponente had bore fruit. Respondent has devoted at least seven years of his life to this cause. He almost lost his life and was nearly driven to penury fighting this battle. Certainly, he cannot be expected to simply raise his hands in surrender.
13. At this point, respondent is just relieved that it was confirmed during the 3 March 2003 hearing that Annex “C” of his Urgent Motion to Inhibit is a faithful reproduction/“replica” of the relevant portions of the Supplemental Agenda (TSN dated 3 March 2003, pp. 72-73 and 81) on record with the first Division. With this, respondent rests his case. 8 (Emphasis supplied)
On January 30, 2003, respondent Magdaleno M. Peña filed an Urgent Motion to Inhibit the ponente of the instant case. Respondent Peña attached to his Urgent Motion Annex “B”, a copy of pp. 61-62 of the First Divisions Agenda of 13 November 2002. Respondent Peña claimed that Annex “B” bears the recommended actions, in handwritten notations, of a member of the Court (First Division) on Item No. 175 of the Agenda. Item No. 175(f) refers to the Urgent Motion for Clarification filed by petitioner on 7 August 2002. The purported handwritten notation on Annex “B” for Item No. 175 (f) is “N”, or to simply note the motion. However, the Court issued a Resolution on 13 November 2002 granting the Urgent Motion for Clarification. In his Urgent Motion to Inhibit, respondent Peña claimed that the Resolution of 13 November 2002 was forged because the recommended and approved action of the Court was to simply note, and not to approve, the Urgent Motion for Clarification.
Thus, respondent Peña stated in his Urgent motion to Inhibit:“9. While private respondent was waiting for petitioners to respond to his motion, he received sometime last week two documents that confirmed his worst fears. The two documents indicate that this Honorable Court had not actually granted petitioners Motion for Clarification. They indicate that the supposed 13 November 2002 Resolution of this Honorable Court which Atty. Singson had bragged about WAS A FALSIFIED DOCUMENT!
10. What private respondent anonymously received were two copies of the official Agenda of the First Division of this Honorable Court for 13 November 2002, the date when the questioned Resolution was supposedly issued. In both copies (apparently secured from the office of two different members of the Division, one of which is the copy of the ponente himself), it is clearly indicated that the members of the Division had agreed that petitioners Motion for Clarification and Urgent Motion to Resolve were merely NOTED and NOT GRANTED contrary to what was stated in the 13 November 2002 Resolution. This makes the 13 November 2002 Resolution (at least the version that was released to the parties) a falsified document because it makes it appear that a Resolution was issued by the First Division granting petitioners Motion for Clarification when in fact no such Resolution exists. The real Resolution arrived at by the First Division which can be gleaned from the Agenda merely NOTED said motion. Copies of the two Agenda are hereto attached as Annexes “B” and “C”.
11. At this point, private respondent could not help but conclude that this anomaly was confirmatory of what Atty. Singson was bragging about. The clear and undeniable fact is the Honorable members of this Division agreed that petitioners Motion for Clarification would only be NOTED but the ponente responsible for the 13 November 2002 Resolution misrepresented that the same was GRANTED.”
On 3 March 2003, the Court called respondent Peña and Atty. Manuel Singson, counsel for petitioner Urban Bank, to a hearing to determine, among others, the authenticity of the annexes to respondent Peñas Urgent Motion to Inhibit, including Annex “B”. In the hearing, respondent Peña affirmed the authenticity of the annexes and even manifested that he was willing to accept the consequences if the annexes, including Annex “B”, turned out to be forgeries.
In the same hearing, the members of the Court (First Division) informed respondent Peña that the handwritten notations on Annex “B” did not belong to any of them. In particular, Justice Carpio, to whom the case was assigned and the apparent object of respondent Peñas Urgent Motion to Inhibit as the “ponente responsible for the 13 November 2002 Resolution,” stated that his recommended action on Item No. 175(f) was “a & f, see RES,” meaning on Items 175(a) and (f), see proposed resolution. In short, the handwritten notations on Annex “B”, purportedly belonging to a member of the Court, were forgeries. For ready reference, attached as Annexes “1” and “2” to this Resolution are a copy of pp. 61-62 of Justice Carpios 13 November 2002 Agenda, and a copy of Justice Carpios recommended actions for the entire 13 November 2002 Agenda, respectively.
In the same hearing, the Court directed respondent Peña to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and subjected to disciplinary action for submitting the annexes to his Motion to Inhibit. In his Compliance dated 3 April 2003, respondent Peña did not give any explanation as to why he attached “B” to his Urgent Motion to Inhibit. In fact, in his Compliance, respondent Peña did not mention at all Annex “B”. Respondent Peña, however, stated that he “just found himself in a position where he had to come out with those documents because his opponent was crude enough to brag that their extra-ordinary efforts to secure a stay order from a certain ponente had bore fruit.” In petitioners Opposition to the Urgent Motion to Inhibit, Atty. Singson stated that he “categorically denied that he had bragged to PEÑA about the Resolution of this Honorable Court dated November 13, 2002 and that extra efforts have been exerted to obtain the same.”
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Office of the Bar Confidant to conduct a formal investigation of respondent Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña for submitting to the Court a falsified document, Annex “B”, allegedly forming part of the confidential records of a member of the Court, in support of his Motion to Inhibit that same member of the Court. The Office of the Bar Confidant is directed to submit its findings, report and recommendation within 90 days from receipt of this Resolution.12 (Emphasis supplied.)
RECOMMENDATIONS:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing premises, it is respectfully recommended the following:
A. On the charge of gratuitous allegations:
1. To DISMISS the charge on the ground that the statements in his Motion to Inhibit, etc., do not constitute malicious imputations as he was merely expressing his concern of what he has discovered based on the documents he has obtained. However, let this case serve as his FIRST WARNING, being an officer of the court, to be more cautious, restraint and circumspect with his dealings in the future with the Court and its Member.
2. To ADMONISH respondent for making such non-sense and unfounded joke against Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio the latter deserves due respect and courtesy from no less than the member of the bar. Likewise, Atty. Singson should also be ADVISED to be more cautious in his dealing with his opposing counsel to avoid misconception of facts.
B. On the charge of falsification:
1. To DISMISS the charge of submitting falsified documents on ground of lack of legal basis. A charge of submitting falsified documents partakes of the nature of criminal act under Art. 172 of the Revised penal Code, and the quantum of proof required to hold respondent guilty thereof is proof beyond reasonable doubt. This is to avoid conflicting findings in the criminal case. The administrative proceedings of the same act must await of the outcome in the criminal case of falsification of document.
C. On the contempt of court filed by private complainant:
1. To DISMISS the charge considering that the statements cited by Atty. Peña in his pleadings previously filed in related cases, while it may appear to be offending on the part of the complainant, but the same do not categorically contain disrespectful, abusive and abrasive language or intemperate words that may tend to discredit the name of the complainant. Respondent merely narrated the facts based of his own knowledge and discoveries which, to him, warranted to be brought to the attention of the court for its information and consideration. He must be ADVISED however, to refrain from using unnecessary words and statements which may not be material in the resolution of the issued raised therein.
D. On the counter-charge of forum-shopping
1. To RE-DOCKET the counter-charge of forum shopping, as embodied in the Comment dated 22 August 2003 of Atty. Peña, as a separate administrative case against the petitioners and counsels in G.R. 145817, G.R. No. 145818 and G.R. No. 145822;
2. To FURNISH the petitioners and their counsel a copy of the said comment dated 22 August 2003 for their information.
3. To REQUIRE the petitioners and their counsel, SINGSON VALDEZ & ASSOCIATES, represented by ATTY. MANUEL R. SINGSON, ANGARA ABELLO CONCEPCION REALA & CRUZ represented by ATTY. ROGELIO A. VINLUAN, ATTY. STEPHEN GEORGE S. D. AQUINO and ATTY. HAZEL ROSE B. SEE to comment thereon within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.33 (Emphasis supplied)
4. Private respondent [Peña] composed himself and tried to recall if there was any pending incident with this Honorable Court regarding the suspension of the redemption period but he could not remember any. In an effort to hide his discomfort, respondent teased Atty. Singson about bribing the ponente to get such an order. Much to his surprise, Atty. Singson did not even bother to deny and in fact explained that they obviously had to exert extra effort because they could not afford to lose the properties involved (consisting mainly of almost all the units in the Urban Bank Plaza in Makati City) as it might cause the bank (now Export Industry Bank) to close down.40 (Emphasis supplied.)
CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIDE:Regarding that allegation made by Atty. Peña on [sic] when you made mention earlier of him saying about Justice Carpio?
ATTY. SINGSON:Yes, Your Honor, he said “kaya pala may bagong Mercedez [sic] si Carpio, eh.”
CHIEF JUSTICE:He said to you that?
ATTY. SINGSON:Yes, that was what he was referring to when he said about bribery.xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. PEÑA:First of all I would like to … everything that he said, he told me that he got, they got a stay order, it is a stay order from the Supreme Court through Justice Carpio and then I gave that joke. That was just a joke really. He got a new Me[r]cedez [sic] Benz, you see, he was the one who told me they got a stay order from the Supreme Court through Justice Carpio, that was what happened …
CHIEF JUSTICE:You mean you made a joke?
ATTY. PEÑA:You Honor?
CHIEF JUSTICE;You made a joke after he told you supposedly that he got (interrupted)
ATTY. PEÑA:He got a stay order from Justice Carpio.
CHIEF JUSTICE:And you say that is the reason why he got a new Mercedez [sic] Benz, you made it as a joke?
ATTY. PEÑA:Your Honor, that is a joke between lawyers.
CHIEF JUSTICE;That is correct, you are making it as a joke?
ATTY. PEÑA:Your Honor, I think, because how they got (interrupted)
CHIEF JUSTICE:If it were a joke why did you allege in your motion that it was Atty. Singson who said that Justice Carpio was bribed or the ponente was bribed, is that also another joke?41 (Emphasis supplied.)
Sometime thereafter, respondent Peña received a copy of the Suppl [sic] Agenda - 1st Division of this Honorable Court with a notation in handwriting “10AC” on the left side and marginal notes on the right side. A perusal thereof, reveals that when this Honorable Court took up the matter of the Motion for Clarification of petitioner Urban Bank, this Honorable Court merely “N” or “Noted” the Motion for Clarification of petitioner Urban Bank and did not grant the same.xxx xxx xxx
Considering the foregoing (I was not furnished a copy of the Motion for Clarification, or required to comment by the Honorable Justice Carpio and opposing counsel, Atty. Singson, being able to secure an advance copy of the assailed 13 November 2002 Resolution), the matter brought out in the Executive Session and the admission made by Atty. Enriqueta Vidal and the Honorable Hilario Davide and the Honorable Justice Vitug with regard to his copy of the Suppl [sic] Agenda - 1st Division of this Honorable Court which was sent to respondent Peña was correct and that the Motion for Clarification was merely “N” or “NOTED”. However, the Honorable Justice Carpio issued a Resolution “Granting” the Motion for Clarification.
Therefore, the Honorable Justice Carpio issued the 13 November 2002 Resolution in an anomalous/falsified manner and in clear contravention of this Honorable Courts Decision to merely “Note” the same. A clear judicial administrative violation.48 (Emphasis supplied.)
It has come to the attention and knowledge of herein respondent that petitioners counsel has been making statement to the effect that they could get a favorable resolution from the Supreme Court, on their second motion for reconsideration. In short, petitioners counsel is practically saying that they are sure to get the Supreme Court to entertain the second motion for reconsideration even if it violates the rules.53
1. The motion for voluntary inhibition is directed at Justice Buena because it was he who penned the challenged Resolution, which granted the second motion for reconsideration in violation of the Rules. It was he who crafted, drafted and finalized the said Resolution. It was he who tried to justify the violation of the Rules. It was from Justice Buenas office that contents of the challenged Resolution was apparently “leaked” to the petitioners counsel long before its promulgation.54
What miracle did Atty. Vinluan perform and what phenomenon transpired? Why are herein petitioners “very special” in the eyes of Justice Buena?55
It is quite obvious that the partiality of Justice Buena has been affected by his relationship with Atty. Vinluan, as evidenced by the above-described facts and circumstances.56
Surprisingly, Justice Arturo B. Buena, the assigned ponente, reinstated the petition without any explanation whatsoever, and in gross violation of Sec. 4, Rule 56 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. This was highly irregular by itself. But what made reinstatement more suspicious was the fact that even before the release of the Resolution reinstating the petition in G. R. No. 145822, the counsel for petitioners, Atty. Rogelio Vinluan, was already boasting that he would be able to reinstate their petition. Obviously, even before the release of the Resolution in question, Atty. Vinluan already knew what Justice Buenas resolution would be.57 (Emphasis supplied.)
The friendship and close relationship of the three (Justice Panganiban and Urban Banks Arsenio Archit Bartolome and Teodoro Ted Borlongan) went beyond their being Rotarians. As a matter of fact, Justice Panganiban was seen a couple of times going to Urban Bank to see Archit and/or Ted, before the banks closure. Respondent has also discovered, through a reliable source, that Justice Panganiban was known to have been consulted, and his legal advice sought, by Borlongan and Bartolome, in connection with the above-entitled cases, while the same was still pending with the Court of Appeals and in connection with the four (4) criminal cases filed the with the MTC [Municipal Trial Court] at Bago City by herein respondent against Borlongan, et al., for “introducing falsified documents in a judicial proceeding”. In the latter cases, it was even Justice Panganiban who furnished a copy of the SC Decision in Doris Ho vs. People (his own ponencia) to Bartolome and Borlongan, for the purpose of giving his friends a legal basis in questioning the issuance of the warrants of arrest against Borlongan and the rest of his co-accused in Criminal Case Nos. 6683 to 6686, MTC Bago City (now appealed to Supreme Court; see Footnote No. 1 below).59 (Emphasis supplied.)
3. The Petitioners in G. R. No. 143591, entitled “Teodoro C. Borlongan, et al., v. Magdaleno M. Peña, et al”, are also the same petitioners in the above-entitled consolidated cases G. R. Nos. 145817 and 145822; and the respondents in the above-entitled consolidated case G. R. No. 162562. Under the circumstances, herein private respondent is ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the extreme bias and prejudice of Justice Nachura against him in G. R. No. 143591 would certainly be carried over to the above-entitled consolidated cases.60 (Emphasis supplied.)
The Supreme Court does not claim infallibility; it will not denounce criticism made by anyone against the Court for, if well-founded, can truly have constructive effects in the task of the Court, but it will not countenance any wrongdoing nor allow the erosion of our peoples faith in the judicial system, let alone, by those who have been privileged by it to practice law in the Philippines.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility mandates that the lawyer should observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and judicial officers and, indeed, should insist on similar conduct by others. In liberally imputing sinister and devious motives and questioning the impartiality, integrity, and authority of the members of the Court, Atty. Paguia has only succeeded in seeking to impede, obstruct and pervert the dispensation of justice.
10. What private respondent anonymously received were two copies of the Official Agenda of the First Division of this Honorable Court for 13 November 2002, the date when the questioned Resolution was supposedly issued. In both copies (apparently secured from the office of two different members of the Division, one of which is the copy of the ponente himself), it is clearly indicated that the members of the Division had allegedly agreed that petitioners Motion for Clarification and Urgent Motion to Resolve were merely NOTED and NOT GRANTED contrary to what was stated in the 13 November 2002 Resolution (at least the version that was released to the parties) a falsified document because it makes it appear that a Resolution was issued by the First Division granting petitioners Motion for Clarification when in fact no such Resolution exists. The real Resolution arrived at by the First Division which can be gleaned from the Agenda merely NOTED said motion. Copies of the two Agenda are hereto attached as Annexes “B” and “C”.65 (Emphasis supplied.)
CHIEF JUSTICE:
We make of record again that insofar as Annex B is concerned it was confirmed by the Office of the Clerk of Court of this Division that the original of that does not appear in the record, is not in the record and that nobody, none of the members of the division has a copy of, that copy of Annex B of your pleading does not come from anyone of the members of the division. That is the position of the Court now as explained earlier. Specifically Mr. Justice Carpio said that Annex B, specifically with that capital A. capital C preceded by 10 did not come from his office, was not based on the document in his office and that is also true to each of the members of this Division.67 (Emphasis supplied.)
10. A review of the records of the Supreme Court will show that for the past several months alone, seventy-seven petitions were dismissed by the Supreme Court, mainly for failure to pay the required fees. Out of that number, NONE WERE REINSTATED upon the filing of a SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. If Justice Buena willingly disregarded the Rules by reinstating petitioners petition (De Leon Group Petition in G. R. No. 145822) upon the filing of a second motion for reconsideration, then he should have reinstated also the aforesaid 77 cases in order to be fair. At the very least, he should now reinstate all of said 77 cases if only to show that he is not biased in favor of herein petitioners. He could not and will not do so, however, because those cases are not favored ones. Photocopies of the case titles and numbers, as well as the resolutions dismissing the aforesaid seventy-seven cases, consisting of 58 pages, are attached hereto collectively as Annex “A”.87
- Peñas Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Artemio V. Panganiban) dated 12 January 2001;
- Urgent Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Arturo Buena) dated 20 August 2001;
- 3. Letter Complaint (Re: Justice Buena) dated 28 October 2001;
- Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 18 February 2002;
- Reply (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 15 March 2001;
- Urgent Motion to Inhibit (re: ponente) dated 30 January 2003;
- Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing) dated 08 July 2004;
- Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 28 December 2004;
- Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Eduardo Antonio B. Nachura) dated 17 December 2007;
- Motion for Inhibition (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 28 December 2004;
- Reiteratory Motion to Recuse dated 03 March 2006 (Re: Justice Panganiban);
- Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Nachura) dated 07 January 2008;
- Urgent Consolidated Motion to Reiterate Request for Inhibition (Re: Justice Antonio T. Carpio) dated 02 June 2008;
- Urgent Motion for Re-Raffle (Re: Justice Presbitero J. Velasco) dated 10 July 2008;
- Supplement to the Urgent Motion for Re-Raffle (Re: Justices Conchita Carpio Morales and Dante O. Tinga) dated 04 August 2008;
- Urgent Consolidated Motion for Re-Raffle (Re: Justices Carpio Morales, Tinga and Velasco) dated 14 August 2008;
- Urgent Consolidated Motion for Re-Raffle (Re: Justices Arturo D. Brion, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Carpio Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Quisumbing) dated 28 August 2008;
- Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Carpio) dated 21 January 2010;
- Very Urgent Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justices Carpio Morales and Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno) dated 30 March 2011;
- Very Urgent Motion to Inhibit dated 22 August 2011 (Re: Justice Sereno); and
- Very Urgent Motion to Re-Raffle dated 01 September 2011 (Re: Justices Carpio, Jose Perez and Sereno).
We agree that judges have the duty of protecting the integrity of the judiciary as an institution worthy of public trust and confidence. But under the circumstances here, we also agree that unnecessary inhibition of judges in a case would open the floodgates to forum-shopping. More so, considering that Judge Magpale was not the first judge that TAN had asked to be inhibited on the same allegation of prejudgment. To allow successive inhibitions would justify petitioners apprehension about the practice of certain litigants shopping for a judge more friendly and sympathetic to their cause than previous ones.
As held in Mateo, Jr. v. Hon. Villaluz, the invitation for judges to disqualify themselves need not always be heeded. It is not always desirable that they should do so. It might amount in certain cases to their being recreant about their duties. It could also be an instrument whereby a party could inhibit a judge in the hope of getting another more amenable to his persuasion. (Emphasis supplied.)
Endnotes:
1 Rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 16-24.
2 Urban Bank, Inc., v. Magdaleno M. Peña, G.R. No. 145817 and Delfin C. Gonzales, Jr., et al., v. Magdaleno M. Peña, G.R. No. 145822. A separate petition entitled Magdaleno M. Peña, v. Urban Bank, Inc., Teodoro Borlongan, Delfin C. Gonzalez, Jr., Benjamin L. de Leon, P. Siervo H. Dizon, Eric L. Lee, Ben T. Lim, Jr., Corazon Bejasa, and Arturo Manuel, Jr., and docketed as G.R. No. 162562, was later filed and consolidated with the two earlier petitions. (See Urban Bank v. Peña, G.R. No. 145817, 145822, 162562, 19 October 2011)
3 Annexes “A,” “B” and “C,” of the Motion; rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 25-32.
4 Annex “D,” of the Motion; id. at 33.
5 “The manifestation of the Office of the Chief Legal counsel of PDIC with motion with leave of court praying that the Export and Industry Bank with office address at 36th Floor, Export and Industry Bank Plaza, Chino Roces Avenue corner Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City be furnished with all the pleadings and other court processes vice the PDIC for reasons mentioned therein is NOTED and GRANTED.
Before acting on respondent Magdalena Penas Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated January 30, 2003, the Court Resolves to direct Atty. Magdaleno M. Peña and Atty. Manuel R. Singson to APPEAR before this Court on Monday, March 3, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.
Let this resolution be served personally on aforesaid lawyers, if feasible.” (SC Resolution dated 17 February 2003; rollo [Vol. 1], pp. 34-35)
6 SC Resolution dated 03 March 2003; id., pp. 38-43.
7 Respondent Peñas Compliance dated 03 April 2003; rollo (G.R. No. 145817), Vol. 2, pp. 1333-1340.
8 Id. at 1333-1338.
9 Rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 74-84.
10 Petitioner Urban Banks Opposition (to Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion) dated 28 February 2003; rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 119-131.
11 SC Resolution dated 28 April 2003, at 4; rollo (Vol. 1), p. 54.
12 Rollo (Vol. 1), at 51-55.
13 Respondent Peñas Affidavit dated 27 June 2003; id., pp. 68-71.
14 Atty. Singsons Affidavit dated 28 July 2003; id., pp. 75-84.
15 Petitioner De Leon Groups Manifestation and Motion dated 14 May 2003; id., pp. 174-182.
16 SC Resolution dated 09 June 2003; id., pp. 183-184; see also SC Resolution dated 19 January 2005, which allowed the OBC to proceed with the investigation of the contempt charge against respondent Peña; id., pp. 325-326.
17 Respondent Peñas Comment dated 22 August 2003; id., pp. 196-220.
18 Id.
19 Office of the Bar Confidant TSN dated 10 August 2006; rollo (Vol. 3), pp. 714-774.
20 Respondent Peñas Memorandum for the Respondent dated 03 November 2006; rollo (Vol. 2), pp. 363-379.
21 Respondent Peñas Motion to Vacate/Recall dated 20 February 2010; rollo (G. R. No. 145822), Vol. 2, pp. 3286-3293.
22 The three consolidated petitions in the main case include: (1) Urban Bank, Inc., v. Magdaleno M. Peña, G.R. No. 145817; (2) Delfin C. Gonzales, Jr., et al., v. Magdaleno M. Peña. G.R. No. 145822; and (3) Magdaleno M. Peña v. Urban Bank, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 162562.
23 “… In fact, with all due respect, I believe the Honorable Justice Sereno will attempt to protect the Honorable Justice Carpio by perhaps separating the Admin Case No. 6332, thus separating the findings of the OBC regarding the Agendas, and thus protecting the Honorable Justice Carpio.” (Respondent Peñas Letter dated 16 September 2011, p. 6, which is Annex “A” of his Supplement to the Very Urgent Motion for Re-Raffle dated 20 September 2011)
24 “While respondent may appear to have been passionate and agitated in his language in his motion, the same may not be considered as malicious imputations as he is merely expressing concern of what he has discovered based on the documents he has obtained apparently from an anonymous sender and based on his own discoveries.” (OBC Report dated11 December 2007, p. 50; rollo [Vol. 4], p. 1706)
25 “Nevertheless, it is worthy [to note] that in respondents motion to inhibit, etc., the latter did not make a direct accusation of bribery against the ponente but merely narrated events, which in respondents view, warranted the inhibition of the said ponente. The statements made by respondent in his conversation with Atty. Singson, particularly his remark about Justice Carpio having a new Mercedez Benz was not made in the presence of or so near a court nor in any public place or in a published material as to create any impression in the mind of the public or malign the integrity of any member of the Court. Rather it was part of a private conversation between respondent and Atty. Singson only.” (OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 51; rollo [Vol. 4], p. 1707)
26 “In the highest interest of justice, let the apology and the begging of herein respondent touches the Courts indulgence and compassion and accord respondent the benefit of the doubt on his sincerity. However, let this benevolence of the Court serve, as his first warning, being an officer of the court, to be more cautious, restraint and circumspect with his dealing in the future with the Members of the Court and the Supreme Court.” (OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 52; rollo [Vol. 4], p. 1708)
27 OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 53; rollo (Vol. 4), p. 1709.
28 “During the Executive Session on 3 March 2003, Hon. Justice Antonio T. Carpio categorically denied that Annex B belong to him or any of the Members of the First Division. On the other hand, Hon. Justice Jose C. Vitug admitted that Annex C might be his copy and the same is on the record of the case as confirmed by the Division Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court, however, averted that there is no such Annex B in the records and the notation 10 AC as appearing in Annex B is not present in Annex C .” (OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 53; id., p. 1709)
29 “During the investigation Atty. Vinluan appears. He identifies the affidavit he executed on 16 May 2003, in support of the manifestation and motion of private petitioners. He enumerates several pleadings of respondent in related cases imputing that the uses his influence over Justice Buena to gain favorable resolution of the case. He vehemently denies that imputations. According to him this unfounded accusation tends to discredit his long-standing name and hard-earned reputation before the Supreme Court and the legal profession.” (OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 58; id., p. 1714)
30 “The statements may not appear to be abrasive and disrespectful but it contains words that may offend the ego of the complainant, but prudence dictates that respondent as a lawyer, he must refrain from using unnecessary words and statements which may not be necessary in the resolution of the incidents raised therein.” (OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 59; id., p. 1715)
31 “Atty. Peña argues that petitioners and their counsel violated the rule against forum-shopping when they filed three separate petitions for certiorari questioning the decision of the Court of Appeals raising the same issues and reliefs before this Court.” (OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 60; id., p. 1716)
32 “Petitioners and their counsel should be given an opportunity to aptly defend himself to produce witness/es and/or evidence relative thereto and to be heard by himself or by counsel.” (OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 61; id., p. 1717)
33 OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, pp. 47-62; id., pp. 1703-1718.
34 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 11.
35 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 11, Rule 11.03.
36 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 11, Rule 11.04.
37 Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, 16 April 2008, 551 SCRA 359, citing Rubio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84032, 29 August 1989, 177 SCRA 60, 63.
38 Id., citing Torres v. Javier, A.C. No. 5910, 21 September 2005, 470 SCRA 408, 421; Nuñez v. Astorga, A.C. No. 6131, 28 February 2005, 452 SCRA 353, 364, citing Hueysuwan-Florido v. Florido, 465 Phil. 1, 7 (2004); Cruz v. Cabrera, A.C. No. 5737, October 25, 2004, 441 SCRA 211, 219.
39 Ng v. Alar, A.C. No. 7252, 22 November 2006, 507 SCRA 465, citing Hueysuwan-Florido v. Florido, A.C. No. 5624,20 January 2004, 420 SCRA 132, 136-137.
40 Respondent Peñas Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 30 January 2006, at 2-3; rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 17-18.
41 SC TSN dated 03 March 2002, at 55-58; rollo (Vol. 3), pp. 1052-1055.
42 SC Resolution dated 03 March 2003, p. 3; rollo (Vol. 1), p. 40.
43 Annex “1” of the SC Resolution dated 28 April 2003; id., pp. 8-9.
44 Annex “2” of the SC Resolution dated 28 April 2003; id., pp. 10-15.
45 “Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself.” (Sinnott v. Barte, A. M. No. RTJ-99-1453, 14 December 2001, 423 Phil. 522)
46 “2. With all due respect, it is important to note that one of the matters taken up or issues in A.C. No. 6332 was the issuance, by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, of a Resolution dated 13 November 2002 and the anomalous/unusual circumstances regarding the same for it being contrary to the Agenda of November 2002 of the First Division of this Honorable Court. Further, this incident was the subject of an executive hearing wherein the First Division interrogated respondent/petitioner Peña as to who in the Supreme Court supplied the questioned Agenda to him. During this executive hearing, the Honorable Justice Carpio was confrontational and hostile to respondent/petitioner Peña for exposing the questioned Agenda and raising issues therein.” (Respondent Peñas Motion to Inhibit dated 20 January 2010, p. 2)
47 “3. One of the matters taken up and/or issues in A.C. No. 6332 was the issuance, by Justice Antonio T. Carpio, of a Resolution dated 13 November 2002 and the anomalous/unusual circumstances regarding the same for it being contrary to the Agenda of November 2002 of the First Division of this Honorable Court. Further, this incident was the subject of an executive hearing wherein the First Division interrogated me as to who in the Supreme Court supplied me the questioned Agenda. During this executive hearing, the Honorable Justice Carpio was confrontational and hostile to me for exposing the questioned Agenda and raising issues therein.” (Respondent Peñas Motion to Inhibit dated 22 August 2011, p. 2)
48 Respondent Peñas Letter dated 16 September 2011, p. 2-4, which is Annex “A” of his Supplement to the Very Urgent Motion for Re-Raffle dated 20 September 2011.
49 In Re: Raquel D. J. Razon, et al., A. M. No. P-06-2243, 26 September 2006, 503 SCRA 52.
50 “3. Once again, I wish to express my sincerest apologies to the members of the Honorable Court whom I may have offended by the use of the two copies of the Supplemental Agenda in my motion. It was never my intention to undermine the integrity of the Honorable Court or any of its members. If I had made remarks which gave the impression, I am certainly very sorry. My aim was only to get to the truth.” (Respondent Peñas Affidavit dated 27 June 2003, p. 1; rollo [Vol. 1], p. 68)
51 “2. At the outset, respondent wishes to apologize for the distress his statements may have caused the members of this Honorable Court. While such distress may have been the unavoidable consequence of his motion to inhibit the ponente, it was certainly not his intended result.” (Respondent Peñas Compliance dated 03 April 2003; rollo [G.R. No. 145817], Vol. 2, pp. 1333-1340).
52 Respondent Peñas Reply (to Petitioners Opposition to Motion to Urgent Motion to Inhibit) dated 31 October 2001; rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 85-108.
53 Respondent Peñas Opposition (to Urgent Motion for Leave to Admit Urgent Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated 14 February 2001 and 13 December 2000) dated 23 April 2001, at 4-5, rollo (Vol. 3), pp. 1116-1117.
54 Respondent Peñas Reply (to Petitioners Opposition to Motion to Urgent Motion to Inhibit) dated 31 October 2001, at 1; id., p. 1128.
55 Id., at 14; id., p. 1141.
56 Id.
57 Respondent Peñas Motion to Inhibit dated 18 February 2002, at 5; id., p. 1156.
58 1. Peñas Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Artemio V. Panganiban) dated 12 January 2001; 2. Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 18 February 2002; 3. Reply (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 15 March 2001; 4. Motion to Inhibit (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 28 December 2004; 5. Motion for Inhibition (Re: Justice Panganiban) dated 28 December 2004; and 6. Reiteratory Motion to Recuse dated 03 March 2006 (Re: Justice Panganiban).
59 Respondent Peñas Motion to Inhibit dated 18 February 2002, pp. 2-3; rollo (G.R. No. 145817), Vol. 1, pp. 901-902.
60 Respondent Peñas Motion to Inhibit dated 07 January 2008, p. 3; rollo (G.R. No. 145817), Vol. 3, p. 1953.
61 “The Court is concerned with the repeated attempts of Atty. Peña throughout the entire course of these proceedings (whether through a direct motion to inhibit, administrative ethics complaint, or, indirectly, through a motion for re-raffle) to cause the inhibition of members of this Court. Eleven (11) Justices so far have all been asked by Atty. Peña to inhibit themselves. Atty. Peñas inclination to disqualify members of the Court, whom he perceives to be potentially adversarial to his cause, has certainly caused unwarranted and unnecessary delay in the resolution of the case.” (SC Resolution dated 17 October 2011 in the consolidated petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 145817, 145822 and 162562)
62 G.R. Nos. 159486-88, 25 November 2003, 416 SCRA 465.
63 Resolution dated 28 April 2003, at 4; rollo (Vol. 1), p. 6.
64 “The Clerk of Court and the Division Clerks of Court shall ensure that all pleadings, communications, documents, and other papers duly filed in a case shall be reported in the Agenda for the consideration by the Court en banc or the Division. The Agenda items for each case shall adequately apprise the Court of relevant matters for its consideration.” (Internal Rules of the Supreme Court [A. M. No. 10-4-20-SC, as amended], Rule 11, Sec. 1)
65 Respondent Peñas Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 30 January 2003, at 4-5; rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 19-20.
66 TSN dated 03 March 2002, pp. 38-44; rollo (Vol. 3), pp. 1036-1042.
67 TSN dated 03 March 2002, pp. 98-99; id., pp. 1094-1095.
68 In the verification portion of his Motion to Inhibit, respondent Peña under oath swore and stated that he had caused the preparation of the motion, and that all the allegations therein were true and correct, based on his knowledge as well as the records of the case. (Respondent Peñas Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 30 January 2003, at 7-8; rollo [Vol. 1], pp. 22-23)
69 “A lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the Court.” (Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 10)
70 Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 10.01.
71 Samala v. Valencia, A. C. No. 5439, 22 January 2007, 512 SCRA 1, citing Young v. Batuegas, 451 Phil. 155 (2003).
72 Id.
73 TSN dated 03 March 2002, at 73; rollo (Vol. 3), pp. 1070.
74 Respondent Peñas Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 30 January 2003, at 4-5; rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 19-20.
75 “Court personnel shall not disclose to any unauthorized person any confidential information acquired by them while employed in the judiciary, whether such information came from authorized or unauthorized sources.
“Confidential information means information not yet made a matter of public record relating to pending cases, as well as information not yet made public concerning the work of any justice or judge relating to pending cases, including notes, drafts, research papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal deliberations and similar papers.
“The notes, drafts, research papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda, records of internal deliberations and similar papers that a justice or judge uses in preparing a decision, resolution or order shall remain confidential even after the decision, resolution or order is made public.” (Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, AM No. 03-06-13-SC, Canon II, Sec. 1)
76 “The Offices of the Clerk of Court and of the Division Clerks of Court are bound by strict confidentiality on the action or actions taken by the Court prior to the approval of the draft of the minutes of the court session release of the resolutions embodying the Court action or actions.” (Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, as amended, Rule 11, Sec. 5, par. 1)
77 “11. I had no reason to doubt the documents authenticity simply because there was no reason for anyone to bother or go to the extent of manufacturing documents for the benefit of someone who does not even know him. The documents contained a detailed list of the incidents deliberated by this Honorable Court on 13 November 2002. Definitely, not just anyone could have access to such information.” (Respondent Peñas Affidavit dated 27 June 2003, at 3; rollo [Vol. 1], p. 70)
78 Respondent Peñas Motion to Vacate/Recall dated 20 February 2010; rollo (G. R. No. 145822), Vol. 2, pp. 3286-3293.
79 Annex “5” of respondent Peñas Motion to Vacate/Recall dated 20 February 2010; rollo (G. R. No. 145822), Vol. 2, pp. 3305-3366.
80 OBC Report dated 11 December 2007; rollo (Vol. 4), pp. 1657-1718.
81 “12. Respondent is not just speculating here. He is CERTAIN that the ponente has a special interest in this case. Recently, he also found out that the ponente made a special request to bring this case along with him when he transferred from the Third Division to the First Division. Respondent has a copy of the Resolution of this Honorable Court granting such request (hereto attached as Annex D ). Indeed this circumstance, considered with all the foregoing circumstances, ineluctably demonstrate that a major anomaly occurred here.” (Peñas Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondents Urgent Omnibus Motion dated 30 January 2003, pp. 5-6; rollo [Vol. 1], pp. 20-21)
82 “Let this case be TRANSFERRED to the First Division, the same being assigned to a Member thereof. [Internal Matter]” (Rollo [Vol. 1], p. 33)
83 “12. Moreover, I subsequently received another mail from apparently the same sender, this time containing a pink copy of this Honorable Courts 4 September 2002 Resolution (annex D , Urgent Motion to Inhibit) transferring this case from the Third Division to the First Division. The receipt of this last document somehow confirmed to me that whoever sent the copies of the Supplemental Agenda really had access to the records of this Honorable Court.” (Peñas Affidavit dated 27 June 2003, p. 3; rollo [Vol. 1], p. 70)
84 “Effect of reorganization of Divisions on assigned cases. - In the reorganization of the membership of Divisions, cases already assigned to a Member-in-Charge shall be transferred to the Division to which the Member-in-Charge moves, subject to the rule on the resolution of motions for reconsideration under Section 7 of this Rule. The Member-in-Charge is the Member given the responsibility of overseeing the progress and disposition of a case assigned by raffle.” (Internal Rules of the Supreme Court [A. M. No. 10-4-20-SC, as amended], Rule 2, Sec. 9)
85 “In this regard, respondent made an irresponsible suspicion. As an internal policy of the Court, the case will automatically be transferred to the Division to which the ponente of the case is a Member thereof.” (OBC Report dated 11 December 2007, p. 50; rollo [Vol. 4], p. 1706)
86 Annex “A” of Peñas Reply (to Petitioners Opposition to Motion to Urgent Motion to Inhibit) dated 31 October 2001; rollo (G. R. No. 145822), Vol. 2, pp. 2776-2834.
87 Peñas Reply (to Petitioners Opposition to Motion to Urgent Motion to Inhibit) dated 31 October 2001, p. 6; rollo (Vol. 1), at 90.
88 “xxx Excerpts of the minutes pertaining to a particular case quoted in a letter of the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court to the parties, and extended resolutions showing the actions of the court on the cases on the agenda shall be released to the parties only after the Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson has approved the minutes in writing. xxx” (Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, as amended, Rule 11, Sec. 4)
89 “13. I sincerely regret that the documents considered confidential by the Honorable Supreme Court had leaked out but there was nothing I could do about it. Once these documents were sent to me, my duty was to bring them to [the] attention of the Court which, in its wisdom, would know best what to do with them.” (Respondent Peñas Affidavit dated 27 June 2003, at 3; rollo [Vol. 1], pp. 70)
90 “The term noted means that the Court has merely taken cognizance of the existence of an act or declaration, without exercising a judicious deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter — it does not imply agreement or approval.” (Sebastian v. Bajar, A. C. No. 3731, 07 September 2007, 532 SCRA 435, citing Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, 30 June 2005, 462 SCRA 310, 321)
91 Justice Carpios Agenda for 13 November 2002, Item 175 (a) & (f) as “See RES.”; rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 10-15.
92 TSN dated 03 March 2002, at 77-83; rollo (Vol. 3), pp. 1073-1079.
93 The Chief Justice or the Chairperson of the Division shall provide the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court the latter notes on the actions taken by the Court. The copy of the Agenda containing the handwritten notes of the Chief Justice or Division Chairperson shall serve as the basis for the preparation of the minutes of the session by the Office of the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court. Within three working days from the time the copy of the Agenda containing the handwritten actions of the Court is transmitted, the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court shall submit the draft of the minutes of the session for the approval by the Chief Justice or the Division Chairperson. (Internal Rules of the Court, as amended, Rule 11, Sec. 3 and 4)
94 Revised Penal Code, Art. 229 (Revelation of Secrets).
95 “Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date, xxx.”(Republic Act No. 3019, Sec. 3 [k])
96 Respondent Peñas Comment (with Motions to Explain and for Full Investigation) dated 22 August 2003; rollo (Vol. 1), pp. 196-220.
97 Rules of Court, Rule 7, Sec. 5.
98 Code of Professional Responsibility, Canon 8.
99 Code of Professional Responsibility, Rule 8.01.
100 Barandon v. Ferrer, A. C. No. 5768, 26 March 2010, 616 SCRA 529, citing Saberon v. Larong, A.C. No. 6567, 16 April 2008, 551 SCRA 359, 368.
101 Id., citing De la Rosa v. Court of Appeals Justices, 454 Phil. 718, 727 (2003).
102 Uy v. Depasucat, id., citing Surigao Mineral Reservation Board v. Cloribel, G.R. No. L-27072, 09 January 1970, 31 SCRA 1.
103 Peñas Motion to Inhibit dated 18 February 2002; rollo (G. R. No. 145822), Vol. 2, pp. 2936-2945.
104 Peñas Very Urgent Motion to Inhibit dated 30 March 2011; rollo (G. R. No. 145822), Vol. 3, pp. 3964-3971.
105 Peñas Very Urgent Motion for Re-Raffle dated 01 September 2011; id., pp. 3972-3980.
106 Peñas Supplement to the Urgent Motion for Re-raffle dated 04 August 2008; rollo (G. R. No. 162562). Vol. 2, pp. 1339-1344.
107 Peñas Urgent Consolidated Motion for Re-Raffle dated 28 August 2008; id., pp. 1355-1362.
108 Borlongan v. Peña, G. R. No. 143591, 23 November 2007, 538 SCRA 221.
109 “However, herein private respondent-movant (Peña) would like to make it clear that he has full trust and confidence in the other members of the Third Division, Considering that only Associate Justice Nachura has exhibited extreme bias and prejudice against private respondent.” (Peñas Motion to Inhibit dated 07 January 2008, p. 6; rollo [G. R. No. 162562], Vol. 2, p. 1278)
110 G. R. No. 144618, 15 August 2003, 456 Phil. 440.