Administrative case vs. Corona, Sereno dismissed. - A.M. No. 12-6-11-SC

A.M. No. 12-6-11-SC

"x x x.

Peña also sought to ascribe to Justice Carpio the alleged fact that Atty. Singson, counsel for Urban Bank, got an advance copy of the November 13, 2002 resolution and faxed it to him on November 19, days before the Court released it for mailing.  But, Peña has been unable to show that this advance copy came from Justice Carpio.  Besides, the record shows that the First Division released the resolution for dissemination on November 14, days before Atty. Singson faxed a copy to Peña. Moreover, it was the Division Clerk of Court, not Justice Carpio, who had the duty to release decisions and resolutions for dissemination.[2]  

In the case at bar, complainant also seeks disciplinary action against Justice Carpio for allegedly taking cognizance of Urban Bank’s Motion for Clarification of which respondent was allegedly not furnished a copy of, and for issuing the November 13, 2002 clarificatory resolution without first requiring complainant to comment on Urban Bank’s Motion. Moreover, the November 13, 2002 resolution allegedly caused irreparable damage to complainant and other auction buyers and destroyed the credibility and sanctity of valid auction sales.

Judicial remedies were available to complainant in the main cases. In fact, the allegations in the present complaint are a mere rehash of the allegations in complainant’s Urgent Omnibus Motion (To Expunge Motion for Clarification and Recall of the 13 November 2002 Resolution) dated December 9, 2002 and Urgent Motion to Inhibit and to Resolve Respondent’s Urgent Omnibus Motion dated January 30, 2003 filed in the main cases, which, in fact, have already been decided on October 19, 2011.

Peña charges Justice Sereno of unfairly refusing to inhibit herself from taking part in the deliberation in the main cases notwithstanding that Justice Carpio’s former law office supposedly worked for her appointment in the Supreme Court.  But the Court had already found in its April 17, 2012 per curiam decision  in A.C. No. 6332 that this charge has no “extrinsic factual evidence to support it.”  The charge is purely conjectural.

WHEREFORE, Magdaleno M. Peña’s complaint against Justices Antonio T. Carpio and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

 x x x."