SENIOR JUSTICES CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT YET AGAIN IN SC FLAG RITES

The usual Justices attended Monday’s Supreme Court (SC) flag-raising ceremony with Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Associate Justices Mariano Del Castillo, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Perlas-Bernabe were present, while conspicuously absent yet again are the senior Justices: Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, and Lucas Bersamin.

Associate Justice Martin Villarama, Jr. was also not around.

It was Sereno’s third flag rites as chief magistrate.

High Court employees, who refused to be named, told ABS-CBN News that Sereno cannot demand the rest of the Justices to be present in the flag-raising ceremony since she hardly attended the flag rites prior to her appointment to the top judicial post.

“We rarely saw her during the flag-raising in the past… considering she was one of the most junior justices then,” a Supreme Court employees’ union official said.

Sereno, the third most junior magistrate prior to her appointment as chief magistrate, “bypassed” eleven senior justices to the Chief Justiceship. This broke the long-standing tradition of seniority taking precedence in the Judiciary.

While others criticized her appointment as an attempt by the Aquino government to “take control of the Judiciary,” several sectors believe it will usher in a new wave of change in the embattled branch.

Sereno, apart from being the first woman Chief Justice of the country, will lead the Supreme Court for a historic 18 years. (ABS-CBN)

De Lima says she’ll testify at Corona trial

MANILA, Philippines—Justice Secretary Leila De Lima said she will appear before the Senate Impeachment Court to testify against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

“If subpoenaed, yes, I will,” De Lima said.

De Lima met with partylist Representative Neri Colmenares last Wednesday. Colmenares is the lead prosecutor for Article 7 of the Articles of Impeachment against Corona.

“We met and we made initial discussions on the possible parameters of my testimony,” De Lima said.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is mum on the plan of the Prosecution panel to summon Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Presbitero Velasco as well as Court Administrator and Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez.

Inquirer.net sent several text messages and made several calls to Marquez’ office but no response. (tere torres, inqnet)

SC holds oral arguments on WLO vs. Arroyo couple

The Supreme Court (SC) en banc on Tuesday conducted the oral arguments on the legality of the watchlist order (WLO) issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against former President and now Pampanga (2^nd District) Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband former First Gentleman Atty. Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo.

The WLO was issued against the Arroyo couple because of the plunder and electoral sabotage charges filed against them, respectively.

Mrs. Arroyo was barred from leaving the country with the electoral sabotage case filed against her; former Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan, Sr.; and former Maguindanao provincial election supervisor Atty. Lintang Bedol by the joint DOJ-Comelec panel on Nov. 18, 2011.

However, Mr. Arroyo is now free to travel abroad as the DOJ earlier on Tuesday lifted the WLO it earlier issued against the former first gentleman and seven others.

Present during the oral arguments were SC Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Jr.; Diosdado Peralta; Lucas Bersamin; Roberto Abad; Martin Villarama, Jr.; Jose Perez; Maria Lourdes Sereno; Bienvenido Reyes; Estela Perlas-Bernabe; Mariano Del Castillo; Teresita Leonardo-De Castro; and Jose Mendoza; and Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

Associate Justice Arturo Brion was on-sick leave.

The oral arguments centered on the questions on the legality of Department Circular No. 41 of the DOJ authorizing the Justice Secretary to issue a WLO or a hold departure order (HDO) against an individual.

Those who stood as legal counsels for the petitioners Arroyos were Atty. Estelito Mendoza, Atty. Anacleto Diaz, Atty. Ferdinand Topacio and Atty. Joselito Lomangaya.

They argued that the DOJ Department Circular No. 41 is not even a law and is only an administrative order that can restrain the rights of the former president and the former first gentleman to travel abroad.

They said that the 1987 Constitution has set the limitations on the right to travel such as if it involves national security.

They stressed that Department Circular No. 41 is violative of the Constitution.

Justice Carpio asked Diaz if a subpoena being issued by a prosecutor can be a basis to stop the travel abroad of a respondent such that compliance with a subpoena can be considered as “compulsory procedure”.

Carpio said that the respondent should first comply with the subpoena before he can be allowed to travel abroad.

However, Diaz said that although the respondent should comply with the subpoena, it does not prevent the travel abroad of a citizen because there are other legal remedies that can be imposed if in case a respondent did not appear in the hearing called by the prosecutor.

Carpio said that although such remedy can be possible, it would be a big problem on how to run after the respondent if he is out of the country.

Justice Sereno cited that even before the implementation of Circular 41 during the term of DOJ Secretary Alberto Agra, there were other similar issuances of the DOJ.

She said that with the Circular 41, almost 6,000 individuals were placed under the WLO.

With such a situation, Sereno said, it’s a big question on what’s the difference of Mrs. Arroyo from the 6,000 individuals who experienced the restriction to travel abroad.

Sereno added that she is not convinced that the information cited by Diaz is sufficient his arguments.

Those who will argue for the government were Solicitor General Jose Anselmo “Joel” Cadiz, DOJ Secretary Leila De lima and Bureau of Immigration (BI) Commissioner Ricardo David, Jr.

In their comment, they all defended the legality and constitutionality of Department Circular No. 41.

They maintained that the right to travel is not absolute.

The BI is an attached agency of the DOJ.

The oral arguments lasted for about three hours.

It will continue on Thursday for the side of the government. (PNA)

SC stops implementation of watch list order vs Arroyos

The Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily stopped the implementation of the watch list orders against former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo.

Court sources said eight justices voted in favor of the temporary restraining order, including Chief Justice Renato Corona, Jose Perez, Diosdado Peralta, Presbitero Velasco, Roberto Abad, and Arturo Brion.

Those with dissenting opinion were Antonio Carpio, Jose Mendoza, Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Bernabe, the sources said.

Two magistrates — Mariano del Castillo and Teresita de Castro — were on leave.

A press briefing is scheduled at 2 p.m.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) placed the Arroyo couple on the Immigration watch list in connection with the charges filed against them.

Mrs. Arroyo is facing plunder and electoral sabotage charges while Mr. Arroyo is also facing electoral sabotage charges.

The DOJ earlier denied Mrs. Arroyo’s request to seek treatment abroad for her bone disorder.

A person on the Immigration watch list must seek permission first from the government before he or she could leave the country. – Mark D. Merueñas/KBK, GMA News

SC AWARDS BACK SALARIES TO WATER DISTRICT EXEC

The Supreme Court (SC) upheld a Court of Appeals (CA) decision awarding back salaries to a storekeeper of the City of Malolos Water District (CMWD) who was earlier dismissed for uttering damaging statement against General Manager (GM) Nicasio Reyes.

In a 25-page decision penned by Associate Justice Arturo Brion, the SC en banc found that the CA was correct in awarding Richard G. Cruz his back salaries during the period he was suspended from work, following his dismissal until his reinstatement to his former position.

Chief Justice Renato Corona and Justices Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Martin Villarama, Jose Portugal Perez and Ma. Lourdes Sereno both concurred with the ruling.

Associate Justices Roberto Abad and Jose Catral Mendoza were on-leave while Justice Mariano del Castillo took no part.

Cruz, Storekeeper A of the CMWD, was charged with grave misconduct and dishonesty by Reyes for uttering a false, malicious and damaging statement (Masasamang tao ang mga BOD at General Manager) against GM Reyes and the rest of the CMWD Board of Directors (Board).

Four of his subordinates allegedly witnessed the utterance.

The dishonesty charge, in turn, stemmed from Cruz’s act of claiming overtime pay despite his failure to log in and out in the computerized daily time record for three working days. He denied the charges against him.

On the charge of grave misconduct, he stressed that three of the four witnesses already retracted their statements against him. On the charge of dishonesty, he asserted that he never failed to log in and log out. He reasoned that the lack of record was caused by technical computer problems.

Cruz submitted documents showing that he rendered overtime work on the three days that the CMWD questioned.

GM Reyes preventively suspended the respondent for 15 days.

Before the expiration of his preventive suspension, however, GM Reyes, with the approval of the CMWD Board, found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty, and dismissed him from the service.

Cruz elevated the case the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which absolved him of the two charges and ordered his reinstatement.

Based on the records of the case, the CSC was not swayed that the failure of Cruz to record his attendance on April 21 and 22, 2007 and May 5, 2007, while claiming overtime pay amounted to dishonesty.

The CSC, however, found the respondent liable for violation of reasonable office rules for his failure to log in and log out.

It imposed on him the penalty of reprimand but did not order the payment of back salaries.

The CA, however, rejected the CSC’s contention that the charge of dishonesty had been merely downgraded to a lesser offense.

It saw the finding in a CSC resolution to be for an offense (failing to properly record his attendance) entirely different from the dishonesty charge because their factual bases are different.

Thus, to the CA, the CSC ruling did not wholly restore the Cruz’s rights as an exonerated employee as it failed to order the payment of his back salaries.

In its ruling, the SC stated that “… on the legal issue of the respondent’s entitlement to back salaries, we are fully in accord with the CA’s conclusion that the two conditions to justify the award of back salaries exist in the present case.”

“We fully respect the factual findings of the CSC especially since the CA affirmed these factual findings,” the SC decision noted.

SC ORDERS INSURANCE FIRM TO PAY P2.2 SURETY BOND TO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed a Court of Appeals (CA) decision sustaining a lower court’s ruling against an insurance company which stemmed from a failed dredging project of the Cebu International Port in 1991.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, the SC’s Third Division affirmed the CA’s ruling dated September 29, 2005 and resolution dated September 25, 2006 and likewise denied the petition for review filed by American Home Insurance Co. of New York (American Home).

Peralta’s ponencia was concurred by Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco, Jr., Arturo Brion, Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

In June 1990, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) conducted a bidding of a project for the dredging of the entrance channel and harbor basin of the Cebu International Port in Cebu City.

The PPA awarded the contract to the winning bidder, F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. (FF Cruz).  Pursuant to their earlier agreement, FF Cruz and Genaro Reyes Construction, Inc. executed a Sub-Contract Agreement whereby the latter agreed to undertake the performance of 50% of the dredging project’s estimated volume of 600,000 cubic meters.

FF Cruz gave G. Reyes an advance payment of P2.2 million guaranteed by a surety bond for the same amount issued by American Home.

The surety bond was issued to guarantee payment of the advance payment made by FF Cruz to G. Reyes for the dredging project in the event that the latter fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the sub-contract.

On October 21, 1991, G. Reyes complained to the PPA about the great deal of silt and waste materials that had accumulated in the area which adversely affected its work accomplishment.

In December 1991, G. Reyes informed FF Cruz that the equipment used for the project had been encountering difficulties because of siltation problems.

G. Reyes admitted that continuing the project was no longer a wise investment and called on FF Cruz to take over the project.

FF Cruz thus took over the unfinished project.

Consequently, FF Cruz demanded from American Home the payment of P2.2 million representing the amount of the bond.

When the case reached the lower court, it ordered American Home, Genaro G. Reyes Construction, Incorporated, “jointly and severally, to pay third-party defendant F.F. Cruz and Company the amount of P2,200,000.00…”

The said ruling was likewise sustained by the appellate court which prompted the insurance company to elevate the case before SC.

American Home faulted the CA in considering the surety bond as a performance bond.

It insisted that the bond guaranteed only the payment of the 15% advance payment made by FF Cruz to G. Reyes amounting to P2.2 million and not the performance of the latter’s obligations nor the completion of the dredging operations.

The insurance company also averred that making it (American Home) liable under the bond because of G. Reyes’ abandonment of the project is tantamount to enlarging its liability.

It further claimed that it was not informed that G. Reyes already abandoned the project and that FF Cruz took over to complete the same, adding that it was a material alteration of the terms of the surety bond which thus discharged it of liability on the surety agreement.

However, in its decision, the SC stated that its jurisdiction over a petition for review on certiorari “is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of facts, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support from the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.”

“With the foregoing disquisition, we need not discuss the other issues raised by American Home,” the high court noted.

“Factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on the Court. We have repeatedly held that we are not a trier of facts. We generally rely upon, and are bound by, the conclusions on factual matters made by the lower courts, which are better equipped and have better opportunity to assess the evidence first-hand, including the testimony of the witnesses,” it stressed.

The SC added that “for lack of evidence to show the fact of payment, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court that P2.2 million is due FF Cruz.”