Thursday, August 14, 2008 SC told to void Meralco ruling
THE Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to declare null and void the June 23 decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that divested the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the right to rule over the Meralco ownership row.
In a petition for certiorari, GSIS lawyer Estrella Elamparo-Tayag asked the high court to stop the CA Eighth Division from implementing its controversial decision, imbued as it was with grave abuse of discretion tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction over the case when it should have been the Special Ninth Division that ruled on the case.
The appellate court's Eighth Division, through Associate Justice Vicente Roxas, directed the SEC to dismiss the petition of GSIS seeking to annul the proxy votes counted in favor of the Lopez group during the May 27 stockholders' meeting of Meralco.
The CA ruling further recommended that sanctions be imposed upon pension fund's legal department and its lawyers.
The issue of whether it is the Eighth or Special Ninth Division should decide the Meralco case is now the subject of an investigation by a three-man panel created by the SC to investigate alleged bribery and irregularity in the dispensation of the case.
GSIS said there is need for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) or writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that the enforcement of the decision while the case is being heard would work injustice to GSIS.
"Unless the assailed decision is enjoined, there is a great likelihood of said petition being rendered moot and academic by mere passage of time without actually being heard and decided on the merits, a decidedly unjust situation for the petitioner who, in the event of a favorable decision in the instant petition, would find the same ineffectual," said Tayag.
According to GSIS, the Eighth Division gravely abused its discretion when it granted relief not prayed for in the petition, such as the order to dismiss the petition filed by GSIS with the SEC; when it declared as barred the petitioner's complaint before the SEC from being considered an election contest; and in holding that the cease and desist order (CDO) and the show-cause order issued by the SEC are void ab initio.
GSIS also faulted the Eighth Division for recommending that its lawyers be administratively held liable for alleged unauthorized practice of law.
Petitioner further alleged that the division also exceeded its bounds when it held that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the petition that GSIS filed before it, and when it held that GSIS has deliberately engaged in forum shopping and for allegedly splitting causes of action.
The state-owned corporation said the Eighth Division's move to take cognizance of the Meralco case was against the Internal Rules of the CA (Irca), rendering the decision a "patent nullity."
GSIS supported the argument of CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., officer-in-charge of the Special Ninth Division in lieu of the leave of absence of its regular chairman, Justice Bienvenido Reyes, that since he first took cognizance of the petition, his division should also rule on the merits of the case.
The insurance agency said its petition was given due course by Sabio's division when it issued an order proclaiming that the application for preliminary injunction and merits of the petition were deemed submitted for resolution/decision.
That the petition must be deemed to have been given due course is in accord with the provisions of Section 6, Rule VI of the 2002 Irca, which provides that when a petition is given due course, the CA may undertake any of three possible actions: consider the case submitted for resolution, or require the parties to submit their memoranda, or set the case for oral argument, GSIS said.
It pointed out that since the Special Ninth Division set the petition for oral arguments, required the parties to submit their memoranda and considered the petition submitted for resolution, then its members should also resolve the merits of the case.
GSIS also told the SC that the disclosure of Sabio that he had been offered a P10-million bribe by an emissary of Meralco for him to inhibit and give way to Reyes, further casting doubt on the transfer of the case from the Special Ninth Division to the Eighth.
Tayag further said the Eighth Division did not require the pension fund agency to request the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel to enter its appearance for and on behalf of GSIS early on in the proceedings in the interest of due process.
"Viewed from this perspective, it is nearly impossible not to notice that the manner by which the assailed decision was written by the ponente is nothing but a whimsical exercise of judgment by reason of passion, prejudice and personal animosity towards GSIS lawyers for having filed the urgent ex-parte motion for his inhibition from the case, which was never resolved.
It also said the GSIS petition with the SEC cannot be considered an election contest, the jurisdiction of which is lodged before a special commercial court. This is because at the time the petition was filed, there was yet no election; and the remedy sought is not to contest the results of the election but to have the SEC ascertain whether violations of the Securities and Regulation Code and its implementing rules were committed. (ECV/Sunnex)
