A.M. OCA IPI No.

12-201-CA-J
FEBRUARY 19, 2013
ETHELWOLDO E. FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO A. HENSON and ANGEL S. ONG, Complainants, vs.
COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RAMON M. BATO, JR., ISAIAS P. DICDICAN and
EDUARDO B. PERALTA, JR., Respondents.

REYES, J.:

FACTS:

On July 3, 2012, the herein complainants filed with the Supreme Court a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition, G.R. No. 202257, seeking to annul the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the CA’s
Special 14th Division. However, in a Resolution dated July 18, 2012 in G.R. No. 202257-60,
entitled "Ethelwoldo E. Fernandez, Antonio A. Henson, and Angel S. Ong v. Court of Appeals (14th
Division), et al.," the Supreme Court dismissed the complainants’ petition for lack of personality because
they were non-parties and strangers to the consolidated CA petitions.

On July 9, 2012, the complainants also filed with this Court the present Administrative Case, A.M. OCA
IPI No. 12-201-CA-J, against the members of the former Special 14th Division of the CA, namely: Justices
Dicdican, Chairman; Bato, Senior Member; and Peralta, Junior Member.

The complaint alleges that in a Resolution dated June 13, 2012, Justice Bato, who was designated on
May 31, 2012 by raffle as acting senior member of the aforesaid Division, vice the regular senior member,
Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion (Justice Lantion), who was scheduled to take a 15-day wellness
leave from June 1-15, 2012, "usurped" the office of ponente  in four (4) consolidated petitions before the
CA, namely, CA-G.R. Nos. 122782, 122784, 122853, and 122854.

Notwithstanding that the said cases have been previously assigned to Justice Lantion, Justice Bato acted
on unverified motions to resolve the petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary injunction, and granted
the same, without conducting a prior hearing, with the connivance of the respondents as regular members
of the Division; instead of the said regular members acting on the motions themselves.

On August 28, 2012, the Court directed the respondent CA Justices to file their Comment to the
administrative complaint 10 days from notice. Justices Bato and Peralta filed a joint Comment, while
Justice Dicdican filed a separate Comment, both on October 18, 2012. On October 29, 2012, Justices
Dicdican, Bato, and Peralta filed a joint Supplemental Comment with Very Urgent Motion to Dismiss.

It is alleged in this administrative complaint that the respondent Justices are guilty of grave misconduct,
conduct detrimental to the service, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and manifest
partiality, to wit:

(a) They acted upon the unverified "Third Motion to Resolve" and "Supplement to the Third
Urgent Motion to Resolve with Manifestation" in CA-G.R. SP No. 122784, which contained new
factual matters, and then issued a writ of preliminary injunction, without notice and hearing as
required in Section 5 of Rule 58;

(b) It was irregular for Justice Bato, who sat as acting senior member vice  the regular ponente,
Justice Lantion, who was on a 15-day leave of absence (later extended by 10 days), to have
penned the questioned Resolution notwithstanding that the consolidated CA Petitions had not
been re-raffled to him.
 (c) Granting that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was a matter of extreme urgency,
Section 5 of Rule VI of the Internal Rules of the CA (IRCA) authorizes the two present regular
Division members, Justices Dicdican and Peralta, to act on the application, not Justice Bato.

(d) The effect of the writ of preliminary injunction is not to merely preserve the status quo  but to
dispose of the main case on the merits.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent CA Justices were guilty of grave misconduct, conduct detrimental to
the service, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and manifest partiality (NO)

RULING:

We dismiss the complaint. 

Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for the discipline of Justices of the CA and
the Sandiganbayan and Judges of regular and special courts.

Under Rule 140, there are three ways by which administrative proceedings may be instituted against
justices of the CA and the Sandiganbayan and judges of regular and special courts: (1) motu proprio  by
the Supreme Court; (2) upon verified complaint (as in this complaint) with affidavits of persons having
personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations;
or (3) upon an anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity.

In this verified administrative complaint, the essential facts comprising the conduct of the respondent
Justices of the CA complained of are not disputed, and are verifiable from the copies of orders and
pleadings attached to the complaint and to the comments of the respondent Justices. There is, thus, no
need to assign the matter to a retired member of the Supreme Court for evaluation, report, and
recommendation.

Justice Bato, sitting as acting senior member of the Special 14th Division of the CA, had authority
to act on the urgent motions to resolve the petitioners’ application for writ of preliminary
injunction.

Firstly, it must be stated that the designation of Justice Bato by raffle as acting senior member of the 14th
Division, vice  Justice Lantion who went on a 15-day wellness leave from June 1-15, 2012, was valid,
transparent and regular (Justice Lantion later extended her official leave to a total of 25 days). The raffle
to fill the extended absence of Justice Lantion was held on May 31, 2012, witnessed by the members of
the CA’s Raffle Committee, namely, Justices Magdangal De Leon, Francisco P. Acosta, and Gacutan.
Office Order No. 201-12-ABR, signed by Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr., reads:

In view of the leave of absence (Wellness Program) of Justice JANE AURORA C. LANTION, regular
senior member of the FOURTEENTH DIVISION, Justice RAMON M. BATO, JR. has been designated by
the Raffle Committee as the acting senior member of the FOURTEENTH DIVISION, in addition to his
duties as regular senior member of the SECOND DIVISION, to act on all cases submitted to the
FOURTEENTH DIVISION, for final resolution and/or appropriate action, except ponencia, from June 1
to 15, 2012  or until Justice Lantion reports back for duty.

THIS HOLDS TRUE WITH THE OTHER DIVISION/S WHEREIN JUSTICE JANE AURORA C. LANTION
PARTICIPATED OR TOOK PART AS REGULAR MEMBER OR IN AN ACTING CAPACITY.

Note too, that the third urgent motion in CA-G.R. SP No. 122784 to resolve the application for writ of
preliminary injunction was filed on June 6, 2012, with Justice Bato now sitting as acting member of the
14th Division. On June 7, 2012, the complainants filed a supplement to their said third urgent motion. On
June 8, 2012, a Friday, the consolidated petitions were forwarded to Justice Bato, per Re-agendum
issued by the Division Clerk of Court, Attorney Michael F. Real (Atty. Real). Since the meeting of
NADECOR’s stockholders was scheduled on June 13, 2012, a Wednesday, it will readily be seen that
there was no time for Justice Bato to set for hearing the application for writ of preliminary injunction.

The complainants argue, citing Section 5, Rule VI of IRCA, that with the absence of Justice Lantion, the
original ponente  of the consolidated CA petitions, only the regular 14th Division members present, that is,
Justices Dicdican and Peralta, could validly act on the Calalang group’s urgent application for preliminary
injunction. Noting that Office Order No. 201- 12-ABR limited Justice Bato’s authority as acting member of
the 14th Division only "to act on all cases submitted to the FOURTEENTH DIVISION for final resolution
and/appropriate action, except ponencia," they reason that since Justice Bato penned the Resolution of
a motion for injunctive relief in the consolidated petitions whose assigned ponente  was Justice Lantion,
he was in effect "usurping" the office of the ponente of the said cases, in gross violation of the IRCA.

That there was no re-raffle of the consolidated CA petitions to a new ponente  is not denied, but rather
only a designation of Justice Bato to sit as acting senior member of the 14th Division vice Justice Lantion.
But because of the urgent nature of the application for writ of preliminary injunction, which was an
offshoot of the consolidated CA petitions, and the assigned ponente  thereof, Justice Lantion, was on a
wellness leave, the Clerk of Court of the 14th Division, Atty. Real, transferred the said cases to Justice
Bato, the acting senior member temporarily sitting in the place of the original ponente, Justice Lantion, so
that he could promptly attend to the urgent motion.

There is nothing in the IRCA which would have required the Division Clerk of Court to transmit the urgent
motion for action only to the two present regular members of the 14th Division, as the complainants seem
to believe. We agree with Justice Dicdican that the complainants would have been correct if the absent
member of the Division was not the ponente herself but either of the other members. This implies that
the ponente if present can act upon the urgent motion alone or with another member present, provided
that the action or resolution "is submitted on the next working day to the absent member or members of
the Division for ratification, modification or recall."

The complainants need to realize that a preliminary injunction is not a ponencia but an order granted at
any stage of an action prior  to final judgment, requiring a person to refrain from a particular act. It is
settled that as an ancillary or preventive remedy, a writ of preliminary injunction may be resorted to by a
party to protect or preserve his rights and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal
action. Its object is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case are passed upon. It is not a
cause of action in itself but merely a provisional remedy, an adjunct to a main suit. On the other
hand, ponencia  refers to the rendition of a decision in a case on the merits, which disposes of the main
controversy. In this case, the main issue in the four CA petitions is the validity of the RTC’s Order dated
December 21, 2011 declaring as void and of no effect NADECOR’s stockholders’ meeting on August 15,
2011. Contrary to the complainants’ insistence, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the 14th
Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 122784 did not settle the controversy therein, but is a mere interlocutory order
to restore the status quo ante,  that is, the state of things prior to the RTC’s Order of December 21, 2011.

That Justice Bato was expected to act on the urgent motion to resolve in CA-G.R. SP No. 122784 is
clearly implied from the instruction contained in Office Order No. 201-12-ABR. It authorized him to act "on
all cases submitted to the FOURTEENTH DIVISION for final resolution and/or appropriate action, except
ponencia, from June 1 to 15, 2012 or until Justice Lantion reports back for duty." The Office Order also
states that the said authority "HOLDS TRUE WITH THE OTHER DIVISION/S WHEREIN JUSTICE JANE
AURORA C. LANTION PARTICIPATED OR TOOK PART AS REGULAR MEMBER OR IN AN ACTING
CAPACITY."

The members of the Special 14th Division acted collectively and in good faith and their Resolution
granting a writ of preliminary injunction in the consolidated CA petitions enjoys a presumption of
regularity.
The CA 11th Division conceded that the petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 122784 have reason to maintain
the validity of the August 15, 2011 stockholders’ meeting. It agreed that the voiding of the said meeting
might seriously derail any necessary corporate actions needed on the demands of the St. Augustine,
which could lead to serious delays in the development of the Pantukan mine, and eventually the recall by
the DENR of its MPSA. Thus, the CA feared that serious damage could result to NADECOR and the
stockholders’ investments if in fact St. Augustine had the resources and the willingness to develop its
gold-copper mine.

It is not denied that the group of Jose worked for the rescission of the MOUs with the St. Augustine group
and facilitated the entry of Villar’s company. Calalang and his group opposed the contemplated actions of
JG Ricafort and his camp, and wanted to retain the MOUs with St. Augustine, because they believed the
exit of the St. Augustine group would have serious repercussions on the attractiveness of NADECOR to
foreign investors. Whoever will eventually be proven correct is anyone’s guess, but this does not detract
from the fact that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in the consolidated CA petitions was
discretionary, interlocutory and preservative in nature, and equally importantly, it was a collective and
deliberated action of the former Special 14th Division upon an urgent application for writ of preliminary
injunction.

The complainants have no personality to assail the injunctive writ.

Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that a person who has a legal interest in the matter in
litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be
adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an
officer thereof may, with leave of court, be allowed to intervene in the action. Conversely, a person who is
not a party in the main suit cannot be bound by an ancillary writ, such as a preliminary injunction. Indeed,
he cannot be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger.

Moreover, a person not an aggrieved party in the original proceedings that gave rise to the petition
for certiorari, will not be permitted to bring the said action to annul or stay the injurious writ. Such is the
clear import of Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, a person not a party to the
proceedings in the trial court or in the CA cannot maintain an action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to
have the judgment reviewed. Stated differently, if a petition for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who
was not a party in the lower court, he has no standing to question the assailed order.

The complainants, who at various times served as elected members of the Board of NADECOR, did not
bother to intervene in the CA petitions, hence, they are not entitled to the service of pleadings and
motions therein. Complainant Fernandez was himself a defendant in SEC Case No. 11-164 in the RTC,
but he chose not to join any of the four CA petitions.1âwphi1

Having established that the herein complainants have no personality to assail the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by the CA’s former Special 14th Division, we cannot now permit them to harass the CA
Justices who issued the same. For even granting that the issuance of the writ was erroneous, as a matter
of public policy a magistrate cannot be held administratively liable for every discretionary but erroneous
order he issues. The settled rule is that "a Judge cannot be held to account civilly, criminally or
administratively for an erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith." The case of Cortes v.
Sandiganbayan is instructive. We quote:

It must be stressed that as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability — civil, criminal or administrative — for any of his
official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial errors tainted with
fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively
sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try
the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, A.M. OCA IPI No. 12-201- CA-J is hereby DISMISSED.