"x x x.
On September 19, 2011 Peña filed the present complaint against Justices Carpio and Sereno. Peña averred that Justice Carpio, as Member-in-Charge of the consolidated cases, caused the issuance of the falsified November 13, 2002 resolution which suspended and stayed the transfer of MSCI’s club shares from Urban Bank to those who won them in the bidding. Peña repeated his claim that the Court merely took note of Urban Bank’s motion for clarification and did not grant it. Peña also pointed out that opposing counsel, Atty. Manuel Singson, got an advance copy of the November 13 resolution, and faxed it to him on November 19, 2002, days before the Court released it for mailing.
With respect to Justice Sereno, Peña alleged that, as Member-in-Charge to whom the main cases were re-raffled, she unjustifiably refused to inhibit herself from the case notwithstanding that Justice Carpio’s former law office, the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo Angangco Law Office, had a significant role in her appointment to the Supreme Court. Peña said that, because of this, Justice Sereno “will attempt to protect Justice Carpio.”
Pending consideration of Peña’s present complaint, on October 19, 2011 the Second Division rendered a decision in the consolidated cases (G.R. 145817, 145822, and 162562) respecting the merits of Peña’s claim for compensation, among others, against Urban Bank and the execution pending appeal of the RTC’s decision. Apart from disposing of the principal actions on their merits, in the per curiamDecision of the Court en banc promulgated on April 17, 2012 in A.C. No. 6332, the Court found Peña guilty for violating Canons 8, 10 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and for failing to give due respect to the Courts and his fellow lawyers, and meted out to him the penalty of disbarment.
Peña claimed that Justice Carpio caused the issuance of the Court’s November 13, 2002 resolution that granted Union Bank’s motion for clarification when, based on the copy of the supplemental agenda he submitted (his Annex B), the Court merely noted the motion. But this charge has no basis. The Court did not merely note the motion. The item in the agenda included several matters. The Court’s action on the first, as the Division chairman noted on his copy of the agenda, was “SEE RES” which in the Court’s action code meant the approval during its session of the draft resolution that the Member-in-Charge submitted for consideration. As it happened, the draft resolution granted the motion for clarification.
The Court’s action on the other matters in the item, including the motion for clarification, was uniformly “N.” Under the code in use, this meant that the Court was taking note of such other matters. The two actions, approving the submitted draft of a resolution and noting the other matters are compatible. The Court noted the motion for clarification and granted it as stated in the draft resolution.
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.
x x x."
