|
By Jomar Canlas, Reporter
AN associate justice of the Court of Appeals
faces an administrative complaint that was filed against him by a
member of the wealthy Ilusorio family.
Vicente Roxas was alleged to have shown
“obvious undue interest in deciding” the controversial
Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. (Philcomsat) case despite
the withdrawal of the Ilusorio family and the other party to the
suit.
The complaint alleging “gross ignorance of the
law” was lodged before the Office of the Court Administrator of
the Supreme Court by Erlinda Bildner-Ilusorio. She called for an
investigation of Roxas’ decision.
Ilusorio said she is the incumbent president of
Philcomsat, which is 100-percent owned by Philippine Overseas
Telecommunications Corp. (POTC). Philcomsat in turn owns 81 percent
of Philcomsat Holdings Corp. (PHC).
No annual stockholders’ meeting was held by
Philcomsat Holdings from 2000 to 2003 and from 2005 to the present.
Thus, its directors and officers, among them Manuel Nieto Jr.,
retained their posts in a holdover capacity.
On May 16, 2005, Jose Ma. Ozamiz, a minority
stockholder of Philcomsat Holdings, requested the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) to call an annual stockholder’s meeting.
The commission granted the request.
Nieto’s supposed lawyer, Alma Kristina Alloba,
filed a petition for certiorari seeking a temporary restraining
order and writ of preliminary injunction on April 11, 2006, before
the Court of Appeals. The case was raffled off to Roxas.
Nieto and the Africa-Bildner group had set aside
their differences and entered into a memorandum of understanding. On
July 1, 2006, a manifestation and joint petition requesting the SEC
to help settle the controversy surrounding Philcomsat Holdings were
filed. The motions called for immediate holding of an annual
stockholders’ meeting.
The memorandum, however, did not materialize
when Roxas issued a temporary restraining order on July 5, 2006, and
a writ of preliminary injunction on August 16, 2006.
Nieto, who is in his 80s, allegedly realized
that he was represented by a lawyer who was a stranger to him and
requested a new legal counsel. Thus, Alloba was sacked and replaced
by Manuel Lazaro. In order to carry out the call of the memorandum
for the stockholders’ meeting, Lazaro filed a motion to withdraw.
Roxas denied the motion to withdraw and even
granted the petition for certiorari. The SEC orders were annulled.
The commission was then ordered to cease and desist from exercising
its regulatory powers.
Bildner-Ilusorio also alleged that Roxas
committed gross ignorance of the law in deciding the instant case
despite the withdrawal made by Nieto. Her adversary reiterated that
he had been misrepresented by Alloba.
She argued that Roxas “brushed aside and
refused to acknowledge the fact that the motion to withdraw was
prompted by the compromise agreement between the parties.” Hence,
“there was nothing more to resolve, decide or adjudicate except to
grant petitioner’s motion to withdraw petition.”
In his comment and explanation to the Office of
the Court Administrator, Roxas said the issue involved is a question
of jurisdiction. He asserted that contrary to the allegations of the
complainant, jurisdiction cannot be the subject of compromise and
the appellate court has no discretion over jurisdiction, the same
being conferred by law. “Jurisdiction may not be compromised by
complainant Bildner-Ilusorio or by the families controlling PHC.”
Roxas maintained that he extensively dealt with
and resolved the motion to withdraw by the petitioner in the
decision itself. He also argued that Ilusorio had no personality to
intervene because, in a petition for certiorari, no private rights
are involved since the only issue involved is jurisdiction. Hence,
if Ilusorio disagrees with his ruling, her remedy should have been a
petition for review with the Supreme Court, not an administrative
complaint against him.
He said his decision was collegial and added
that he was wondering why he was being singled out.
|
