ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA IPI 99-4-SB.December 7, 1999]

ALEJANDRO SOLER vs. JUSTICE SABINO DE LEON

EN BANC

Gentlemen :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 7, 1999 .

A.M. No. OCA IPI 99-4-SB(Alejandro Soler vs. Justice Sabino de Leon, Chairman, 4th Division, Sandiganbayan).

In a letter-complaint dated 9 August 1999 addressed to Mr. Chief Justice Hilario C. Davide, Jr., Alejandro Soler prays that Mr. Justice Sabino de Leon, then Chairman of the 4th Division, Sandiganbayan, 'be dishonorably discharged from the service and barred from the practice of law for 'serious misconduct in rendering an unjust judgment/order and gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No. 0009 entitled 'Republic of the Philippines v. Potenciano Ilusorio, et al.'" ¹ Rollo , pp. 1 and 5.

Alejandro Soler filed the complaint for Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation and Independent Realty Corporation in his capacity as member of the Board of Directors of both Corporations. He alleges therein that Mr. Justice de Leon approved the highly anomalous" Compromise Agreement dated 28 June 1996 between the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Philippine Commission on Good Government, which in turn was represented by Herminio R. Rosal and Potenciano T. Ilusorio, the latter being one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 009 pending with the Sandiganbayan. The Compromise Agreement provides inter alia that 673 shares of the Philippine Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (POTC) stock under the names of Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation and Independent Realty Corporation are to be ceded to Ilusorio in exchange for his recognition of the Government's right and ownership of 4,727 POTC shares in his possession. However, the respective Boards of Directors of Mid-Pasig Land Development Corporation and Independent Realty Corporation are excluded from the Agreement.

During the pendency in the Court of the instant administrative matter, Mr. Justice de Leon was appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. His appointment thus constitutes a supervening event which effectively divests the Office of the Court Administrator of jurisdiction over the case.

In A. M. No. 88-4-5433 ² Resolution dated 15 April 1998 "In re First Indorsement from Raul Gonzales dated 16 March 1988 requesting Justice Marcelo B. Fernan to Comment on an Anonymous Letter-Complaint."we said that "it is important to make clear that the Court here is not saying that its Members or the other constitutional officers x x x are entitled to immunity from liability for possible criminal acts or for alleged violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics or other supposed misbehavior. What the Court is saying is that there is a fundamental procedural requirement that must be observed before such liability may be determined and enforced. A Member of the Supreme Court (as respondent now is) must first be removed from office via the constitutional route of impeachment under Sections 2 and 3 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Should the tenure of the Supreme Court Justice be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively (by disbarment proceedings) for any wrong or misbehavior that may be proven against him in appropriate proceedings. The above rule rests on the fundamental principles of judicial independence and separation of powers. The rule is important because judicial independence is important. Without the protection of this rule, Members of the Supreme Court would be vulnerable to all manner of charges which might be brought against them by unsuccessful litigants or their lawyers or by other parties who, for any number of reasons might seek to affect the exercise of judicial authority by the Court It follows x x x that a fiscal or other prosecuting officer Should forthwith and motu proprio dismiss any charges brought against a Member of this Court. The remedy of a person with a legitimate grievance is to file impeachment proceedings."

ACCORDINGLY , the Court Resolves to DISMISS the instant complaint against respondent.

Mr. Justice Sabino R. De Leon, Jr., did not take part.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE