GSIS asks SC to reverse CA order on Meralco

MANILA, Philippines – The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) yesterday petitioned the Supreme Court to declare null and void and stop implementation of the June 23, 2008 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 65-page petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction, GSIS legal counsel Estrella Elamparo-Tayag, had asked the high court to stop the CA’s Eighth Division from implementing its decision, citing that it is 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 GSIS said there is need for the issuance of a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction on the ground that the enforcement of the decision while the case is being heard would be an 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 in her petition for certiorari.

Named respondents in the case were the members of the CA eighth Division, namely Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Vicente Roxas and Apolinario Bruselas. Also named respondents were officials of Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) such as Manuel Lopez, Anthony Rosete, Felipe Alfonso, Jesus Francisco, Christian Monsod, Elpidio Ibañez and Francis Giles Puno.

Initially the GSIS claimed that 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.

The GSIS also faulted the Eighth Division for recommending that its lawyers be administratively held liable for alleged unauthorized practice of law.

It also 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 pension fund 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.”

Tayag supported the argument of CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., acting chair of the Special Ninth Division in lieu of the leave of absence of its regular chair, Justice Bienvenido Reyes, that since he first took cognizance of the petition, his division should also rule on the merits of the case.

GSIS said that 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.

The GSIS also pointed out to the Supreme Court 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 Justice Reyes, which has further cast suspicion to the transfer of the case from the Special Ninth Division to the Eighth Division.

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, the petition said.

The CA’s Eighth Division, through Associate Justice Vicente Roxas, directed the SEC to dismiss the petition of the GSIS seeking to annul the proxy votes counted in favor of the Lopez group during the May 27 stockholders’ meeting of Meralco.

The CA’s ruling also recommended that sanctions be imposed upon the 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 Supreme Court to investigate alleged bribery and irregularity in the dispensation of the case. – With Iris Gonzales