I wrote a letter to the Supreme Court (SC) on January 10, 2019 to air my serious concerns over a case titled “SPS. FELIX A. CHUA AND CARMEN L. CHUA, ET AL. V. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK, ET AL., G.R. No. 215999, Third Division, Supreme Court.”
I am a stockholder of the UCPB and a former member of the UCBP Board of Directors (and its Legal Oversight Committee), which is now owned by the government. Also, I was once the president of the United Coconut Associations of the Philippines Inc., the organization of practically all the stakeholders in the coconut industry.
This case is important because it could cost the government, the coconut farmers and the industry some P1 billion in needed support fund. Here is an excerpt of my five-page letter:
“Your Honors:
At this time, I am anxious and worried because before resigning from the UCPB Board of Directors last year, the Board — during one of its meetings — was informed that the Third Division of the Honorable Court had reversed through a Decision dated August 16, 2017 (on the subject case) a decision favorable to UCPB that was earlier rendered by the Court of Appeals. But initially — the records of this case will show — the case was dismissed by the Supreme Court…
Incidentally, the Acting Chairman and Members of the Third Division who signed the aforesaid Decision were:
Hon. Lucas P. Bersamin – Acting Chairman (now Chief Justice)
Hon. Samuel R. Martires – Member
Hon. Noel G. Tijam – Member
Hon. Alexander G. Gesmundo – Member
To my simple mind and after looking at the circumstances surrounding this case and with all due respect to the members of the Third Division, there is an urgent need for the Supreme Court En Banc to determine whether the promulgation of the said Decision was done in violation or not, not only of the Constitution, but of the Supreme Court’s own internal rules as well.
Please consider the following circumstances:
-Justice Benjamin Caguioa was designated as an additional member of the Third Division only on August 14, 2017, or two days before the said Decision dated August 16, 2017 was promulgated. However, this Decision indicates that Justice Caguioa did not sign the same as he was on leave at the time of promulgation (see p. 20 of Decision)
-Justice Tijam was designated as an additional member of the Third Division only on August 14, 2017, or two days before the Decision dated August 16, 2017 was promulgated (see p. 1 of Decision).
-Justice Martires was designated as member of the Third Division only on August 13, 2017, or three days before the Decision dated August 16, 2017 was promulgated (Special Order No. 2467).
-Justice Gesmundo was designated as Fifth Member of the Third Division only on August 14, 2017, or two days before the said Decision dated August 16, 2017 was promulgated. This is per Special Order No. 2468 dated August 14, 2017 signed by former CJ Ma. Lourdes P. A. Sereno. This Special Order actually states that Justice Gesmundo assumed office as Supreme Court Justice only on August 14, 2017.
From the foregoing, I am requesting the Supreme Court to investigate and look into the following:
-Could the three (3) above-named Justices of the Third Division (Justices Gesmundo, Martires and Tijam) have adequately studied the case (which I understand already consists of around 2,000 pages) only in a period of two or three days, before the Decision dated August 16, 2017 was promulgated?
-Was a Report made by the writer of the Decision and sent to the members of the Third Division in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules, before the said Decision was signed?
-Was the case (or Report) calendared for deliberation by the Third Division after such Report, if any, was sent to its members, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules?
-Why was there a haste in promulgating the Decision dated August 16, 2017 when the 3 justices came on board only 2 or 3 days earlier and 1 justice was even on leave?
The Constitution clearly provides that cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the case (Sec 4[3], Article VIII, Constitution)…
The Supreme Court’s own Internal Rules require that a written report on the case must be prepared by the designated writer of the decision and sent to all the Justices concerned at least seven days before the case is discussed and deliberated upon. It is likely that this rule was not complied with as the said 3 Justices became members of the 3rd Division only 2 or 3 days before the Decision dated August 16, 2017 was issued.
From the circumstances surrounding the case, one cannot help but conclude that it was not possible for the members of the Third Division to have actually deliberated upon the case before the Decision dated August 16, 2017 was signed and released…
I write this request because I do not want any infirmity to remain uncorrected…
But I pose this simple question … why is it taking the Third Division a long time to resolve the pending motions to elevate the case to the Supreme Court En Banc? It is now more than one year from the time the same were filed.”