In Bildner v. Roxas, the Supreme Court clarified that a Court of Appeals justice has the discretion to either grant or deny a motion to withdraw a petition for certiorari, even after a comment has been filed. This decision underscores that while courts often grant such motions, they are not obligated to do so, particularly when the case involves significant jurisdictional questions. The ruling provides important guidance on the scope of judicial discretion in procedural matters and highlights that a judge’s actions are not grounds for administrative liability absent a showing of gross ignorance or partiality.

Navigating Jurisdictional Waters: When Can a Court Refuse a Petition’s Withdrawal?

This case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Erlinda Bildner, president of Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation (PHILCOMSAT), against Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Vicente Q. Roxas. Bildner accused Justice Roxas of gross ignorance of the law and obvious impartiality in handling CA-G.R. SP No. 94038, entitled Manuel H. Nieto, Jr. v. Securities and Exchange Commission (Nieto). The core issue was whether Justice Roxas erred in granting Nieto’s petition despite a Motion to Withdraw Petition based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among opposing stockholders of Philippine Holdings Corporation (PHC), of which PHILCOMSAT owned 81%. Bildner also contended that Justice Roxas should have granted a hearing to determine the authority of Nieto’s counsel.

The dispute originated with the SEC’s order to hold an annual stockholders’ meeting for PHC, which Nieto opposed, leading him to file a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA. Bildner’s group resisted Nieto’s objection, leading to a series of legal maneuvers, including the MOU among PHC stockholders requesting the SEC to set a date for the annual meeting. Despite the MOU, the CA issued a TRO and later a writ of preliminary injunction against the SEC. Nieto then filed a Motion to Withdraw Petition, which the CA denied, leading to the present administrative complaint. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether Justice Roxas acted with gross ignorance or partiality in his handling of the case.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue by examining Section 8, Rule 65 of the Rules on Civil Procedure, which governs proceedings after a comment is filed in a certiorari case. The provision states:

Sec. 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. – After the comment or other pleadings required by the court are filed, or the time of the filing thereof has expired, the court may hear the case or require the parties to require memoranda. If after such hearing or submission of memoranda or the expiration of the period for the filing thereof the court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment for the relief prayed for or to which the petitioner is entitled.

The court, however, may dismiss the petition if it finds the same to be patently without merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the questioned raised therein are too unsubstantial to require consideration.

The Court emphasized that the language of Sec. 8 does not mandate the dismissal of a petition upon the filing of a motion to withdraw. The decision to grant or deny such a motion is discretionary, akin to a plaintiff’s inability to unilaterally withdraw a complaint after an answer has been filed. The Court acknowledged that while motions to withdraw petitions have been granted in past cases, the decision ultimately rests on the court’s discretion, particularly when jurisdictional issues are at stake.

In this particular case, the Supreme Court sided with Justice Roxas, emphasizing that CA-G.R. SP No. 94038 involved a critical question of jurisdiction. The Court noted that the CA was correct in prioritizing the jurisdictional issue, referencing Sec. 5.2 of Republic Act No. 8799, the Securities Regulation Code, which transferred adjudicative functions from the SEC to regular courts. The Court reasoned that the CA’s decision to address the SEC’s authority was justified, as it prevented the SEC from potentially interfering with the jurisdiction of regular courts. The dispositive portion of the CA’s October 30, 2006 Decision reflects this concern:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, petition is hereby GRANTED. The February 26, 2006 and the two (2) April 4, 2006 Orders of the SEC in SEC Case No. 02-06-133 are hereby ANNULLED. The Securities and Exchange Commission is hereby DIRECTED to stay its hand and cease in the exercise of its regulatory powers, as in this case, when they interfere with or render moot the exercise of the adjudicative powers already transferred from the SEC to the regular courts.

SO ORDERED.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court rejected Bildner’s argument that the CA’s actions prejudiced the parties. The Court reasoned that the TRO against the SEC did not prevent the stockholders from resolving their representation dispute. They could have agreed to hold annual elections after the CA’s decision. This reasoning underscores that the CA’s decision was not only within its discretion but also did not cause irreparable harm to the parties involved.

Bildner also accused Justice Roxas of partiality for not granting a hearing to determine the authority of Nieto’s counsels. The Supreme Court dismissed this charge, citing Sec. 3, Rule 49 of the Rules of Court, which states that motions are generally not set for hearing in the Court of Appeals. The CA has the discretion to determine whether a hearing is necessary. The Court found that Justice Roxas did not abuse his discretion, as the issue of the counsel’s authority could be resolved based on the parties’ submissions, and it was inconsequential to the jurisdictional issue.

The Supreme Court also addressed the seriousness of the allegations made by Bildner, noting that accusations of gross ignorance, ill motives, and bias against a judge are severe and must be supported by evidence, not mere speculation. The Court emphasized that the Rules of Court provide adequate judicial remedies for parties who believe a judge has rendered an erroneous decision. An administrative complaint should not be used as a substitute for these remedies.

The administrative complaint against Justice Roxas was thus dismissed for lack of merit, reinforcing the judiciary’s protection against unsubstantiated accusations that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to established procedural rules while recognizing the judiciary’s role in resolving disputes of jurisdiction.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether CA Justice Roxas acted with gross ignorance of the law or partiality by granting a petition despite a motion to withdraw and by not granting a hearing to determine the authority of the petitioner’s counsel.
Can a party unilaterally withdraw a petition in the Court of Appeals after a comment has been filed?	No, the decision to allow or disallow a motion to withdraw a petition rests within the discretion of the court. The court may consider various factors, including whether jurisdictional issues are at stake.
What is the basis for a Court of Appeals to deny a motion to withdraw a petition?	The Court of Appeals may deny a motion to withdraw a petition if it finds that the case involves significant jurisdictional questions that must be resolved, or if allowing the withdrawal would prejudice the administration of justice.
What is the role of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in intra-corporate disputes after the enactment of the Securities Regulation Code?	The Securities Regulation Code transferred the adjudicative functions of the SEC over intra-corporate disputes to the regular courts. The SEC retains regulatory powers but must not interfere with the adjudicative powers of the courts.
Is it mandatory for the Court of Appeals to grant a hearing for every motion filed before it?	No, under Sec. 3, Rule 49 of the Rules of Court, motions are generally not set for hearing in the Court of Appeals. The CA has the discretion to determine whether a hearing is necessary.
What constitutes gross ignorance of the law for a judge?	Gross ignorance of the law involves a judge’s failure to apply well-settled legal principles or a clear disregard for established rules and procedures, often accompanied by bad faith, malice, or corrupt motives.
What type of evidence is required to prove allegations of bias or partiality against a judge?	Allegations of bias or partiality must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. Mere speculation or unsubstantiated accusations are not sufficient to prove such allegations.
What remedies are available if a party believes that a judge has rendered an erroneous decision?	If a party believes that a judge has rendered an erroneous decision, the Rules of Court provide adequate judicial remedies, such as motions for reconsideration, appeals, or petitions for certiorari.

The Bildner v. Roxas case clarifies the scope of judicial discretion in handling motions to withdraw in certiorari proceedings, particularly when jurisdictional issues are at stake. The ruling underscores the importance of substantiating allegations of misconduct against judges and reinforces the judiciary’s role in resolving disputes of jurisdiction. This decision is a reminder that while administrative remedies exist, they should not be used as substitutes for established judicial processes for correcting perceived errors.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ERLINDA BILDNER VS. JUSTICE VICENTE Q. ROXAS, 45319, June 12, 2008