CA justices inhibit from Manila port terminal row case

Three associate justices of the Court of Appeals have decided to distance themselves from a business ownership case over the Harbour Center Port Terminal Inc. in Manila.

In a two-page resolution, Associate Justices Danton Bueser, Samuel Gaerlan and Pedro Corrales — all members of the CA's Special Second Division — said they were inhibiting from the case “so as not to unnecessarily drag the name of this court into a useless controversy.”

Their decision came on the heels of a motion for inhibition filed by One Source Port Support Services accusing Bueser of bias in favor of businessman Reghis Romero II, who is at the center of the dispute on the port's ownership and management.

One Source, through its president, Cyrus Paul Valenzuela, eventually filed a criminal case against Bueser with the Office of the Ombudsman for the justice's alleged "unjust judgments" in the business row.

“In view of the supposed erosion of private respondent’s faith in the justice system as brought to bear thus far upon this case, and mindful too of the duty to promote at every opportunity public confidence in judicial integrity and impartiality, we as members of this division, hereby opt to inhibit ourselves from further participation in these proceedings,” the resolution read.

The justices said it was "eminently necessary" for them to "graciously recuse from the further handling of this case" due to the "adverse media releases against the ponente (Bueser) as well as the filing of inconsequential cases in the Ombudsman thereby unnecessarily dragging the name of this court in useless contretemps."

The CA magistrates, however, emphasized the collegial nature of the CA in making "collective judgment after due deliberation."

“Consequently, challenging the judicial actuations of only a single member of a Division is inappropriate,” said the justices.

On Dec. 1, 2014, a Pasig City regional trial court allowed One Source Port Services to manage and operate HCPTI, recognizing that Romero had already divested himself in HCPTI when he signed a deed of assignment transferring a total of 69,258,653 shares or 68.11 percent of total issued and outstanding capital stock of HCPTI to HCP Holdings Inc. on March 2, 2011.

Romero elevated the matter to the CA Second Division, which, in January, stopped the Pasig court's order by issuing a temporary restraining order. Two months after issuing the TRO, the CA division issued a writ of preliminary injunction.

Both the TRO and the injunction were written by Bueser, said One Source, which also said that Bueser was always the "ponente" or the one who writes the decision in all cases involving the HCPTI.

One Source said the CA's writ of preliminary injunction was unlawful since it expanded the scope of the amended petition to include other matters without giving One Source the opportunity to respond.

The firm said that only the faction of Romero was recognized and given a copy of the March 11 preliminary injunction order, giving undue preference to it over the other faction.

Another proof of Bueser's alleged bias, according to One Source, was a December 12 resolution from the CA Second Division, still written by Bueser, directing Romero to amend his petition by including HCPTI as a co-petitioner even without Romero filing any motion. —KBK, GMA News