Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC G.R. No. 75197 June 22, 1987 E. RAZON, INC. and ENRIQUE RAZON, petitioners, vs. P I!IPPINE PORTS AUT ORIT", PRIMITI#O S. SO!IS, JR. and #ICENTE T. SUAZO, JR., $e%&onden'%. MARINA PORT SER#ICES, INC., intervenor.

(ERNAN, J.: Assailed in this petition for certiorari with prayer for a writ of preliminary in unction and!or restrainin" order as violative of petitioners# ri"ht to due process is the unilateral cancellation by respondent Philippine Ports Authority $PPA% of the Mana"ement Contract of petitioner E. Ra&on, 'nc. $ER'% to operate the arrastre service in all the ports at (outh )arbor, Manila and the subse*uent appointment by respondent PPA of intervenor Marina Port (ervices, 'nc. $Marina, for brevity% as interim operator of said arrastre service. Petitioner E. Ra&on, 'nc., also +nown as Metro Port (ervice, 'nc. $MP('%, is a Philippine corporation or"ani&ed on ,une -., ./0- for the main purpose of biddin" for the contract to mana"e all the piers in (outh )arbor, Manila. Co1 petitioner Enri*ue Ra&on was alle"edly the .223 e*uity owner, havin" paid for the subscriptions of the other incorporators who were mere nominees. After a public biddin", petitioner ER' was awarded in ./00 a five1year contract to operate the arrastre service for Piers 4 and 5 at the (outh )arbor. 6hereafter, it alle"edly invested millions of pesos in ac*uirin" port1handlin" e*uipment upon assurance from the "overnment that its contract would be renewed without public biddin". 6hus, when the Bureau of Customs informed petitioner ER' in ./7. of its decision to call for a new biddin" and accordin"ly issued an invitation to bid for the operation of the arrastre service for any and all piers in (outh )arbor, includin" Piers 4 and 5, petitioner ER' instituted a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and in unction with preliminary and mandatory in unction and!or restrainin" order before the then Court of 8irst 'nstance of Manila a"ainst the (ecretary of 8inance, Commissioner of Customs and members of the Biddin" Committee to en oin them from proceedin" with the biddin" and to compel them to renew petitioner ER'#s contract. 6he Court of 8irst 'nstance, presided by ,ud"e ,uan Bocar, issued the writ prayed for, whereupon then (ecretary of 8inance Cesar 9irata elevated the case before this Court in :.R. No. 44;-0 entitled, <Cesar 9irata, et al. vs. )on. ,uan Bocar, et al. 'n a resolution dated May .4, ./7., this Court ordered the holdin" of a public biddin" for all the piers, conditioned that no final award should be "iven until further orders from the court. An actual biddin" was conducted for all the piers, with ER' emer"in" as the Biddin" Committee#s unanimous choice. 6he selection was confirmed by this Court in Virata v. Bocar, 52 (CRA ;0=,;=/, thus> 'N 9'E? @8 AAA 6)E 8@RE:@'N:, herein petitioners are hereby directed to ma+e the final award in favor of E. Ra&on, 'nc., as the best and most advanta"eous bidder of the contract to operate the arrastre service for all the piers in the Manila (outh )arborB ... 6he mana"ement contract coverin" all the piers in the (outh )arbor was eCecuted between petitioner ER' and the "overnment on ,anuary .=, ./7; for a term of five years effective ,anuary ., ./7;, renewable for another five years. 'n Au"ust of the same year, petitioner ER' increased its capitali&ation from P- Million to -2 Million. 'n ./77 and early ./7=, petitioner Ra&on alle"edly initiated ne"otiations with respondent PPA either for the renewal of the mana"ement contract or for an immediate public biddin", if necessary, but respondent PPA, which was represented in the ne"otiations by the then :eneral Mana"er, co1respondent Primitivo (olis, ,r., did not act on the

re*uest, reportedly due to the unconcealed desire of people, close to then President Marcos to ta+e over petitioner ER' . 6hereafter, in late ./7=, petitioner Ra&on, who was then owner of about /43 of ER'#s e*uity was alle"edly coerced by emissaries from then President Marcos into endorsin" in blan+ ER'#s stoc+ certificates coverin" 023 e*uity. 't is further alle"ed that Ra&on did not receive a sin"le centavo for these shares of stoc+ as the chec+s purportedly payable to him as payment of the shares were immediately endorsed by Ra&on to and ta+en by unnamed parties close to President Marcos. 6he party close to President Marcos was later 'dentified as Alfredo <Be o< Romualde&, the president#s brother1in1law. After the transfer, a new "roup reportedly too+ over the active control and mana"ement of petitioner company. Petitioner Ra&on, was, however, retained as President, alle"edly because of his acceptability and rapport with the shippin" lines, customs bro+ers and the unions, but without real powers as ER'#s By1Aaws were amended to ma+e the office of the eCecutive vice1president more powerful than the president#s which was vested with mere recommendatory functions. Petitioner ER'#s corporate name was also chan"ed to Metro Port (ervice, 'nc. $MP('%. @n December 4., ./7=, the contract of petitioner ER'!MP(' eCpired. 't was eCtended in ./7/ to ,une 4., ./=2, durin" which month respondent PPA eCecuted a new contract in favor of ER' for a term of ei"ht $=% years, be"innin" ,uly ., ./=2. 't is alle"ed that on 8ebruary -0, ./=0, after the ouster of the former "overnment administration, petitioner Ra&on went to (outh )arbor and too+ active control, supervision and mana"ement of MP('. )e called a special stoc+holders# meetin" whereby he was able to re1or"ani&e the Board of Directors by seatin" therein his own nominees and to restore the powers of the President as well as the company#s name throu"h correspondin" amendments of the By1Aaws. )e was li+ewise able to convince the nominee company, MaCimum 6radin" and 'ndustrial Corporation $MA6'C@%, in whose name the 023 e*uity appeared to have been re"istered, to return the same to him under a <Deed of Reconveyance with 'rrevocable Power of Attorney< $AnneC <B<, Petition, pp. 5;155, Rollo%. )e caused the boo+s of accounts to be audited by the accountin" firm of (ycip, :orres and 9elayo and eCerted utmost efforts to improve service and revenue as well as to restore harmonious relations with the unions. )e further undertoo+ ways and means to restore to wor+in" condition the car"o1handlin" e*uipment in order to chec+ delay in the delivery of car"oes, which efforts were ac+nowled"ed by respondent PPA in a letter dated ,uly /, ./=0 $AnneC <C<, Petition, p. 50, Rollo%. @n ,uly .=, ./=0, some truc+ers sta"ed a demonstration at the main "ate of (outh )arbor to complain about Ra&on#s mana"ement of the arrastre operations. 6he demonstration lasted until noon of the same day. At about 5>42 in the afternoon of ,uly .=, ./=0, a 8riday, respondent PPA sent to petitioner ER'!MP(' a letter si"ned by a co1respondent (olis, demandin" eCplanation and reply to the complaints from shippers and others enumerated in said letter and to the various violations of the mana"ement contract not later than />22 A.M. of the followin" day, ,uly ./, ./=0, $AnneC <D<, Petition, pp. 57102, Rollo%. 'n a television newscast in the evenin" of ,uly .=, ./=0, then Minister of 6ransportation and Communications )ernando Pere& was *uoted to have "iven respondent PPA until ?ednesday of the followin" wee+, ,uly -4, ./=0, within which to investi"ate the complaints a"ainst MP(' and to submit its findin"s and recommendations. Apparently relyin" on the time frame announced by Minister Pere& and findin" the deadline set by respondent PPA in its letter of ,uly .=, ./=0 too short, apart from the fact that it had no staff, it bein" a wee+1end, petitioner ER' prepared a letter dated ,uly ./, ./=0, addressed to respondent PPA, statin" that it would <reply early neCt wee+< $AnneC <8<, p. 0., Rollo%. 't appears that this letter was never delivered to respondent PPA because there was alle"edly no one in its office to receive the same. @n the same day, ,uly ./, ./=0, respondent PPA informed petitioner ER'!MP(' thru a letter of even date that it was cancelin" the mana"ement contract and ta+in" over the car"o handlin" operations as well as the e*uipment of petitioner <effective immediately< $AnneC <:<, Petition, p. 0-, Rollo . @n ,uly -., ./=0, respondent PPA appointed Marina Port (ervices, 'nc. as interim operator of the arrastre service at (outh )arbor. Meanwhile, at .2>25 A.M. of ,uly -., ./=0, herein petitioners, thru counsels Atty. Rafael 6. Durian and 8lorentino 6uason, ,r. of Cru&, A"abin, Atien&a and Alday Aaw firm, instituted the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a preliminary restrainin" order and!or in unction. Aess than an hour later or at ..>22 A.M., they filed a similar complaint before the Re"ional 6rial Court of Manila, which issued a temporary restrainin" order a"ainst

respondent PPA at 4>22 P.M. of the same day. Earlier, at ..>5= A.M., petitioners filed a <?ithdrawal of Petition< with this Court. 6he <?ithdrawal of Petition< was vi"orously opposed by the (olicitor1:eneral in behalf of respondents who denounced petitioners# filin" of the two petitions in this Court and in the Re"ional 6rial Court as proscribed <forum1 shoppin" and double1dealin".< Pendin" action by the court on the <?ithdrawal of Petition,< petitioners filed a supplemental complaint with the R6C of Manila to implead Manila Port (ervices, 'nc. as correspondent therein. 6hey li+ewise filed motu proprio a comment on the @pposition to the ?ithdrawal of Petition, statin" in the main that they intended to withdraw the instant petition before filin" the petition in the R6C but that there was a miscommunication between counsels and their messen"erB that there was no intention to forum1shop and that they deeply apolo"i&e for the delayed filin" of the <?ithdrawal of Petition. < 8indin" the eCplanation proferred by petitioners to be <feeble and untenable<, the Court resolved on ,uly 4., ./=0 to> ... a% DENE the motion to withdraw the instant petitionB b% summarily D'(M'(( both the petition at bar as well as the complaint in Civil Case No. =014075; of the Re"ional 6rial Court of Manila and to (E6 A('DE effective immediately the temporary restrainin" order and any other orders or processes issued in the latter case as void and of no effectB and c% (F(PEND Atty. Rafael 6. Durian and 8lorentino 6uason, ,r. from the practice of law effective immediately and until further orders. (aid Attys. Durian and 6uason ,r. are hereby REGF'RED to show cause within ten $.2% days from notice hereof why the suspension should not stand, why no disbarment proceedin"s should be instituted a"ainst them and why no other liability should attach to them by reason of their above1described acts of deceit, malpractice and "ross misconduct $p. .--, Rollo%. @n Au"ust 0, ./=0, petitioners, assisted by Atty. An"el C. Cru& of the same Cru&, A"abin, Atien&a and Alday Aaw 8irm, filed a Manifestation that they were abidin" by the resolution of ,uly 4., ./=0 but <with eCpress reservation to their filin" a new ordinary civil action before the competent R6C and the le"al remedy to be availed of by Attys. Durian and 6uason, ,r. on the matter of the disciplinary action ta+en a"ainst them.< $pp. .;71.;=, Rollo%. @n the same day, petitioners filed a third 'dentical complaint before the R6C of Manila, doc+eted as Civil Case No. =047220. Fpon motion of the (olicitor1:eneral, this Court issued on Au"ust .;, ./=0 a temporary restrainin" order en oinin" ud"e Alfin (. 9icencio, R6C, Branch 52, Manila from actin" on Civil Case No. =0147220 and the petitioners from institutin" further action elsewhere without leave of court. 6he Cru&, A"abin, Atien&a and Alday Aaw 8irm and ,ud"e 9icencio were li+ewise re*uired to show cause why they should not be severally held in contempt of court and!or be held administratively liable for malpractice $p. -44, Rollo%. Both complied with this resolution, as did Attys. Durian and 6uason, ,r. with the resolution of ,uly 4., ./=0 by filin" a <Compliance with Fr"ent Plea for 'mmediate Aiftin" of (uspension< $p. .52, Rollo%. Meanwhile, on Au"ust .=, ./=0, petitioners thru new counsel N. ,. Guisumbin" and Associates, filed a motion for reconsideration of the resolution of Au"ust .;, ./=0 and for leave to file suit whether in the (upreme Court or any court for udicial review of PPA#s cancellation of Petitioner ER's mana"ement contract. 6his was a"ain opposed by the (olicitor1:eneral. @n (eptember .4, ./=0, Marina Port (ervices, 'nc. filed a motion for intervention, which was in turn opposed by Petitioners. @n @ctober 42, ./=0, the Court resolved to> a% ma+e permanent the temporary restrainin" order issued on Au"ust .;, ./=0 inasmuch as this Court has resolved to entertain the instant petition to accord petitioners access to the courts> b% allow the intervention of Marina Port (ervices, 'nc. in the present caseB and c% to lift the suspension of Attys. Rafael 6. Durian and 8lorentino A. 6uason, ,r. effective immediately. $p. ;451A, Rollo%. Petitioners contend that they were denied their ri"ht to due process when respondent PPA cancelled the Mana"ement Contract without prior hearin" and investi"ation. 'n support of this contention, they advance the theory that the mana"ement contract is not an ordinary commercial contract, but more in the nature of a franchise or license, which, in this case, has been impressed with property ri"hts by reason of the len"th of time petitioners have been en oyin" it, and hence cannot be cancelled without accordin" petitioners the opportunity to be heard on the alle"ed complaints and contract violations. As a corollary, petitioners further assert that respondent PPA was not eCercisin" proprietary functions, i.e., as a party to a contract eCercisin" its ri"ht to rescission or resolution when it cancelled petitioners# contract, but as a re"ulatory body eCercisin" ad udicatory powers in findin" and concludin" that petitioner

ER'!MP(' had violated the mana"ement contract. )ence, their contention that since said findin"s and conclusions were reached in violation of petitioners# ri"ht to due process, the resultant cancellation is null and void. Respondents PPA, et al. and intervenor Marina, on the other hand, submit in their oint memorandum the followin" ar"uments> .. Contrary to petitioners# assertion, the cancelled arrastre contract was previously awarded, not to petitioner Enri*ue Ra&on or his old company, E. Ra&on, 'nc., but to Metro Port (ervices, 'nc. that President Marcos# brother1in1law, Alfredo #Be o< Romualde&, admittedly controlled. -. (ince the cancelled contract was the fruit of corruption in the Marcos "overnment, it is a nullity and petitioners cannot sue for its enforcementB 4. ?ith his admission that he a"reed to front for Romualde& with respect to the latter#s ille"al dealin"s with the Philippine Port Authority, Ra&on forfeits his claim as havin" been a victim of the Marcos ruleB ;. Besides, since petitioners themselves admit the eCistence of sufficient "rounds for PPA#s cancellation of Metro Port#s arrastre contract, they cannot complainB 5. Fnder the circumstances, respondent PPA was not re*uired to hear petitioners prior to its cancellation of the contractB 0. :iven the validity of PPA#s cancellation of that contract and its ta+eover of the arrastre operations, the desi"nation of respondent Marina Port (ervices, 'nc. to assist PPA in the operations is not for petitioner to *uestionB and, 7. At all events, respondent MAR'NA is *ualified to handle the limited tas+ PPA assi"ned to it. $pp. 5;015;7, Rollo% 6he Mana"ement Contract under consideration was eCecuted by and between petitioner E. Ra&on, 'nc. represented by its President, herein co1petitioner Enri*ue Ra&on, and respondent PPA, represented by its then :eneral Mana"er, E.(. Bacli", ,r. on ,une -7, ./=2 $AnneC <A<, Petition, p. .=, Rollo%. By petitioners# own admission, at the time of the eCecution of the Mana"ement Contract, petitioner E. Ra&on, 'nc. later +nown as Metro Port (ervices, 'nc. was controlled by Alfredo <Be o< Romualde&, brother1in1law of deposed President Marcos. Fnder (ection 5 of the Anti1 :raft and Corrupt Practices Act $R.A. No. 42./% Romualde&, by reason of his relationship with the then President of the Philippines, was prohibited from intervenin", directly or indirectly, in any transaction or business with the "overnment. 6hus, the Mana"ement Contract, entered into by E. Ra&on, 'nc., ostensibly owned by petitioner Enri*ue Ra&on, but in fact controlled by Alfredo Romualde& as 023 e*uity owner thereof, is null and void and of no effect, bein" one eCpressly prohibited by law $par. H7I, Art. .;2/, Civil Code of the Philippines%. 8urthermore, as will be shown later, the Mana"ement Contract is the direct result of a previous ille"al contract and, therefore, is itself null and void under Article .;-- of the Civil Code. Petitioners attempt to evade the conse*uence of the Romualde& connection by alle"in" that the 023 e*uity of petitioner E. Ra&on, 'nc. was obtained thru force and duress and without any monetary consideration whatsoever. @therwise stated, the transfer of the shares of stoc+ to persons close to President Marcos, later disclosed to be Alfredo <Be o< Romualde& was, at the very least, voidable for lac+ of consent, or alto"ether void for bein" absolutely fictitious or simulated. 9erily, the transfer of the shares of stoc+ of petitioner E. Ra&on, 'nc. representin" 023 e*uity to persons frontin" for Alfredo <Be o< Romualde& was null and void. 6he invalidity sprin"s not from vitiated consent nor absolute want of monetary consideration, but for its havin" had an unlawful cause that of obtainin" a "overnment contract in violation of law. ?hile the "eneral rule is that the causa of the contract must not be confused with the motives of the parties, this case s*uarely fits into the eCception that the motive may be re"arded as causa when it predetermines the purpose of the contract. $Ai"ue& v. Court of Appeals, .2- Phil. 577%. @n the part of Romualde&, the motive was to be able to contract with the "overnment which he was then prohibited by law from doin", and on petitioner Ra&on#s part, to be able to renew his mana"ement contract. 8or it is scarcely disputable that Enri*ue Ra&on would not have transferred said shares of stoc+ to Romualde& without an assurance from the latter that he would be unduly favored

with a renewal of the Mana"ement Contract. 6hus, it came to pass that by transferrin" 023 of the shares in his company to Romualde&, petitioner Enri*ue Ra&on was able to secure an ei"ht1year contract with respondent PPA and for siC years before its cancellation benefit from the proceeds thereof. Petitioners# attempt to dissociate or divorce themselves from the ille"ality of the transfer and, conse*uently, of the mana"ement contract, as well as their claim of innocence or bein" a victim of the Marcos re"ime must fail for the <view has been ta+en ... that a party is a participant in the unlawful intention where we +nows and intends that the sub ect matter will be u for an ille"al purpose and there would seem to be no doubt that one may be deemed to be a participant in the other#s unlawful desi"n if he shares in the benefits of the violation of law. )owever, whether he is to derive any benefit from the unlawful use of the sub ect matter is not the sole test. A test which has been said to be more confortable to sound morality is whether he intends to aid the other in the unlawful ob ect. )e may be deemed to be a participant in the unlawful purpose if, with +nowled"e thereof, he does anythin" which facilitates the carryin" out of such purpose.< $.7 Am ,ur -d 5.515.0%. 6he transfer of the control of petitioner E. Ra&on, 'nc. from petitioner Enri*ue Ra&on to Alfredo <Be o< Romualde&, which ?e have resolved to be null and void, served as the direct lin+ to petitioner company#s obtainin" the Mana"ement Contract. Bein" the direct conse*uence and result of a previous ille"al contract, the Mana"ement Contract itself is null and void as provided in Article .;-- of the Civil Code. Elementary in the law of contracts is the principle that no udicial action is necessary for the annulment of a void contract. Any such action would be merely declaratory. $6olentino, Civil Code of the Philippines, 9ol. '9, ./74 ed., p. 5/;%. 6hus, it was well within the ri"hts of respondent PPA to unilaterally cancel and treat as avoided the Mana"ement Contract and no arbitrariness may be attached to its eCercise of this ri"ht. Besides, even if the Mana"ement Contract were valid and subsistin", the violations ) of the contract committed by its predecessor, Metro Port (ervices, 'nc. which, eCcept for the bare alle"ation that these were untrue, were not specifically denied by petitioners, but on the contrary, unwittin"ly admitted with the alle"ation that Metro Port (ervices 'nc. mismana"ed the arrastre operations, were "rave and serious to ustify immediate termination of the contract. Respondent PPA is the "overnment a"ency char"ed with the specific duty of supervisin", controllin", re"ulatin", constructin", maintainin", operatin" and providin" such facilities or services as are necessary in the ports vested in, or belon"in" to it $(ec. 0, HiiI, P.D. =57%. 't has the eCpertise to determine whether or not Marina Port (ervices 'nc. has the capability of dischar"in" the tas+s assi"ned to it as interim operator of arrastre service in (outh )arbor. ECcept in cases of clear "rave abuse of discretion, which has not been shown in the instant petition, the Court will not disturb such ud"ment and substitute its own. $Meralco (ecurities Corp. v. (avellano, ..7 (CRA =2;B An"lo18il 6radin" Corp. v. Aa&aro, .-; (CRA ;/;.% ?)ERE8@RE, the instant petition is hereby D'(M'((ED. Costs a"ainst petitioners. (@ @RDERED. Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, aras, !eliciano, Ganca"co, a#illa, Bi#in, $armiento, )) an# Cortes, JJ., concur.

(oo'no'e% J Guoted in full is the Memorandum addressed to the Port Mana"er @n Metro Port#s 9iolations of the Mana"ement Contract and PPA Re"ulations, attached to the letter dated ,uly .=, ./=0 of respondent PPA to petitioner ER'!MP('> 42 ,une ./=0 MEM@RANDFM1 8@R > 6)E P@R6 MANA:ER

8R@M > 6)E APM1() (FB,EC6 > REP@R6 @N ME6R@ P@R6#( 9'@AA6'@N( @8 6)E MANA:EMEN6 C@N6RAC6 AND PPA RE:FAA6'@N( > 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Metro Port (ervice, 'nc. has been violatin" some PPA re"ulations and certain provisions of its Mana"ement Contract with the Port Authority. Althou"h the violations are numerous, the followin" enumerations are the only ones presented as these are supported by documents. .. @peration of stevedorin" services beyond the authority "ranted by the PPA. @n many occasions, Metro Port undertoo+ stevedorin" wor+ on board some vessels berthed outside Pier 4, Berths 4 and ;, resultin" in complaints from the stevedorin" Contractor and problems with the shippin" lines involved. -. E*uipment Re*uirement. Despite the re*uirement in the Contract that the Contractor shall submit to the Authority a pro"ram of e*uipment renewal and moderni&ation for approval, no such pro"ram has been submitted. ECistin" e*uipment for containeri&ation has been so inade*uate and unmaintained that complaints from the port users on operational delays have always been received. 't is worth mentionin" that nowhere in the Philippine ports eCcept in the Port of Manila can be found an additional char"e for container terminal handlin". 6his was, however, allowed by the Bureau of Customs in the initial sta"es of containeri&ation only because of an understandin" that the car"o handler would need eCtra revenue to invest in container e*uipment, 6o date, however, the only two $-% tan"o cranes at Pier 4 and the four $;% shifters at Pier .411 Muene de (an 8rancisco are owned by the shippin" linesB the two $-% snifters at Cy12. are owned by the PPA while one $.% is owned by Metro Port the last one is not even operational. 'n short, the ma or container e*uipment in the harbor are not owned by the car"o handler. 6he purpose for allowin" a container terminal handlin" fee was not attained as envisioned. A visit inside the MP(' motorpool will show a lar"e number of unserviceable for+lifts and other related e*uipment but these cannot be of operational assistance because of poor maintenance. Meantime, port users continue to complain about non1availability of e*uipment and delays in car"o receipt and deliveries. 4. (ubmission of Reports. Metro Port has not been very cooperative in the submission of re*uired reports. (ome are submitted late while others are not submitted at all. 6hose not submitted at all include> @ut16urn Report per 9essel, Bad @rder Car"o Certificates, ECport Car"o Receipts, Dischar"in"!Aoadin" 6ally, Car"o Aocation (ystem, (hut1@ut Reports and Master 9an Aists. ;. Compliance with Port Re"ulations. (ome port rules are not always complied with. ECamples of these are those that pertain to stuffin", strippin", billin", tariff1system and other operational re*uirements. Non1observance of these re"ulations have only added to the confusion in the port, not to mention losses in revenues due to the Port Authority. 5. (afety Re*uirements. Contrary to relevant provisions in the Contract, there is no full1time (afety @fficer employed by Metro Port. 'ts safety "ears and e*uipment are far from complete. 0. Claims. An audit of Metro Port#s records will show no payment for claims filed with its @ffice. 8or your information, ("d. Ben amin B, Cecilio

BEN,AM'N B. CEC'A'@ $AnneC <E<, Petition, pp. 5/102, Rollo%. JJ No part for bein" counsel of petitioner before appointment to the (upreme Court.