Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE C. CALIDA v. MARIA HRDO) certified that there was no record on Sereno’s file of
LOURDES P.A. SERENO, any permission to engage in limited practice of profession.
Moreover, out of her 20 years of employment, only nine (9)
G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018 [J. Tijam, En Banc] Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN)
were on the records of UP HRDO. In a manifestation, she
attached a copy of a tenth SALN, which she supposedly
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: sourced from the “filing cabinets” or “drawers of UP”. The
Ombudsman likewise had no record of any SALN filed by
Quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public Sereno. The JBC has certified to the existence of one SALN.
official may be availed of when the subject act or omission In sum, for 20 years of service, 11 SALNs were recovered.
was committed prior to or at the time of appointment or
election relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office On August 2010, Sereno was appointed as Associate Justice.
as to render such appointment or election invalid. Acts or On 2012, the position of Chief Justice was declared vacant,
omissions, even if it relates to the qualification of integrity and the JBC directed the applicants to submit documents,
being a continuing requirement but nonetheless committed among which are “all previous SALNs up to December 31,
during the incumbency of a validly appointed and/or validly 2011” for those in the government and “SALN as of
elected official cannot be the subject of a quo December 31, 2011” for those from the private sector. The
warranto proceeding, but of impeachment if the public JBC announcement further provided that “applicants with
official concerned is impeachable and the act or omission incomplete or out-of-date documentary requirements will
constitutes an impeachable offense, or to disciplinary, not be interviewed or considered for nomination.” Sereno
administrative or criminal action, if otherwise. expressed in a letter to JBC that since she resigned from UP
Law on 2006 and became a private practitioner, she was
FACTS: treated as coming from the private sector and only
submitted three (3) SALNs or her SALNs from the time she
became an Associate Justice. Sereno likewise added that
From 1986 to 2006, Sereno served as a member of the “considering that most of her government records in the
faculty of the University of the Philippines-College of Law. academe are more than 15 years old, it is reasonable to
While being employed at the UP Law, or from October 2003 consider it infeasible to retrieve all of those files,” and that
to 2006, Sereno was concurrently employed as legal counsel the clearance issued by UP HRDO and CSC should be taken
of the Republic in two international arbitrations known as in her favor. There was no record that the letter was
the PIATCO cases, and a Deputy Commissioner of the deliberated upon. Despite this, on a report to the JBC,
Commissioner on Human Rights. Sereno was said to have “complete requirements.” On
August 2012, Sereno was appointed Chief Justice.
On August 2017, an impeachment complaint was filed by OSG argues that the quo warranto is an available remedy
Atty. Larry Gadon against Sereno, alleging that Sereno because what is being sought is to question the validity of
failed to make truthful declarations in her SALNs. The her appointment, while the impeachment complaint accuses
House of Representatives proceeded to hear the case for her of committing culpable violation of the Constitution and
determination of probable cause, and it was said that betrayal of public trust while in office, citing Funa v.
Justice Peralta, the chairman of the JBC then, was not made Chairman Villar, Estrada v. Desierto and Nacionalista
aware of the incomplete SALNs of Sereno. Other findings Party v. De Vera. OSG maintains that the phrase “may be
were made: such as pieces of jewelry amounting to P15,000, removed from office” in Section 2, Article XI of the
that were not declared on her 1990 SALN, but was declared Constitution means that Members of the SC may be
in prior years’ and subsequent years’ SALNs, failure of her removed through modes other than impeachment.
husband to sign one SALN, execution of the 1998 SALN
only in 2003 OSG contends that it is seasonably filed within the one-year
reglementary period under Section 11, Rule 66 since
On February 2018, Atty. Eligio Mallari wrote to the OSG, Sereno’s transgressions only came to light during the
requesting that the latter, in representation of the Republic, impeachment proceedings. Moreover, OSG claims that it
initiate a quo warranto proceeding against Sereno. The has an imprescriptible right to bring a quo
OSG, invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction under warranto petition under the maxim nullum tempus occurit
Section 5(1), Article VIII of the Constitution in relation to regi (“no time runs against the king”) or prescription does
the special civil action under Rule 66, the Republic, through not operate against the government. The State has a
the OSG filed the petition for the issuance of the continuous interest in ensuring that those who partake of its
extraordinary writ of quo warranto to declare as void sovereign powers are qualified. Even assuming that the one-
Sereno’s appointment as CJ of the SC and to oust and year period is applicable to the OSG, considering that
altogether exclude Sereno therefrom. [yourlawyersays] SALNs are not published, the OSG will have no other means
by which to know the disqualification.
Capistrano, Sen. De Lima, Sen. Trillianes, et. al., intervened.
Sereno then filed a Motion for Inhibition against AJ Moreover, OSG maintains that the SC has jurisdiction,
Bersamin, Peralta, Jardeleza, Tijam, and Leonardo-De citing A.M. No. 10-4-20-SC which created a permanent
Castro, imputing actual bias for having testified against her Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards, tasked to
on the impeachment hearing before the House of investigate complaints involving graft and corruption and
Representatives. ethical violations against members of the SC and
contending that this is not a political question because such
issue may be resolved through the interpretation of the
Contentions:
provisions of the Constitution, laws, JBC rules, and Canons
of Judicial Ethics.
Office of the Solicitor General (petitioner):
OSG seeks to oust Sereno from her position as CJ on the Article XI only qualifies the penalty imposable after the
ground that Sereno failed to show that she is a person of impeachment trial, i.e., removal from office. Sereno
proven integrity which is an indispensable qualification for contends that the since the mode is wrong, the SC has no
membership in the Judiciary under Section 7(3), Article jurisdiction.
VIII of the Constitution. According to the OSG, because
OSG failed to fulfill the JBC requirement of filing the Sereno likewise argues that the cases cited by OSG is not in
complete SALNs, her integrity remains unproven. The
all fours with the present case because the President and the
failure to submit her SALN, which is a legal obligation, Vice President may, in fact, be removed by means other
should have disqualified Sereno from being a candidate; than impeachment on the basis of Section 4, Article VII of
therefore, she has no right to hold the office. Good faith the 1987 Constitution vesting in the Court the power to be
cannot be considered as a defense since the Anti-Graft and the “sole judge” of all contests relating to the qualifications
Corrupt Practices Act (RA No. 3019) and Code of Conduct of the President and the Vice-President. There is no such
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provision for other impeachable officers. Moreover, on the
(RA No. 6713) are special laws and are thus governed by the rest of the cases cited by the OSG, there is no mention
concept of malum prohibitum, wherein malice or criminal
that quo warranto may be allowed.
intent is completely immaterial.
Anent the tenth issue: Sereno chronically failed to file In addition, contrary to what Sereno contends, being on
her SALNs and thus violated the Constitution, the law, and leave does not exempt her from filing her SALN because it is
the Code of Judicial Conduct. not tantamount to separation from government service. The
fact that Sereno did not receive any pay for the periods she
In Sereno’s 20 years of government service in UP Law, only was on leave does not make her a government worker
11 SALNs have been filed. Sereno could have easily dispelled “serving in an honorary capacity” to be exempted from the
doubts as to the filing or nonfiling of the unaccounted SALN laws on RA 6713. [yourlawyersays]
SALNs by presenting them before the Court. Yet, Sereno
opted to withhold such information or such evidence, if at Neither can the clearance and certification of UP HRDO be
all, for no clear reason. The Doblada case, invoked by taken in favor of Sereno. During the period when Sereno
Sereno, cannot be applied, because in the Doblada case, was a professor in UP, concerned authorized official/s of the
there was a letter of the head of the personnel of the branch Office of the President or the Ombudsman had not yet
of the court that the missing SALN exists and was duly established compliance procedures for the review of SALNs
transmitted and received by the OCA as the repository filed by officials and employees of State Colleges and
agency. In Sereno’s case, the missing SALNs are neither Universities, like U.P. The ministerial duty of the head of
proven to be in the records of nor was proven to have been office to issue compliance order came about only on 2006
sent to and duly received by the Ombudsman as the from the CSC. As such, the U.P. HRDO could not have been
repository agency. The existence of these SALNs and the expected to perform its ministerial duty of issuing
compliance orders to Sereno when such rule was not yet in filed in 2003; 1997 SALN only notarized in 1993; 2004-
existence at that time. Moreover, the clearance are not 2006 SALNs were not filed which were the years when she
substitutes for SALNs. The import of said clearance is received the bulk of her fees from PIATCO cases, 2006
limited only to clearing Sereno of her academic and SALN was later on intended to be for 2010, gross amount
administrative responsibilities, money and property from PIATCO cases were not reflected, suspicious increase
accountabilities and from administrative charges as of the of P2,700,000 in personal properties were seen in her first
date of her resignation. five months as Associate Justice. It is therefore clear as day
that Sereno failed not only in complying with the physical
Neither can Sereno’s inclusion in the matrix of candidates act of filing, but also committed dishonesty betraying her
with complete requirements and in the shortlist nominated lack of integrity, honesty and probity. The Court does not
by the JBC confirm or ratify her compliance with the SALN hesitate to impose the supreme penalty of dismissal against
requirement. Her inclusion in the shortlist of candidates for public officials whose SALNs were found to have contained
the position of Chief Justice does not negate, nor supply her discrepancies, inconsistencies and non-disclosures.
with the requisite proof of integrity. She should have been
disqualified at the outset. Moreover, the JBC En Banc Anent the twelfth issue: Sereno failed to submit the
cannot be deemed to have considered Sereno eligible required SALNs as to qualify for nomination pursuant to the
because it does not appear that Sereno’s failure to submit JBC rules.
her SALNs was squarely addressed by the body. Her
inclusion in the shortlist of nominees and subsequent
The JBC required the submission of at least ten SALNs from
appointment to the position do not estop the Republic or those applicants who are incumbent Associate Justices,
this Court from looking into her qualifications. Verily, no absent which, the applicant ought not to have been
estoppel arises where the representation or conduct of the interviewed, much less been considered for nomination.
party sought to be estopped is due to ignorance founded From the minutes of the meeting of the JBC, it appeared
upon an innocent mistake that Sereno was singled out from the rest of the applicants
for having failed to submit a single piece of SALN for her
Anent the eleventh issue: Sereno failed to properly and years of service in UP Law. It is clear that JBC did not do
promptly file her SALNs, again in violation of the away with the SALN requirement, but still required
Constitutional and statutory requirements . substantial compliance. Subsequently, it appeared that it
was only Sereno who was not able to substantially comply
Failure to file a truthful, complete and accurate SALN would with the SALN requirement, and instead of complying,
likewise amount to dishonesty if the same is attended by Sereno wrote a letter containing justifications why she
malicious intent to conceal the truth or to make false should no longer be required to file the SALNs: that she
statements. The suspicious circumstances include: 1996 resigned from U.P. in 2006 and then resumed government
SALN being accomplished only in 1998; 1998 SALN only service only in 2009, thus her government service is not
continuous; that her government records are more than 15 for the years 2007-2009, procured a brand new Toyota
years old and thus infeasible to retrieve; and that U.P. Land Cruiser worth at least P5,000,000, caused the hiring
cleared her of all academic and administrative of Ms. Macasaet without requisite public bidding, misused
responsibilities and charges. P3,000,000 of government funds for hotel accommodation
at Shangri-La Boracay as the venue of the 3rd ASEAN Chief
These justifications, however, did not obliterate the simple Justices meeting, issued a TRO in Coalition of Associations
of Senior Citizens in the Philippines v. COMELEC contrary
fact that Sereno submitted only 3 SALNs to the JBC in her
20-year service in U.P., and that there was nary an attempt to the Supreme Court’s internal rules, manipulated the
on Sereno’s part to comply. Moreover, Sereno curiously disposition of the DOJ request to transfer the venue of the
failed to mention that she did not file several SALNs during Maute cases outside of Mindanao, ignored rulings of the
the course of her employment in U.P. Such failure to Supreme Court with respect to the grant of survivorship
disclose a material fact and the concealment thereof from benefits which caused undue delay to the release of
the JBC betrays any claim of integrity especially from a survivorship benefits to spouses of deceased judges and
Member of the Supreme Court. [yourlawyersays] Justices, manipulated the processes of the JBC to exclude
then SolGen, now AJ Francis Jardeleza, by using highly
confidential document involving national security against
Indubitably, Sereno not only failed to substantially comply the latter among others, all belie the fact that Sereno has
with the submission of the SALNs but there was no integrity.
compliance at all. Dishonesty is classified as a grave offense
the penalty of which is dismissal from the service at the first
infraction. A person aspiring to public office must observe Anent the thirteenth issue: Sereno’s failure to submit to
honesty, candor and faithful compliance with the law. the JBC her SALNs for several years means that her
Nothing less is expected. Dishonesty is a malevolent act that integrity was not established at the time of her application
puts serious doubt upon one’s ability to perform his duties
with the integrity and uprightness demanded of a public The requirement to submit SALNs is made more emphatic
officer or employee. For these reasons, the JBC should no when the applicant is eyeing the position of Chief Justice.
longer have considered Sereno for interview. On the June 4, 2012, JBC En Banc meeting, Senator
Escudero proposed the addition of the requirement of SALN
Moreover, the fact that Sereno had no permit to engage in in order for the next Chief Justice to avoid what CJ Corona
private practice while in UP, her false representations that had gone through. Further, the failure to submit the
she was in private practice after resigning from UP when in required SALNs means that the JBC and the public are
fact she was counsel for the government, her false claims divested of the opportunity to consider the applicant’s
that the clearance from UP HRDO is proof of her fitness or propensity to commit corruption or dishonesty. In
compliance with SALNs requirement, her commission of tax Sereno’s case, for example, the waiver of the confidentiality
fraud for failure to truthfully declare her income in her ITRs of bank deposits would be practically useless for the years
that she failed to submit her SALN since the JBC cannot qualifications required by law. While the Court surrenders
verify whether the same matches the entries indicated in the discretionary appointing power to the President, the
SALN. exercise of such discretion is subject to the non-negotiable
requirements that the appointee is qualified and all other
Anent the fourteenth issue: Sereno’s ineligibility for legal requirements are satisfied, in the absence of which, the
lack of proven integrity cannot be cured by her nomination appointment is susceptible to attack.
and subsequent appointment as Chief Justice.
Anent the fifteenth issue: Sereno is a de facto officer
Well-settled is the rule that qualifications for public office removable through quo warranto
must be possessed at the time of appointment and
assumption of office and also during the officer’s entire The effect of a finding that a person appointed to an office is
tenure as a continuing requirement. The voidance of the ineligible therefor is that his presumably valid appointment
JBC nomination as a necessary consequence of the Court’s will give him color of title that confers on him the status of a
finding that Sereno is ineligible, in the first place, to be a de facto officer. For lack of a Constitutional qualification,
candidate for the position of Chief Justice and to be Sereno is ineligible to hold the position of Chief Justice and
nominated for said position follows as a matter of course. is merely holding a colorable right or title thereto. As such,
The Court has ample jurisdiction to do so without the Sereno has never attained the status of an impeachable
necessity of impleading the JBC as the Court can take official and her removal from the office, other than by
judicial notice of the explanations from the JBC members impeachment, is justified. The remedy, therefore, of a quo
and the OEO. he Court, in a quo warranto proceeding, warranto at the instance of the State is proper to oust
maintains the power to issue such further judgment Sereno from the appointive position of Chief
determining the respective rights in and to the public office, Justice. [yourlawyersays]
position or franchise of all the parties to the action as justice
requires. DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
An appointment is essentially within the discretionary Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby
power of whomsoever it is vested, subject to the only adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and
condition that the appointee should possess the EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE.
Accordingly, Sereno
is OUSTED and EXCLUDEDtherefrom.