Members of CA division inhibit themselves from port dispute

THE COURT of Appeals’ (CA) three-man division handling the legal dispute over the control of Harbour Centre Port Terminal, Inc. (HCPTI) has refrained from further participating in the case.

In a two- page resolution on April 29, the court’s Special Former Special Second Division inhibited from the case, even as it said it did not view the motion for inhibition filed by One Source Port Support Services, Inc. as legally adequate.

Instead, the division through ponente Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser cited “adverse media releases against the ponente as well as the filing of inconsequential cases in [ sic] the Ombudsman” in explaining their reason for inhibiting.

“So as not to unnecessarily drag the name of the Court into a useless controversy and in view of the supposed erosion of private respondent’s faith in the justice system... We, as members of this Division, hereby opt to inhibit ourselves from further participation in these proceedings,” the resolution read.

The division is also composed of Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Pedro B. Corales, who were not among the original justices composing the division.

This case arose from a petition by businessman Reghis M. Romero II assailing a stay order by the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 167 that took away his group’s control of the terminal, in favor of contractor One Source.

When the appeals court through Mr. Bueser issued a restraining order and a later injunction against the Pasig City court, One Source sought his inhibition and later sued him before the Office of the Ombudsman for allegedly rendering biased and unjust orders on the ongoing case.

One Source also questioned the fact that Mr. Bueser remained a constant signatory in the case despite several changes in the division’s composition.

But the resolution penned by Mr. Bueser pointed out that “this Court is a collegial court where members reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly under the collective judgment after due deliberation.”

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

But because the court’s name has been dragged into “useless contretemps,” the three-man panel decided to “graciously recuse” from further handling the case.

Apart from the Pasig RTC’s proceedings, which the CA halted in its stay orders, the intra-corporate dispute is also pending before a Manila trial court.

The legal dispute arose from an October 2014 incident where One Source alleged the elder Romero forcibly took over the operation of HCPTI and ousted the service provider, despite the former having supposedly divested his shares.

Mr. Romero’s camp shot back that the son, a former HCPTI president and CEO, was trying to wrestle control of the port operator through the service provider. —