Re: Complaint-Affidavit of Rizza Joy E. Laurea against Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez

December 4, 2018

EN BANC

A.M. No. 18-07-26-SC

RE: COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT OF RIZZA JOY E. LAUREA AGAINST COURT ADMINISTRATOR JOSE MIDAS P. MARQUEZ

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedDECEMBER 4, 2018, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 18-07-26-SC (Re: Complaint-Affidavit of Rizza Joy E. Laurea against Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez). —

This pertains to the Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated July 2, 2018 of Rizza Joy E. Laurea of No. 70 Pangasinan Street, Barangay Sto. Cristo, Bago Bantay, Quezon City, which was referred to the Court, for appropriate action, by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales through her letter 2 dated July 6, 2018. Essentially, the complaint charges Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez with violations of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 3 and Sections 4 and 7 (a) of R.A. No. 6713 4 for having allegedly incurred "ineligible (unauthorized) expenditures" which "relate to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)," 5 as reported in the World Bank's Implementation Support Mission Aide Memoire of October 24-November 12, 2011 relative to the implementation of the Judicial Reform Support Project (JRSP), which was partly funded by the World Bank, with the Supreme Court as the implementing agency.

By way of background on the subject matter of her present complaint, Rizza Joy Laurea states that a loan to finance the JRSP of the Supreme Court was approved by the World Bank's Board of Executive Directors on October 2, 2003 and became effective on December 4, 2003. The project development objective is to assist the borrower in developing a more effective and accessible Judiciary that would foster public trust and confidence, through the implementation of the Supreme Court's Action Program for Judicial Reform (APJR). As part of the World Bank's routine monitoring functions, it regularly conducts an Implementation Support Mission to help the borrower assess the progress of project implementation, review the achievements vis-à-vis the project development objectives, identify implementation issues, and agree on the next steps to take. The Implementation Support Mission officially reports its findings through an Aide Memoire, which also contains its recommendations to improve the implementation of the project.

From October 24 to November 12, 2011, the World Bank conducted an Implementation Support Mission for the JRSP in the Philippines. A copy of the mission's Aide Memoire covering the said period was then endorsed to then Supreme Court Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Chairperson of the JRSP Management Committee. 6

In her present complaint, Rizza Joy Laurea categorically stated that the Aide Memoire "discussed the preliminary findings and recommendations with the implementing agency." 7 Among the findings in the Aide Memoire was the "ineligible (unauthorized) expenditures" which "relate" to the OCA headed by Jose Midas Marquez, 8 now the subject of the present complaint. Essentially, the complaint alleged that the violations of law cited therein were committed after Jose Midas Marquez was appointed by then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona (now deceased) as Court Administrator, head of the Court's Public Information Office, and chair of the Bids and Awards Committee of the APJR. Such "multiple authorities vested to Marquez," according to the complaint, "gave him an immeasurable power over the JRSP implementation," and thus, "greatly diminished the internal auditing mechanism of the Supreme Court to further implement the project." 9

The Court en banc, in its Resolution 10 dated August 28, 2018, required the Program Management Office (PMO) to comment on the aforesaid complaint within ten (10) days from notice.

In her Comment dated October 16, 2018, Atty. Laura C.H. Del Rosario, Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator, informed the Court that "there have been several other Implementation Support Missions already throughout the duration of the JRSP," 11 and that "all financial transactions and disbursements" pertaining to the implementation of the JRSP "were already reconciled and closed."12 She stated that the present complaint contains inaccurate allegations pertaining to the "ineligible expenditures" alleged to be related to the OCA. She clarified that the supposed "ineligible expenditures" do not solely pertain to the Court Administrator or OCA as there were other participants involved in various seminars, conferences and other activities related to the implementation of the JRSP. 13 Also, the computer equipment amounting to P6,327,914.00, which was initially disallowed by the World Bank as being "ineligible expenses," was reconsidered by the World Bank and was eventually declared as eligible expenditures. 14 Thus, the Judicial Reform Program Administrator made the following declarations and conclusions, duly supported with official documents:

7. In fine, the conduct of all JRSP activities were duly approved by the Court, including all those for which the amounts expended were declared by the World Bank as "ineligible." We note that only the funding source was questioned by the latter.

 Your Honors may recall that the refund of the "ineligible" JRSP expenditures was approved by the Court on 23 October 2012 (AM No. 12-6-7-SC), charged to the Fiscal Autonomy Account. Said refund further indicates that the Court itself has not questioned nor subsequently disapproved the conduct of these activities under the JRSP.

 Further, the amount refunded is already less those particular ineligible expenses that were reconsidered by the [World] Bank as eligible. A copy of this en banc Resolution is hereto attached as Annex F.

 The JRSP Loan was closed on June 30, 2012 and its disbursement deadline elapsed on October 20, 2012. All financial transactions and disbursements were already reconciled and closed.15

The present complaint is baseless.

The complaint is anchored on the World Bank Implementation Support Mission's Aide Memoire covering the period of October 24 to November 12, 2011. However, Rizza Joy Laurea herself categorically admitted in her complaint that the said Aide Memoire is merely a "preliminary" or initial discussion which are still subject for confirmation with the implementing agency, the Supreme Court. In fact, the covering letter dated December 28, 2011 of the Aide Memoire, addressed to then JRSP Management Committee Chair, former Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, made this clear: "Given the deliberative nature of information [in the Aide Memoire], some of which are still to be confirmed, the attached Aide Memoireis classified as Official Use Only for the purpose of project monitoring and management, and will not be disclosed to the public. We request you and the Honorable Members of the JRSP Management Committee to please address the issues in the Aide Memoire so that project activities can be smoothly completed by June 30, 2012." 16 "In view of the implementation issues and constraints identified in the Aide Memoire, we would suggest twice-monthly video conferences between the PMO and our team beginning early January 2012, and a follow-up mission in February/March 2012 on dates to be mutually agreed." 17 The covering letter ended with this assuring note: "Our team stands ready to provide support to the Honorable Members of the JRSP Management Committee to address the issues and recommendations in the Aide Memoire. Please do not hesitate to let us know if you have any question." 18

Indeed, after a copy of the said Aide Memoire was received by the JRSP Management Committee, as declared by the Judicial Reform Program Administrator in her Comment, there were several subsequent Implementation Support Missions that were conducted throughout the duration of the JRSP, and that "all financial transactions and disbursements" pertaining to the implementation of the JRSP "were already reconciled and closed."19

Clearly, the preliminary and unconfirmed nature of the said Aide Memoire cannot be made the basis of the present complaint. Besides, all financial transactions and disbursements pertaining to the implementation of the JRSP were already reconciled and closed. AIDSTE

WHEREFORE, the present complaint is DISMISSED for being baseless." Carandang, J., on leave. (adv12)

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETAClerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-15.

2. Id. at 1.

3. Otherwise known as the "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act."

4. Otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees."

5. Paragraph No. 17.3, Complaint-Affidavit, rollo, pp. 7-8.

6. Annex "D," Comment of the Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator, id. at 188-191.

7. Paragraph No. 10, Complaint-Affidavit, id. at 6. (Emphasis ours)

8. Paragraph No. 17.3, id. at 7-8.

9. Paragraph No. 40, id. at 14.

10. Rollo, p. 113.

11. Paragraph No. 4, Comment of the Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator, id. at 122.

12. Paragraph No. 7, id. at 126.

13. See Paragraph No. 6. ("Summary of Ineligible Expenses Disallowed by the World Bank"), id. at 122-125.

14. Id.

15. Paragraph No. 7, Comment of the Deputy Clerk of Court and Judicial Reform Program Administrator, rollo, p. 126. (Underlining supplied)

16. Annex "D," id. at 188.

17. Id. at 190.

18. Id.

19. Supra note 14.