The Supreme Court (SC) has cleared its two retired justices of graft charges involving their alleged unjust ruling in a land dispute case in 2003 even as it initiated disbarment proceedings against their accusers.

Voting unanimously, the 15-member tribunal ruled that former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and former Associate Justice Alicia Austria Martinez cannot be held liable for graft in the absence of clear showing that they acted with partiality, bad faith and negligence in deciding the case.

“The act of a judicial officer in reviewing the findings of fact in a decision and voting for its reversal cannot by itself constitute a violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) in the absence of facts, alleged and proven, demonstrating a dishonest purpose, conscious partiality, extrinsic fraud, or any wrong doing on his or her part,” the court said in 15-page per curiam (anonymous) decision.

On the other hand, the SC ordered the father-and-daughter tandem of lawyers Oliver Lozano and Evangeline Lozano Endriano to explain in writing why they should not be disbarred for filing a defective complaint against the retired justices.

The complaint stemmed from the participation of Davide and Martinez in the resolution of the SC’s First Division issued in the case of Heirs of Antonio Pael vs. Court of Appeals (CA).

In that case, the Lozanos were counsels for Jorge Chin and Renato Mallari, who were claimants of the 78-hectare disputed property along Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City.

The CA had earlier awarded the property to Chin and Mallari and this was affirmed by the SC’s First Division with five members concurred with the decision.

But in November 2003, the First Division reversed its decision and favored the claim of the University of the Philippines over the subject property. This time, however, only three members assented to the ruling.

In the graft complaint, Davide and Martinez were accused of violating Article X, Section 2(3) of the 1973 Constitution by reversing, by a vote of a majority of only three members, the decision of the First Division unanimously approved by its full membership of five justices.

That constitutional provision provides that cases heard by a division shall be decided with the concurrence of at least five members and that if such required number is not obtained the case shall be decided en banc.

The complaint was originally filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. But last month, the anti-graft body dismissed the case and referred it to the SC for appropriate action.

In its decision, the SC held that the Lozanos have “brazenly misquoted and misused applicable constitutional provisions” to justify their case against the retired magistrates.

“Had the complainants bothered to carefully considered the facts and developments in Pael and accordingly related these to the applicable constitutional provision, they would have discovered that Pael was decided in 2003 when the 1987 Constitution, not the 1973 Constitution, was the prevailing Charter,” the court pointed out.

Under the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 4(3) of Article VIII, a division ruling can stand provided that at least three members concurred with it.

The SC also castigated the Lozanos for complaining about Davide and Martinez overturning the findings of fact of the CA. “Contrary to the position of the complainants, the Supreme Court has the power to review the lower court’s findings of fact,” it said.

“The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land with the power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of the lower courts,” the court noted.