JARDELEZA V.

SERENO
[GR. No. 213181; August 19, 2014]
Facts:
• Due to compulsory retirement of Associate Justice Roberto Abad, the Judicial and Bar Council announced
the opening for the vacated position. Francis H. Jardeleza, incumbent Solicitor General of the Republic was
nominated for the said position.
• On June 16 and 17, 2014, Jardeleza received telephone calls informing him that during the meetings held on
June 5 and 16, 2014, Chief Justice and JBC ex-officio Chairperson, Maria Lourdes P.A.Sereno manifested that
she would be invoking Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-0093 against him. Jardeleza was directed to "make himself
available" on June 30, 2014 as he would be informed of the objections as to his integrity.
• In a letter-petition, Jardeleza prayed that the Court issue an order:
“1) directing the JBC to give him at least five (5) working days written notice of any hearing of the JBC to
which he would be summoned; and the said notice to contain the sworn specifications of the charges against
him by his oppositors, the sworn statements of supporting witnesses, if any, and copies of documents in
support of the charges; and notice and sworn statements shall be made part of the public record of the JBC; 2)
allowing him to cross-examine his oppositors and supporting witnesses, if any, and the cross-examination to be
conducted in public, under the same conditions that attend the public interviews held for all applicants; 3)
directing the JBC to reset the hearing scheduled on June 30, 2014 to another date; and 4) directing the JBC to
disallow Chief Justice Sereno from participating in the voting on June 30, 2014 or at any adjournment thereof
where such vote would be taken for the nominees for the position vacated by Associate Justice Abad.”
• On June 30, 2014, Jardeleza was directed to one of the Court’s ante-rooms. Department of Justice Secretary
Leila M. De Lima informed him that Associate Justice Carpio appeared before the JBC and disclosed
confidential information to which Sereno characterized his integrity as dubious. After the briefing, Jardeleza
was summoned by the JBC.
• Jardeleza alleged that Sereno asked him if he wanted to defend himself against the integrity issues raised
against him. He replied in the affirmative provided that due process would be observed. Jardeleza demanded
that Sereno executes a sworn statement specifying her objections and that in a public hearing, he be afforded
the right to cross-examine her. He requested that the same be imposed on Carpio.
• Jardeleza in a written statement expressed his views on the situation and requested the JBC to defer its
meeting since the Court en banc would meet the next day to act on a pending letter-petition submitted by
him. Jardeleza was then excused.

• Later in the afternoon of the same day, denying Jardeleza’s request for deferment of the proceedings, the JBC
continued its deliberations and proceeded to vote for the nominees to be included in the shortlist. Thereafter,
the JBC released the shortlist to which Jardeleza was not included.
Issues:
1. WON the court has power of supervision over the JBC.
2. WON the right to due process is available in the course of JBC proceedings in cases where an objection or
opposition to an application is raised.
Held:
1. YES. The court has power of supervision over the JBC as stated in Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution which provides:
Section 8. A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme Court composed
of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex
officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme
Court, and a representative of the private sector.
Based on previous rulings, the court held that supervising officials’ task is to see to it that rules are followed.
They do not have the power to prescribe rules or the power to modify or replace them. If they find that the
rules are not observed, they may order that the work be done or redone but only inorder to conform to the
rules. They have no power to prescribe their own manner of execution of the act.
Thus, the supervisory authority of the Court over the JBC covers the overseeing of compliance with its rules.
In the present case, Jardeleza’s principal allegations in his petition merit the exercise of a supervisory
authority.
2. YES. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers involve investigations by the Court into the conduct of one
of its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit. There is no complainant or prosecutor to speak of. Thus, JBC
proceedings are unique and special in nature. However, notwithstanding being "a class of itsown," the right to
be heard and to explain one’s self is availing. Thus the court ruled that, “… where an objection to an
applicant’s qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither negates nor renders illusory the
fulfillment of the duty of JBC to recommend. “
In the present case, Jardeleza’s right to due process was violated when he was neither formally informed of
the questions on his integrity nor was provided a reasonable chance to muster a defense. He was asked to
appear in a meeting where he would be, right then and there, subjected to an inquiry. Jardeleza was not
given the idea that he should prepare to affirm or deny his past behavior.