THE Superior Court yesterday issued an order denying a motion to disqualify Presiding Judge Edward Manibusan from presiding over the Bank of Saipan receivership proceedings.
Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama said the argument that Manibusan has somehow been tainted by a “conflicted” receiver Randall T. Fennell did not meet “the substantial burden of proof required to meet the objective standard.”
Lizama said while it is understandable that Bank of Saipan is concerned about a potentially conflicted receiver, “it does not logically follow that such personal conflicts can be (blamed on) the court.”
“Unless the moving party can meet the objective standard, therefore, this court will not find impartiality on the faulty premise that a conflicted receiver equals a conflicted judge,” Lizama said.
Bank of Saipan, through the Calvo & Clark law firm, moved to disqualify Manibusan, alleging that various ex parte, or private, communications had taken place which had “tainted” the proceedings.
Lizama said the pleadings revealed several instances where Bank of Saipan claimed that Fennell had “old scores” to settle with the bank and its officers and shareholders.
The respondent, Lizama said, constantly asserted that the open wounds of the Larry Hillblom probate were still festering and infecting the receivership proceedings through Fennell’s acts as the receiver.
“Even assuming (that the) respondent’s contentions are true, these assertions as to conflicted receiver still does not meet the substantial burden of proof required for disqualification of the judge,” Lizama said.
He said Fennell can obviously have conflicts due to involvement in a prior case, but if Manibusan had no involvement in that case, he is not automatically conflicted.
According to Lizama, a receiver is the “arm of the court,” a “representative of the court,” or an “officer of the court.”
“This close working relationship necessitates that certain communications between the judge and receiver be confidential and are not always available to parties upon request or demand,” he said.
“Even if the receiver was motivated by ill will toward the bank, which is far from clear in the record, respondent cannot simply bootstrap the receiver’s subliminal malicious intent,” Lizama said.
