Nalpon v. Mario: Appeal of Misconduct Complaint Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

Mr. Zero Geraldo Mario Nalpon appealed against the decision of the Chief Justice, who dismissed his application for leave to commence an investigation into a misconduct complaint against Ms. Nor’Ashikin, a Deputy Public Prosecutor. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed the appeal, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the Chief Justice's decision was not a decision of the High Court and did not involve the exercise of civil or criminal jurisdiction. The court appointed Mr. Goh Yihan as Amicus Curiae.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Regulatory

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the Chief Justice's decision on a misconduct complaint is not a High Court decision.

1.7 Decision Date

22 April 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Zero Geraldo Mario Nalpon of Independent Practitioner

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of Appeal	Yes
V K Rajah	Justice of Appeal	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Zero Geraldo Mario Nalpon	Independent Practitioner

4. Facts

Mr. Nalpon applied for leave for an investigation into a complaint of misconduct against Ms. Nor’Ashikin, a Deputy Public Prosecutor.
The complaint arose from a District Court trial where Mr. Nalpon’s client faced two charges of criminal breach of trust.
The District Judge convicted Mr. Nalpon’s client on one charge and acquitted him on the other.
Both Mr. Nalpon’s client and the Prosecution appealed the District Judge’s decision.
Mr. Nalpon filed a criminal motion to adduce fresh evidence, alleging Ms. Nor’Ashikin intentionally withheld evidence.
The Chief Justice dismissed Mr. Nalpon’s application for leave for an investigation, finding no prima facie case.

5. Formal Citations

Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario, Civil Appeal No 62 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 28
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario, , [2012] 3 SLR 440
Ezmiwardi bin Kanan v Public Prosecutor, , [2012] SGHC 44

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2009-01-01	District Arrest Case No 18210 of 2009 (First Charge) and District Arrest Case No 18211 of 2009 (Second Charge) occurred
2010-01-01	Magistrate’s Appeal No 401 of 2010 filed
2011-01-01	Criminal Motion No 58 of 2011 filed
2012-01-11	Mr Nalpon stated his intentions to proceed with the requisite application pursuant to the Legal Profession Act against Ms Nor’Ashikin Binte Samdin
2012-01-31	Originating Summons No 77 of 2012 initiated
2012-03-28	Hearing on 28 March 2012
2012-10-16	Appeal first heard
2013-04-23	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether the decision of the Chief Justice under s 82A(5) of the Legal Profession Act is a decision of the High Court
  - Whether disciplinary proceedings are an exercise of civil or criminal jurisdiction

8. Remedies Sought

Investigation into Misconduct

9. Cause of Actions

Complaint of Misconduct

10. Practice Areas

Appeals
Regulatory Offences
Legal Ethics

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario	High Court	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 440	Singapore	Decision from which this appeal arose.
Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 529	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is only seised of the jurisdiction that has been conferred upon it by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating it.
Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 1279	Singapore	Cited for affirming the principle that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is only seised of the jurisdiction that has been conferred upon it by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating it.
Ng Chye Huey and another v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 106	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and is hence only seised of the jurisdiction that has been conferred upon it by the relevant provisions in the legislation creating it.
Swift-Fortune Ltd v Magnifica Marine SA	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 629	Singapore	Cited as authority that the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is statutory in nature.
Microsoft Corp and others v SM Summit Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 423	Singapore	Cited as authority that the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is statutory in nature.
Abdullah bin A Rahman v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 1017	Singapore	Cited as authority that the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is statutory in nature.
Knight Glenn Jeyasingam v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 196	Singapore	Cited as authority that the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is statutory in nature.
Ting Sie Huong v State Attorney-General	Unknown	Yes	[1985] 1 MLJ 431	Malaysia	Cited as authority that the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction is statutory in nature.
Chadwick v Hollingsworth	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2010] EWCA Civ 1210	England and Wales	Cited as authority that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute whose jurisdiction is limited by statute.
R v James Francis Hughes	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)	Yes	[2010] 1 Cr App R (S) 25	England and Wales	Cited as authority that the Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and all its jurisdiction is statutory.
Eastman v The Queen	High Court of Australia	Yes	(2000) 203 CLR 1	Australia	Cited as authority that the Federal Court is, of necessity, a creature of statute.
Therrien c. Québec (Ministre de la justice)	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	[2001] 2 SCR 3	Canada	Cited as authority that appellate courts are creatures of statute and their authority is conferred solely by legislation.
HKSAR v Ooi Lim Khoon	Hong Kong Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 5 HKLRD 100	Hong Kong	Cited as authority that the Hong Kong Court of Appeal is a creature of statute and its jurisdiction is derived from statute.
Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah	High Court	Yes	[1990] 2 SLR(R) 348	Singapore	Cited for the definition of the jurisdiction of a court as its authority, however derived, to hear and determine a dispute that is brought before it.
Salijah bte Ab Latef v Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah Teo	High Court	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 80	Singapore	Cited with approval of the definition of the jurisdiction of a court as its authority, however derived, to hear and determine a dispute that is brought before it.
Ezmiwardi bin Kanan v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 44	Singapore	Judgment where Lee Seiu Kin J found that the trial should have proceeded under one charge only as the two charges shared similar elements and arose from the same transaction.
In Re McC (A Minor)	House of Lords	Yes	[1985] 1 AC 528	United Kingdom	Cited for the observation that the word jurisdiction has been used with many different shades of meaning in different contexts.
Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and another	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for the statement that Sir Jack Jacob’s article is one of the most authoritative expositions of the basis and extent of the court’s inherent jurisdiction.
UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 95	Singapore	Cited for describing the inherent jurisdiction of the Court as an amorphous source of power to do that which is deemed appropriate in the circumstances to secure the ends of justice.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 998	Singapore	Cited for holding that it had the inherent jurisdiction to reopen and rehear an issue that it had decided in breach of natural justice as well as to set aside the whole or part of its earlier decision founded on that issue.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 728	Singapore	Cited for holding that it has the power to strike out certain paragraphs of the petition of appeal despite the fact that the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 did not empower it to hear an application of this nature.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 117	Singapore	Cited for the observation that if there is an existing rule already covering the situation at hand, the courts would generally not invoke its inherent powers.
Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR(R) 353	Singapore	Cited for the statement that residual powers should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear need for it and the justice of the case so demands.
Ridehalgh v Horsefield (C.A.)	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[1994] Ch 205	England and Wales	Cited for recognising the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Courts, which is distinct from the civil/criminal jurisdiction of the Courts.
Weston v C C C Administrator (C.A.)	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[1977] 1 QB 32	England and Wales	Cited for recognising the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Courts, which is distinct from the civil/criminal jurisdiction of the Courts.
Myers v Elman	House of Lords	Yes	[1940] 1 AC 282	United Kingdom	Cited for recognising the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Courts, which is distinct from the civil/criminal jurisdiction of the Courts.
R & T Thew Ltd v Reeves (No 2) (C.A.)	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[1982] 1 QB 1283	England and Wales	Cited for recognising the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Courts, which is distinct from the civil/criminal jurisdiction of the Courts.
Law Society of Singapore v Ang Boon Kong Lawrence	High Court	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 825	Singapore	Cited for reflecting similar sentiments regarding the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Courts.
Law Society of Singapore v Tham Yu Xian Rick	High Court	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 68	Singapore	Cited for reflecting similar sentiments regarding the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Courts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 24 r 6(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)
O 92 r 4 of the ROC
Rules of the Supreme Court 1970

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 29A of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act	Singapore
s 82A(5) of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore
s 82A(6) of the Legal Profession Act	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 374(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 405 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 16(1)(b) of the SCJA	Singapore
s 16 of the SCJA	Singapore
s 17 of the SCJA	Singapore
s 18 of the SCJA	Singapore
s 18(1) of the SCJA	Singapore
s 18(2) of the SCJA	Singapore
s 2 of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 9 of the SCJA	Singapore
ss 82A(5) and (6) of the LPA	Singapore
s 98(7) of the LPA	Singapore
s 98 of the LPA	Singapore
s 98(6) of the LPA	Singapore
s 98(3) of the LPA	Singapore
s 91(4) of the LPA	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act
Disciplinary Proceedings
Chief Justice
High Court
Legal Service Officer
Prima Facie Case
Misconduct
Court of Appeal
Statutory Interpretation

15.2 Keywords

Jurisdiction
Legal Profession Act
Disciplinary Proceedings
Chief Justice
High Court
Legal Service Officer
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Legal Profession Act	90
Professional Discipline	50
Criminal Procedure	40
Civil Procedure	30

16. Subjects

Jurisdiction
Legal Profession
Appeals
Statutory Interpretation