Friday, August 15, 2008 Justice Roxas defends swift dispensation of Meralco case
INCONSISTENCIES and denials on Thursday marred the testimony of a Court of Appeals (CA) justice who was grilled by the three-man panel created by the Supreme Court (SC) to investigate allegations of bribery and irregularities attending its decision on the controversial Meralco ownership case.
During cross-examination on the sixth day of the panel's investigation, CA Associate Justice Vicente Roxas fended off criticism by his colleagues questioning his purported hasty dispensation of the case in two months' time.
Roxas penned the July 23 decision of the CA Eighth Division.
Roxas's nemesis, Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., earlier questioned the "rushed" and roughshod promulgation of the decision, on top his allegations that he and Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal had been eased out of the Special Ninth Division, which first took cognizance of the case.
The assailed decision divested the Securities and Exchange Commission of the right to rule on the validation of proxy votes cast in favor of the Lopez group, saying such power to tackle corporate election issues is lodged with a special commercial court.
Roxas told the panel that his being "computer literate" helped him immensely in his work as justice, but he underscored that his early resolution of the Meralco case was a product of deliberate study of the issues and evidence presented.
He submitted to the panel 34 drafts of the decision that was reached by the Eighth Division. He added that he received citations for being one of the best decision writers of the CA and for his diligence at work.
"I leave my office around 12 midnight and arrive at 7 a.m. I always see to it that my desk is cleared when I leave for home," he said.
Upon questioning by Sabio, Roxas was unable to specifically state about the minutes and transcripts of the supposed deliberation prior to the promulgation of the Meralco case.
Roxas was also not able to categorically state the date when the deliberations took place and whether it was a simple meeting or a deliberation among division members.
He said during one of their prior deliberations, Eighth Division chairman Justice Bienvenido Reyes designated him as secretary tasked to transcribe the minutes of the deliberations as provided for under the Internal Rules of the CA (Irca).
When asked why a stenographer was not invited to take down the minutes, Roxas said he wanted to preserve the confidentiality of the deliberations. "Since it is a high profile case, we do not want our deliberations to leak out," he said.
But Sabio pointed out that it was highly improbable that Roxas would be able to remember the minutes of the deliberations on sheer memory and be able to write extensively on it, but not be able to recall the dates as to when the deliberations took place.
Sabio further noted that the conflicting copies of the final deliberations in which one set had initials while the other set bear no initials.
He noted that according to page 1,926 of the rollo, in which the copy of the final deliberation was attached, there was no indication that it was officially received nor did it signify the date it was filed.
Panel member, retired SC justice Romeo Callejo, said based on the records, it was made to appear that there was a transcript of the deliberations, but there was none since what was written in loose leafs were notes prepared from Roxas's memory of what were discussed.
Roxas claimed that despite the absence of minutes and transcripts, the first meeting of the division could be considered a formal deliberation although the main topic of their meeting was about the chairmanship row between Sabio and Reyes over the Meralco case.
"We are in agreement that Meralco's petition is a matter for the regional trial courts to decide, but we always got distracted by the (chairmanship) squabble. We always got carried away," he said.
Roxas also explained that his personal delivery of the draft of the decision to Vidal on July 8 was only because Vidal, whom he regarded as "a nice lady before," insisted on reading the decision.
This, he said, was despite his knowledge of the CA reorganization on July 4 that made him recognize the division of Reyes as the one that would rule on the Meralco case.
Vidal then shot back at Roxas, calling him the "Denial King" who is "weaving his lies to formulate his escape."
"You have to be candid. Remember you are under oath. I made no such request. The decision you brought had the earmarks of a final panel decision that is why I signed. It bears your signature as the ponente. I am sorry to say this, but because of your denial, my staff has started calling you the 'Denial king,'" she said in a shaking voice.
Vidal further testified that Roxas went back to her chambers that same afternoon, and looked anxious if he signed the copy of the decision or not.
She went on to narrate that prior to the promulgation of the May 30 temporary restraining order (TRO) decision, Roxas seemed to be in a hurry to have the decision signed since he waited for her in the CA's reception hall for a very long time and in fact went to her chambers and slept there.
Meanwhile, the panel has granted a motion filed by lawyers of businessman Francis de Borja to summon Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) chairman Camilo Sabio, elder brother of Justice Sabio, to testify on his alleged call to Justice Sabio to lobby for the GSIS position.
Justice Sabio however said he is not sure if his brother could testify soon as he is on official leave to Brazil. (ECV/Sunnex)
