Thursday, October 16, 2008 SC maintains CA row ruling
THE Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday denied with finality the motions for reconsideration filed separately by Court of Appeals (CA) justices who got embroiled in the controversy attending the disposition of the Meralco ownership case.
In a resolution, the SC en banc adopted in full its September 9 decision imposing sanctions on several CA justices for improprieties and irregularities in the corporate dispute between Meralco and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), which was trying to wrest control of the power utility firm from the grip of the Lopezes.
The high court held that apart from the separate concurring and dissenting opinion of one justice, the magistrates’ votes and inhibitions in its assailed decision remained unchanged.
It explained that the said decision was fully supported by the facts on record and is in accordance with the law and prevailing jurisprudence. It found that there are no substantial grounds to reverse its previous judgment.
In the assailed September 9 decision, the SC declared Associate Justice Vicente Roxas, ponente of the Meralco case, guilty of multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in connection with his July 23 ponencia.
Aside from Roxas, the high court also suspended for two months CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., whom the panel found to have committed improprieties, citing the telephone call made by his brother, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) chairman Camilo Sabio, to “help the GSIS,” and his discussions of the case with businessman Francis Roa de Borja.
The decision stated that Justice Sabio “broke the shield of confidentiality that covers the disposition of cases in the Court in order to preserve and protect the integrity and independence of the Court itself.”
CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was severely reprimanded for his failure to act promptly in order to avert the incidents that damaged the image of the CA, with a warning that similar acts in the future will warrant a more severe penalty.
The SC said Vasquez failed to provide leadership expected of him as head of the appellate court, and his admission of his lapses in judgment.
On Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the court found that he was discourteous to Vasquez when he signed Roxas’s ponencia despite his July 22, 2008 request-letter to the presiding justice to decide which division of the CA – the Eighth Division with him as chairman or the Special Ninth Division chaired by Justice Sabio – should promulgate the decision on Meralco case.
As far as the role of Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, the SC panel found her “too compliant” particularly when she deviated from the Irca (internal rules of the CA) when she allowed herself to be rushed by Roxas to sign the Meralco decision on July 8, 2008, without reading the parties’ memoranda and without the deliberation among members
The decision also referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant Camilo Sabio’s “act to influence the judgment of a member of the judiciary in a pending case.” Likewise, the court referred to the justice department Justice Sabio’s allegation of bribery against de Borja.
In the resolution, the SC dismissed Roxas’s explanation that the “haste” in which his decision in the Meralco-GSIS case was promulgated was because of his intention to “efficiently” dispose of such, among others.
It held that the haste in which the decision was promulgated was taken in context with other suspicious circumstances and improprieties on (Roxas’s) part which led the three-man investigating panel composed of retired SC justices to believe that he was unduly interested in the Meralco-GSIS case.
Roxas, in his motion for reconsideration, had asked for suspension instead of a dismissal.
“We must emphasize that where the finding of administrative guilt is well supported by the evidence on record, as in this case, this Court must impose the penalty warranted under the law and prevailing jurisprudence,” the SC said.
On Justice Sabio, the SC said he merely set himself up for another insult or assault on his integrity” when he still called de Borja even after he was offered the bribe.
“Taking his conversation with his brother and his encounters with Mr. de Borja together, Justice Sabio gives the impression that he is accessible to lobbyists who would unfairly try to manipulate court proceedings,” the court said.
On Vasquez, the court said that the CA presiding justice failed “to timely and effectively act in the chairmanship dispute between Justices Sabio and Reyes. It stressed that the Presiding Justice should have stepped in to prevent the dispute and enmity between the two from escalating.”
On Vidal, the SC clarified that her admonition was not in the nature of a penalty. It held that an admonition “is a warning or reminder, counseling on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning.”
On de Borja, the court stressed that the businessman is neither a complainant nor a respondent in the present administrative matter. It found unnecessary to pass on most of de Borja’s arguments and reliefs prayed for by him for lack of standing. (ECV/Sunnex)
