|
Friday, August 01, 2008
Meralco ruling issue referred to SC
MANILA -- An executive session Thursday among all magistrates of the Court of Appeals (CA) failed to resolve questions on the validity of the decision on the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) case amid allegations of massive payoffs.
Forty-seven justices from Metro Manila, two from Cebu, and two from Cagayan de Oro attended the four-hour en banc meeting, a rare occurrence in the CA.
Arroyo Watch: Sun.Star blog on President Arroyo
An associate justice, who asked anonymity, said the justices engaged in a "spirited" debate over the three issues - propriety of the actions of the justices concerned; validity of the decision rendered by the Eight Division; and conflict in the interpretation of the internal rules regarding which division should act in particular stages of the case.
At the end of the discussions, the CA clerk of court decided to pass on the propriety of the actions of the justices concerned to the Supreme Court (SC) through the Office of the Court Administrator.
They also resolved to leave the matter concerning the validity of the decision to the parties to take whatever steps they may deem appropriate in the usual course of procedure.
They also decided to refer the conflict in the interpretation of the Internal Rules of the CA as to the justices or divisions, which should take part in particular stages of the cases to the standing committee on Rules of the CA in order to prevent the recurrence of a similar situation.
CA Clerk of Court Teresita Marigomen did not entertain questions from reporters during a briefing, but in a phone interview, she admitted that there was a gag order from Vasquez on the matter.
She said an administrative complaint, if there will be any, will likely be filed by the CA through Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. to the SC.
"We appeal to everyone to respect the subjudice nature of the case and to refrain from public discussion of the merits of the case," she said.
She added that the ruling of the CA Eighth Division upholding the control of the Lopez bloc over Meralco will remain in effect, unless reversed through a motion for reconsideration or before the SC.
P10-M bribe
Justice Jose Sabio Jr. earlier alleged that he was offered a P10 million bribe by a businessman to inhibit himself from handling the case filed by Meralco against the Government Service and Insurance System (GSIS) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on the counting of proxy votes in favor of the Lopezes.
Sabio was a former member of a CA Special Former Ninth Division that took cognizance of the case and issued a TRO (temporary restraining order) in favor of Meralco because its acting chairman Bienvenido Reyes was on leave.
Aside from him, another member of the dissolved division, Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, also questioned why the case was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Eighth Division.
Reyes reported back to work before the oral argument on the Meralco case last June 23 but was not able to participate in the proceedings as Sabio reportedly refused to vacate the position.
The justice who requested anonymity said Sabio was not asked by Vasquez to identify the businessman who allegedly offered him the P10million bribe.
"Nobody asked him to identify the person who supposedly offered him bribe money. He also did not offer to disclose the identity of the emissary," the justice said.
Blandishments
As this developed, a real estate businessman said to be a close friend of Sabio executed an affidavit claiming that the magistrate told him about the "blandishments coming from the government side."
He said he was offered a promotion to the SC and given money to favor the position of GSIS.
Copies of Francis Roa de Borja's affidavit, which were executed in Pasig City, were furnished all justices of the appellate court, but only after the en banc session.
In his affidavit, de Borja said he knew Sabio from when the justice was still a regional trial court judge in Cagayan de Oro.
He said that on or about May 31, 2008, he called up Sabio for a talk on the Meralco case wherein the magistrate told him that he was undergoing a lot of pressure from the government.
The affidavit further stated that on July 1, 2008 he met up with Sabio wherein they again had a conversation on the Meralco case.
The justice then confided that he was the Acting chairman of the Special Ninth Division hearing the case but that he was very piqued with the regular chairman of the division, Reyes, who was allegedly exerting efforts to reclaim his seat.
Reyes was then on leave when the Meralco case was first filed with the CA.
Sabio was then tapped to be acting chairman, in which he even voted to issue a TRO in favor of the power-distributing firm.
Sabio allegedly told Borja during that conversation that he was very suspicious of Reyes's motives. "Why does he want to go back?" he was quoted by Borja as saying.
Borja said Sabio mentioned that he had consulted his other colleagues in the CA and they told him that he was in the right and should stick to his guns. Thus, he vowed that he would hold on as acting chairman of the division.
Promotion, money
That was then Sabio told Borja about the offer of unnamed government officials for a promotion at the SC and money for a favorable ruling for GSIS.
"He in effect had just given me his motive for wanting to remain as acting chairman of the Division. I concluded that this was probably the reason why he was hanging on so desperately to the acting chairmanship of the division," Borja said.
He further said that he asked Sabio what it would take for him to resist the government offer, Sabio's reply was: "Fifty million."
In a separate statement handed to journalists from persons claiming to be from the office of Justice Vicente Roxas who wrote the Meralco ruling, the magistrate claimed that "recourse through the Court of Appeals en banc is not an option for GSIS to impugn or over the Meralco decision."
Roxas also challenged Sabio and Vidal to file an administrative complaint against him or any member of the Eighth Division who signed the Meralco ruling instead of "grandstanding before the media."
The two associate justices claimed that they were not informed about the questionable transfer of the case to the Eighth Division chaired by Reyes. (ECV/Sunnex)
For more Philippine news, visit Sun.Star Cagayan de Oro. (August 1, 2008 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here. |
|
|
|
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
