IN RE LETTER OF PRESIDING Justice VASQUEZ Characters: 1. Justice Roxas – Roxas – siya ang ponente ng case ng Meralco-SEC-GSIS. Sa kaniya na-raffle ang case 2. Justice Vasquez – Vasquez – siya ang presiding Justice (parang CJ sa Supreme Court) th 3. Justice Reyes – Reyes – chairman ng 9 Division th 4. Justice Sabio – Sabio – Acting Chairman ng 9 Division since naka-leave si Justice Reyes Super Habang Facts: 1. The officers and representatives of Meralco filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of preliminary injunction and TRO against GSIS and SSS. GSIS filed a motion to re-raffle t he case but it was left with the staff and did not reach the CA Division. 2. The case was raffled to Justice Roxas of the Ninth Division. Since Justice Reyes (the Chairman of th the 9 Divison) was on leave and Justice Mendoza (assigned as replacement of Justice Reyes while the former is on leave) inhibited himself because he served as the counsel of Meralco in a previous case, the Chairmanship of the said division was given to Justice Sabio. 3. Chairman Sabio of PCGG called his brother (Justice Sabio) and urged him to help GSIS but the latter responded that he will act according to his conscience 4. GSIS officials received an anonymous call informing them that Justice Roxas has prepared a TRO and that Meralco lawyers had been talking with Justice Roxas. They filed a motion to inhibit Justice Roxas but was not acted upon. 5. Justice Sabio signed the TRO on the condition that the case w ill be set for oral arguments. Justice Roxas thought the issuance of the TRO is tantamount to the denial of the motion to inhibit filed by GSIS (Fact #4). The Special Cases Section of the CA also received an urgent motion to lift the TRO but the same was not acted upon by Justice Roxas because he did not find it meritorious. 6. Justice Sabio received calls from Francis De Borja who offered him P10 M in order for him to give up his chairmanship and allow Justice Reyes to preside over the case since he already came back from his leave and that the Meralco officials are more comfortable with him. He did not accept the money. Instead, he insisted that he should preside over the case because according to his interpretation of Sec. 2 of R ule 6 of the IRCA, a case shall remain with the Justice if the following actions has been granted: a) giving due course, 2) granting w rit of preliminary injunction, 3) granting new trial, and 4) granting execution pending appeal have been t aken. Justice Reyes had the opposite view and insisted that he should preside because he might be accused of non-feasance. non-feasance. 7. Justice Cruz, the Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, interpreting Sec. 2, rule 6 of the IRCA stated that the case should be decided by the Chairman and that the TRO issued does not fall under the exceptions mentioned in the said section. Presiding Justice decided that it is be st for the two justices to decide this for themselves. 8. Justice Sabio presided over the case. Justice Roxas ordered t he parties to file their respective memoranda. The last memoranda was filed on July 10, 2008 but the decision was promulgated on July 8. The said decision was given to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal for her signature. Justice Roxas later denied that he gave it to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal for her signature. th th 9. The CA was reorganized and Justice Roxas was transferred from the 9 Division to the 8 Division with Justice Reyes as Chairman and Justice Brucelas as member. 10. However, the case was apparently deliberated upon by the Eight Decision with Justice Reyes as the chairman and Justice Brucelas and Justice Roxas as members pursuant to the r eorganization of the CA (fact #9). There were no stenographers during the said deliberations.
11. Justice Reyes received the Urgent Motion filed Meralco for him to assume the chairmanship and he urged Presiding Justice Vasquez to decide on the matter. Justice Roxas also filed an Interpleader Petition for Justice Vasquez to decide on the issue. Justice Vasquez asked for the rollo so he could study the case. While studying the rollo, he also came along the earlier motion filed by GSIS to lift the TRO but he did not act on it and simply considered it as a motion for reconsideration of the TRO. 12. Before Justice Vasquez could decide on the issue of chairmanship, Justice Roxas promulgated a decision because “he did not expect the Presiding Justice to answer or resolve the matter anyway”. The decision was written based on what he recalled from his memory since there was no transcript from a stenographer. A day after the said decision was promulgated, Presiding th Justice Vasquez issued his answer and decided that the Special 9 Division (with Justice Sabio as chairman) should resolve the issue. 13. Justice Sabio, apparently disappointed with what happened, informed Justice Brucelas and Justice Dimarana-Vidal of the bribe. The information also reached the media and De Borja admitted that he was involved in the bribery issue but claimed that it was Mr. Sabio who asked for money. Presiding Justice Vasquez elevated the matter to the Supreme Court through a letter. 14. The Supreme Court constituted a three-person panel t o assist in the investigation. The findings of the Panel: For Justice Roxas: 1. He failed to act on several motions filed by the parties. a. His failure to act on the motion filed by GSIS for his inhibition which violates Rule 5, Sec. 3, Par. 3 of the IRCA that provides a written resolution regarding the motions filed to be sent to the other members of the Division, the Presiding Justice, the Raffle Committee, and t he Division Clerk of Court. b. The issuance of the TRO is not an implied denial of the motion to inhibit since a written resolution, under the IRCA, is mandatory. c. He also violated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct (A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods) d. He also violated Sec. 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct (Judges shall perform all duties, including the delivery of reserved decision, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness) e. He also received a warning before regarding the same violations. 2. He is grossly dishonest a. A transcript is necessary in promulgating decisions but he merely composed it “from [his] recollection” to comply with Sec. 9, Rule 6 of t he IRCA (minutes of the meeting, i.e., deliberation, shall be kept) b. There were no deliberations because what they had were merely meetings c. The testimony that he submitted the decision to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal as a draft is false because the latter did not ask for it for her reading pleasure. d. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and Rule 4, Sec. 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty warrants the pe nalty of dismissal from service. 3. He also failed to show courtesy and respect for his colleagues when he asked Justice DimarananVidal to study and sign the decision he wrote and later throw it away. He also asked Presiding Justice Vidal to decide on the chairmanship but promulgated the decision without waiting for Presiding Justice Vidal’s final decision on the matter.
Decision: DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE For Associate Justice Sabio: 1. He violated Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (a lawyer shall refrain from impropriety which tends to influence or gives the appearance of influencing the court) when he had a conversation with his brother regarding the case o f GSIS and Meralco. Although he signed the TRO, he unusually held to the chairmanship, which may indicate his desire to help his brother, despite the fact that the chairmanship should be given back to Justice Reyes as soon as he came back from his leave 2. He also violated Sec. 1, 4, and 5, Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (page 426 of the case). 3. He also violated Sec. 8, Canon 1 o f the new Code of Judicial Conduct for the P hilippine Judiciary (Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct (and discretion) in order to reinforce public confidence in the Judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence) when he called De Borja. He could have just ignored his calls but he still decided to call De Borja. Decision: 2 months suspension without pay For Justice Reyes 1. He urged the Presiding Justice to decide on the issue of chairmanship but still deliberated on the case with Justice Roxas, which is violative of Canon 5, Sec. 3 of The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary Decision: Guilty of simple misconduct For Justice Dimaranan-Vidal 1. She violated the following sections of Canon 1 of the Co de of Judicial Conduct when she allowed Justice Roxas to rush her into signing the decision even if the memoranda of the parties were not yet filed (June 8 – she signed, June 10 – receipt of last memorandum) a. Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the function independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason” b. Sec. 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently Decision: Admonished For Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez 1. He failed to exhibit the leadership required of him in order to resolve the problems within the Court of Appeals 2. He should have convened the Court en banc, in accordance with Sec. 11, Rule 8 of the IRCA (the Presiding Justice or any one acting in his place is authorized to act on any matter not covered by these Rules. Such action shall, however, be reported to the Court en banc) as soon as he received reports regarding the bribery attem pt. Decision: Severely reprimanded Chairman Sabio – referred to the Bar Confidant for appropriate action regarding his attempt to influence his brother, a member of the Judiciary De Borja – criminal charges for his attempt to bribe a magistrate of the Court of Appeals
Certification: Pursuant to Sec. 13, Art. 8 o f the Constitution, this per curiam decision was reached after deliberation of the Court en banc.
