Sabio suspended, Vasquez reprimanded
By Tetch Torres, Leila Salaverria
INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:54:00 09/10/2008
MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed and forfeited the benefits of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente Roxas for writing the decision that favored Manila Electric Co. based on a fabricated transcript of deliberation of the Eighth Division and for committing other violations.
The Supreme Court found that Roxas had undue interest in the Meralco case, was dishonest and discourteous, and had failed to resolve pending motions before handing down his ruling.
“In sum, this Court finds that Justice Roxas’ multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct constitute grave misconduct, compounded by dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which warrant his dismissal from the service,” it said.
Adopting the findings of a three-member panel it created to investigate the Meralco case, the Supreme Court also suspended Justice Jose Sabio Jr. for two months without pay, and reprimanded Justice Bienvenido Reyes and Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr.
The investigation stemmed from the battle for management control over Meralco between the Lopez family and the Government Service Insurance System.
Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said the high court’s decision would be referred to the justice handling the GSIS petition questioning the disputed ruling written by Roxas on the Meralco case.
The panel said the irregularities, improprieties and a bribery attempt in the appellate court in connection with the case were “damaging to the institutional integrity, independence and public respect for the judiciary.”
The panel was composed of retired Supreme Court Justices Carolina Griño-Aquino, Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Sr.
Marquez said the tribunal’s decision was immediately executory. Although the magistrates could file a motion for reconsideration, they would have to serve the penalty while their appeals are pending.
Marquez also said the high court’s decision should be a wake-up call for judges and justices. “The court will not take these cases for granted,” he said.
‘Clinging’ to case
Besides suspending Sabio, the high court sternly warned him against repeating his actions after it found that his discussion of the case with a businessman with ties to Meralco was improper and indiscreet.
The tribunal also found improper Sabio clinging to the Ninth Division, which handled the case even though the chair he substituted for had returned.
Vasquez was severely reprimanded for failing to act promptly to prevent the scandal that has “damaged the image of the Court of Appeals.”
Discourteous
Reyes was reprimanded for being discourteous to Vasquez for ruling on the Meralco case even though the latter had yet to hand down his opinion on whether it was Reyes’ or Sabio’s division that should rule on the case.
Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal was admonished and was told to watch her actions after the Supreme Court found that she allowed herself to be convinced by Roxas to sign the Meralco decision even though she had not read the memoranda.
An admonishment is considered a warning and is not a penalty.
Camilo Sabio
The Supreme Court also decided to refer the attempt of Camilo Sabio, chair of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, to influence his brother to side with the GSIS to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action.
Camilo had revealed that it was Jesus Santos, a GSIS trustee and lawyer of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s husband, who asked him for help regarding the case.
Justice Sabio’s allegation that businessman Francis de Borja, supposedly acting as Meralco emissary, attempted to bribe him with P10 million so that he would inhibit himself from the case was referred to the Department of Justice.
De Borja may be liable
“The present investigation has given this Court reason to believe that De Borja may be criminally liable for his attempt to bribe a magistrate of the Court of Appeals,” the high court said.
De Borja, who denied offering the P10-million bribe, had issued an affidavit saying it was Sabio who told him that he was offered a Supreme Court seat and money to side with Meralco, and named P50 million as his price to reject the government offer.
In dismissing Roxas, the high court found his handling of the Meralco case suspect, citing the panel’s findings that he began writing the decision even before all pleadings were submitted.
Rush to judgment
It said Roxas’ “undue interest” was shown by his rush to judgment. The “inexplicable haste” was also bolstered by his failure to resolve pending motions before handing down the decision; his “rushing” of Vidal to sign the decision; his abrupt transfer of the case to the Eighth Division from the Ninth Division without notifying Vidal and without waiting for the resolution of the dispute on which division should rule on the case.
“We reiterate here that as the visible representation of the law and justice, judges are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that would enhance respect and confidence of the people in the judicial system,” the high court said.
Fabricated transcript
It also found him guilty of gross dishonesty when he submitted a fabricated transcript of the justices’ deliberations, which also contained statements that were falsehoods. It also cited the panel report that he lied about his reason for bringing the Meralco decision to Vidal.
“Indeed, the fabrication and falsehoods that Justice Roxas blithely proffered to the panel in explanation/justification of his questioned handling of the Meralco case demonstrated that he lacks the qualification of integrity and honesty expected of a magistrate and a member of the appellate court,” the high court said.
Recently fined P15,000
It also said that his failure to resolve pending motions was a violation of the Code of Judicial conduct, noting that this was not the first time he was penalized for such an offense. He was recently fined P15,000 for a similar failure in the case of Orocio v. Roxas where Roxas failed to act on a motion despite the promulgation of the main case.
In finding him discourteous, the high court noted the panel’s findings that he ruled on the Meralco case without waiting for Vasquez’s decision on which division should resolve the case.
“This Court cannot view lightly the discourteous manner that Justice Roxas, in his apparent haste to promulgate his decision in the Meralco case, treated his colleagues in the Court of Appeals. It behooves the Court to remind all magistrates that their high office demands compliance with the most exacting standards of propriety and decorum,” it said.
"He made a mockery of his own order for the parties to submit memoranda, and rendered their compliance a futile exercise," it said.
Roxas left early from his office at the Court of Appeals after reports leaked that he has been dismissed.
Improper conversation
As for Sabio, the high court said he failed to uphold the standard of independence and propriety that he should meet as a magistrate with regard to his brother Camilo’s phone call to him trying to convince him of the GSIS stand in the dispute with Meralco.
Camilo, also a lawyer, was taken to task for making the call. “As they were both members of the Bar, it is incomprehensible to this Court how the brothers can justify their improper conversation regarding the Meralco case,” the tribunal said.
Not influenced by his brother
But it did not adopt the panel’s finding that Sabio had an “unusual interest in holding on to the Meralco case” and that he seemed to have been influenced by his brother to help the GSIS.
“Based on the facts on record, the Court is wary of declaring that Justice Sabio had been influenced by his brother by speculating that he would have favored GSIS had he been a part of the division which rendered the decision in the Meralco case,” it said.
However, the high court found it improper for him to hold on to the chairmanship of the Ninth Division when the chair he substituted for, Reyes, had returned. It also viewed with “disfavor” Sabio’s “stubborn insistence” on his interpretation of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals and his “hostile, dismissive attitude” on the positions of his colleagues on the interpretation of the rules.
De Borja not credible
The high court also agreed with the panel that De Borja’s allegation that Sabio had wanted P50 million was “not credible.”
But it said Sabio’s conversations with De Borja on the Meralco case were indiscreet and improper. It said the continued communication between the two even after the justice rejected the bribe was “highly inappropriate and shows poor judgment” on Sabio’s part.
It thus found him liable for simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming a justice.
As for Vasquez, the high court said the scandal that rocked the country’s second highest court could have been prevented had he acted promptly and decisively.
“Certainly, this unpleasant and trying episode in failure to act in the early part of his tenure as Presiding Justice has indelibly impressed upon him what is required of him as leader of the second highest court in the land,” it said.
How they voted
A total of 13 Supreme Court justices voted on the issues. Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Justice Antonio Carpio were allowed to inhibit themselves from the case. One of Puno’s staff members is Sabio’s daughter, while Carpio used to belong to the law firm that represented Meralco in the case against the GSIS.
Of the 13 justices, 12 voted to dismiss Roxas, and one said he should be suspended for six months. Ten justices voted for Sabio’s two-month suspension without pay. One voted for a six-month suspension, another said he should only be reprimanded because he should be credited for being a whistle-blower. Another said he should be dismissed.
Eight justices voted to reprimand Reyes and five wanted him suspended for one month.
For the rest, the voting was unanimous.
Roxas is the third CA justice who has been dismissed from service.
Justice Demetrio Demetria was removed form the bench in 2001 after he was found guilty of interceding on behalf of alleged drug queen Yu Yuk Lai.
In 2007, the high court sacked Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of consideration filed before his division. Asuncion was also accused of accepting bribe money.
Copyright 2008 INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
By Tetch Torres, Leila Salaverria
INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 06:54:00 09/10/2008
MANILA, Philippines—The Supreme Court Tuesday dismissed and forfeited the benefits of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente Roxas for writing the decision that favored Manila Electric Co. based on a fabricated transcript of deliberation of the Eighth Division and for committing other violations.
The Supreme Court found that Roxas had undue interest in the Meralco case, was dishonest and discourteous, and had failed to resolve pending motions before handing down his ruling.
“In sum, this Court finds that Justice Roxas’ multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct constitute grave misconduct, compounded by dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, which warrant his dismissal from the service,” it said.
Adopting the findings of a three-member panel it created to investigate the Meralco case, the Supreme Court also suspended Justice Jose Sabio Jr. for two months without pay, and reprimanded Justice Bienvenido Reyes and Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr.
The investigation stemmed from the battle for management control over Meralco between the Lopez family and the Government Service Insurance System.
Supreme Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said the high court’s decision would be referred to the justice handling the GSIS petition questioning the disputed ruling written by Roxas on the Meralco case.
The panel said the irregularities, improprieties and a bribery attempt in the appellate court in connection with the case were “damaging to the institutional integrity, independence and public respect for the judiciary.”
The panel was composed of retired Supreme Court Justices Carolina Griño-Aquino, Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Sr.
Marquez said the tribunal’s decision was immediately executory. Although the magistrates could file a motion for reconsideration, they would have to serve the penalty while their appeals are pending.
Marquez also said the high court’s decision should be a wake-up call for judges and justices. “The court will not take these cases for granted,” he said.
‘Clinging’ to case
Besides suspending Sabio, the high court sternly warned him against repeating his actions after it found that his discussion of the case with a businessman with ties to Meralco was improper and indiscreet.
The tribunal also found improper Sabio clinging to the Ninth Division, which handled the case even though the chair he substituted for had returned.
Vasquez was severely reprimanded for failing to act promptly to prevent the scandal that has “damaged the image of the Court of Appeals.”
Discourteous
Reyes was reprimanded for being discourteous to Vasquez for ruling on the Meralco case even though the latter had yet to hand down his opinion on whether it was Reyes’ or Sabio’s division that should rule on the case.
Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal was admonished and was told to watch her actions after the Supreme Court found that she allowed herself to be convinced by Roxas to sign the Meralco decision even though she had not read the memoranda.
An admonishment is considered a warning and is not a penalty.
Camilo Sabio
The Supreme Court also decided to refer the attempt of Camilo Sabio, chair of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, to influence his brother to side with the GSIS to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action.
Camilo had revealed that it was Jesus Santos, a GSIS trustee and lawyer of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s husband, who asked him for help regarding the case.
Justice Sabio’s allegation that businessman Francis de Borja, supposedly acting as Meralco emissary, attempted to bribe him with P10 million so that he would inhibit himself from the case was referred to the Department of Justice.
De Borja may be liable
“The present investigation has given this Court reason to believe that De Borja may be criminally liable for his attempt to bribe a magistrate of the Court of Appeals,” the high court said.
De Borja, who denied offering the P10-million bribe, had issued an affidavit saying it was Sabio who told him that he was offered a Supreme Court seat and money to side with Meralco, and named P50 million as his price to reject the government offer.
In dismissing Roxas, the high court found his handling of the Meralco case suspect, citing the panel’s findings that he began writing the decision even before all pleadings were submitted.
Rush to judgment
It said Roxas’ “undue interest” was shown by his rush to judgment. The “inexplicable haste” was also bolstered by his failure to resolve pending motions before handing down the decision; his “rushing” of Vidal to sign the decision; his abrupt transfer of the case to the Eighth Division from the Ninth Division without notifying Vidal and without waiting for the resolution of the dispute on which division should rule on the case.
“We reiterate here that as the visible representation of the law and justice, judges are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that would enhance respect and confidence of the people in the judicial system,” the high court said.
Fabricated transcript
It also found him guilty of gross dishonesty when he submitted a fabricated transcript of the justices’ deliberations, which also contained statements that were falsehoods. It also cited the panel report that he lied about his reason for bringing the Meralco decision to Vidal.
“Indeed, the fabrication and falsehoods that Justice Roxas blithely proffered to the panel in explanation/justification of his questioned handling of the Meralco case demonstrated that he lacks the qualification of integrity and honesty expected of a magistrate and a member of the appellate court,” the high court said.
Recently fined P15,000
It also said that his failure to resolve pending motions was a violation of the Code of Judicial conduct, noting that this was not the first time he was penalized for such an offense. He was recently fined P15,000 for a similar failure in the case of Orocio v. Roxas where Roxas failed to act on a motion despite the promulgation of the main case.
In finding him discourteous, the high court noted the panel’s findings that he ruled on the Meralco case without waiting for Vasquez’s decision on which division should resolve the case.
“This Court cannot view lightly the discourteous manner that Justice Roxas, in his apparent haste to promulgate his decision in the Meralco case, treated his colleagues in the Court of Appeals. It behooves the Court to remind all magistrates that their high office demands compliance with the most exacting standards of propriety and decorum,” it said.
"He made a mockery of his own order for the parties to submit memoranda, and rendered their compliance a futile exercise," it said.
Roxas left early from his office at the Court of Appeals after reports leaked that he has been dismissed.
Improper conversation
As for Sabio, the high court said he failed to uphold the standard of independence and propriety that he should meet as a magistrate with regard to his brother Camilo’s phone call to him trying to convince him of the GSIS stand in the dispute with Meralco.
Camilo, also a lawyer, was taken to task for making the call. “As they were both members of the Bar, it is incomprehensible to this Court how the brothers can justify their improper conversation regarding the Meralco case,” the tribunal said.
Not influenced by his brother
But it did not adopt the panel’s finding that Sabio had an “unusual interest in holding on to the Meralco case” and that he seemed to have been influenced by his brother to help the GSIS.
“Based on the facts on record, the Court is wary of declaring that Justice Sabio had been influenced by his brother by speculating that he would have favored GSIS had he been a part of the division which rendered the decision in the Meralco case,” it said.
However, the high court found it improper for him to hold on to the chairmanship of the Ninth Division when the chair he substituted for, Reyes, had returned. It also viewed with “disfavor” Sabio’s “stubborn insistence” on his interpretation of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals and his “hostile, dismissive attitude” on the positions of his colleagues on the interpretation of the rules.
De Borja not credible
The high court also agreed with the panel that De Borja’s allegation that Sabio had wanted P50 million was “not credible.”
But it said Sabio’s conversations with De Borja on the Meralco case were indiscreet and improper. It said the continued communication between the two even after the justice rejected the bribe was “highly inappropriate and shows poor judgment” on Sabio’s part.
It thus found him liable for simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming a justice.
As for Vasquez, the high court said the scandal that rocked the country’s second highest court could have been prevented had he acted promptly and decisively.
“Certainly, this unpleasant and trying episode in failure to act in the early part of his tenure as Presiding Justice has indelibly impressed upon him what is required of him as leader of the second highest court in the land,” it said.
How they voted
A total of 13 Supreme Court justices voted on the issues. Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Justice Antonio Carpio were allowed to inhibit themselves from the case. One of Puno’s staff members is Sabio’s daughter, while Carpio used to belong to the law firm that represented Meralco in the case against the GSIS.
Of the 13 justices, 12 voted to dismiss Roxas, and one said he should be suspended for six months. Ten justices voted for Sabio’s two-month suspension without pay. One voted for a six-month suspension, another said he should only be reprimanded because he should be credited for being a whistle-blower. Another said he should be dismissed.
Eight justices voted to reprimand Reyes and five wanted him suspended for one month.
For the rest, the voting was unanimous.
Roxas is the third CA justice who has been dismissed from service.
Justice Demetrio Demetria was removed form the bench in 2001 after he was found guilty of interceding on behalf of alleged drug queen Yu Yuk Lai.
In 2007, the high court sacked Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of consideration filed before his division. Asuncion was also accused of accepting bribe money.
Copyright 2008 INQUIRER.net, Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
No comments:
Post a Comment