I have merely reposted the news from the Supreme Court website. I shall make a case law analysis later.
Reposted from : Court News Flash October 2008
Posted: October 15, 2008
By Jay B. Rempillo
The Supreme Court today denied with finality the motions for reconsideration of all but one of the Court of Appeals (CA) justices found to have committed irregularities and improprieties in the handling of the case between the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
In a 33-page per curiam resolution, the Court also denied with finality the motion for reconsideration of businessman Mr. Francis de Borja. It held that apart from the separate concurring and dissenting opinion of one Justice, the Justices’ votes and inhibitions in its assailed September 9, 2008 decision remained unchanged.
The Court 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.
“Wherefore, the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 15, 2008 filed by Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.; A Plea for Compassion and Clemency dated September 22, 2008 filed by Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal; and Motion for Reconsideration dated September 26, 2008 filed by Mr. Francis de Borja are denied with finality,” the dispositive portion of the resolution stated.
The Court, in its September 9, 2008 decision:
1. Dismissed from the service Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas for “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, with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations”;
2. Suspended for two months without pay Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. who “is found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming a justice of the CA, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty”;
3. Severely reprimanded Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez Jr. “for his failure to act promptly and decisively in order to avert the incidents that damaged the image of the CA, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty”;
4. Reprimanded Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes Jr. who “is found guilty of simple misconduct with mitigating circumstance, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar 7acts will warrant a more severe penalty”; and
5. Admonished Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal who "is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a justice of the CA" and who is enjoined "to be more circumspect in the discharge of her judicial duties."
The SC referred to the Bar Confidant for appropriate action Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chair Camilo L. Sabio’s "act to influence the judgment of a member of the judiciary in a pending case." Likewise, it also acted on the complaint filed by Justice Sabio against businessman Francis R. de Borja by referring it to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.
The Court dismissed Roxas’ 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’) part which led the (Investigating) Panel and this Court to believe that he was unduly interested in the Meralco-GSIS case.”
The Court said that it was not insensitive to the situation of Roxas, who had pleaded for suspension instead in lieu of dismissal, and his staff but stressed that it is the Court’s duty to protect and preserve the integrity and independence of the CA and the whole Judiciary. “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,” it said.
On Justice Sabio, the Court agreed with the Panel “that Justice Sabio, by his own action, or more accurately inaction, failed to maintain the high standard of independence and propriety that is required of him” referring to the former’s telephone conversation with his brother Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chair Camilo Sabio who had discussed the merits of GSIS’s position. With regard the alleged bribery attempt, the Court said that “Justice Sabio 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 CA Presiding Justice Vasquez, the Court said that the former failed “to timely and effectively act in the chairmanship dispute between Justices Sabio and Bienvenido L. Reyes Jr. It stressed that the Presiding Justice should have stepped in to prevent the dispute and enmity between the two from escalating.
On Justice Vidal, the Court 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.” “We see no need to be even more compassionate than we already have when Justice Vidal herself admits to being ‘remiss’ in this instance,” the Court said.
On de Borja, the Court stressed that the former 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.
(AM No. 08-8-11-CA, Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA-GR SP No. 103692, October 15, 2008)
Reposted from : Court News Flash October 2008
Posted: October 15, 2008
By Jay B. Rempillo
The Supreme Court today denied with finality the motions for reconsideration of all but one of the Court of Appeals (CA) justices found to have committed irregularities and improprieties in the handling of the case between the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
In a 33-page per curiam resolution, the Court also denied with finality the motion for reconsideration of businessman Mr. Francis de Borja. It held that apart from the separate concurring and dissenting opinion of one Justice, the Justices’ votes and inhibitions in its assailed September 9, 2008 decision remained unchanged.
The Court 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.
“Wherefore, the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 15, 2008 filed by Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.; A Plea for Compassion and Clemency dated September 22, 2008 filed by Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal; and Motion for Reconsideration dated September 26, 2008 filed by Mr. Francis de Borja are denied with finality,” the dispositive portion of the resolution stated.
The Court, in its September 9, 2008 decision:
1. Dismissed from the service Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas for “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, with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service of the government including government-owned and controlled corporations”;
2. Suspended for two months without pay Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. who “is found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming a justice of the CA, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty”;
3. Severely reprimanded Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez Jr. “for his failure to act promptly and decisively in order to avert the incidents that damaged the image of the CA, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty”;
4. Reprimanded Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes Jr. who “is found guilty of simple misconduct with mitigating circumstance, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar 7acts will warrant a more severe penalty”; and
5. Admonished Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal who "is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a justice of the CA" and who is enjoined "to be more circumspect in the discharge of her judicial duties."
The SC referred to the Bar Confidant for appropriate action Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chair Camilo L. Sabio’s "act to influence the judgment of a member of the judiciary in a pending case." Likewise, it also acted on the complaint filed by Justice Sabio against businessman Francis R. de Borja by referring it to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.
The Court dismissed Roxas’ 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’) part which led the (Investigating) Panel and this Court to believe that he was unduly interested in the Meralco-GSIS case.”
The Court said that it was not insensitive to the situation of Roxas, who had pleaded for suspension instead in lieu of dismissal, and his staff but stressed that it is the Court’s duty to protect and preserve the integrity and independence of the CA and the whole Judiciary. “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,” it said.
On Justice Sabio, the Court agreed with the Panel “that Justice Sabio, by his own action, or more accurately inaction, failed to maintain the high standard of independence and propriety that is required of him” referring to the former’s telephone conversation with his brother Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chair Camilo Sabio who had discussed the merits of GSIS’s position. With regard the alleged bribery attempt, the Court said that “Justice Sabio 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 CA Presiding Justice Vasquez, the Court said that the former failed “to timely and effectively act in the chairmanship dispute between Justices Sabio and Bienvenido L. Reyes Jr. It stressed that the Presiding Justice should have stepped in to prevent the dispute and enmity between the two from escalating.
On Justice Vidal, the Court 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.” “We see no need to be even more compassionate than we already have when Justice Vidal herself admits to being ‘remiss’ in this instance,” the Court said.
On de Borja, the Court stressed that the former 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.
(AM No. 08-8-11-CA, Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA-GR SP No. 103692, October 15, 2008)
1 comment:
drop the atty description, student ka pa pala, nagmimisrepresent ka na
Post a Comment