Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net
MANILA, Philippine — Justices of the Court of Appeals were berated Tuesday by a Supreme Court investigating body for lapses in handling a case that has been tainted with alleged bribery.
The investigation stemmed from allegations that appellate court Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. had sought a multimillion-peso bribe to inhibit himself from the case filed by the Manila Electric Co. against the Government Service Insurance System.
In its petition, Meralco had asked the Court of Appeals to lift the Securities and Exchange Commission cease and desist order on the election of board members, which if stopped would pave the way for the takeover of GSIS.
Sabio, who was acting chairman of the 9th division when it issued the TRO, claimed that he had been offered a P10 million bribe by a Meralco “emissary”, who denied the allegation and countered that it was Sabio who sought P50 million.
And then there was also a dispute over the chairmanship between Sabio and Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the original chairman of the 9th division whom Sabio had replaced in an acting capacity.
The decision to lift the TRO was later issued by the 8th division, headed by Associate Justice Vicente Roxas, which Sabio had questioned, following a reorganization by the appellate court.
The bribery exposé and the disputes among the appellate court justices prompted an investigation by the Supreme Court that formed a three-man panel composed of retired justices.
At the resumption of the hearing Tuesday, Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado Vazquez admitted that there were lapses on his part in resolving the dispute between Sabio and Reyes.
At that time, Sabio was acting chairman while Reyes was on leave when the 9th division issued the TRO.
When Reyes came back, Sabio refused to vacate the chairmanship, insisting under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), the same group that issued the TRO should also act on the petition for reconsideration filed by Meralco.
Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Romeo Callejo asked Vazquez why he did not convene the committee on internal rules to resolve the chairmanship dispute.
“No because there are only two members,” Vazquez said, referring to Sabio and Reyes and noting that one other member had died.
“Had you completed the members of the committee, reset the oral argument [on the Meralco case on June 23] and resolved the impasse, it would have been much easier,” Callejo said.
“It did not cross my mind,” Vazquez said.
Callejo also berated Vazquez for forgetting the other justices involved in the case.
“We [in the Court of Appeals] act as divisions. Why did you not call the other justices involved [Associate Justices Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente Roxas] to get their opinion,” Callejo asked.
“I am sorry your honor,” Vazquez said.
Meanwhile, Roxas was lectured by Callejo for misreading the appellate court’s internal rules which the associate justice cited in defending his decision to issue his ruling on the SEC TRO without waiting for the action of Vazquez on the chairmanship dispute.
Roxas said they were panicking because the TRO that was issued would lapse on July 29 that was why a ruling had to be issued.
“Panicking? I have never seen a member of the Court of Appeals panicking,” said Callejo, a former Court of Appeals justice, prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
“Once the decision has been signed by the justices, I regarded it as a duty to promulgate it,” Roxas said.
But Callejo pointed out that Roxas should have waited for Vazquez.
“Why did you not wait for the decision of the Presiding Justice? You are not children,” Callejo said.
Roxas said that under Rule VI Section 9, “…After such deliberation, if the other members agreed with the report, the ponente shall write the decision for signature and immediate promulgation.”
He said he strictly abided by the rules because it was his “bible,” “his lifeblood” that “if it will tell me to jump into the river, I will.”
But Callejo said Section 9 should be read together with
Section 13 which provided that “promulgation of decisions and resolutions shall be the direct responsibility of the Division of the Clerk of Court.”
Callejo explained that once the decision has been signed by the three justices of a division, the ponente (author) could still change his mind because it did not require the immediate promulgation of the case.
But Callejo said that once the ruling has been filed with the Clerk of Court, only then, should the decision be immediately promulgated not by the Justice but the clerk of court.
Roxas insisted that Section 9 allowed a justice to promulgate a decision.
“There is no provision which allows a justice to promulgate, no sir,” Callejo said.
“Now what is our basis in saying that there is a provision, I know that the IRCA is our bible,” he said.
“Mr. Presiding Justice, what is your opinion on that?” Callejo asked.
“It is the clerk of court,” Vazquez said.
Callejo then proceeded to asking Justices Martin Villarama, Edgardo Cruz and Sabio who all gave the same answers.
“The IRCA is patterned under the Rules of Court…I don’t know, I must have been teaching the wrong civil procedure,” Callejo said.
The panel advised Roxas to read Section 9 and Section 13 together so that he would not be confused.
It said that Roxas should have shown courtesy to the Presiding Justice by informing him that a decision had been reached on the case.
“You should have given him due courtesy,” Romero said.
View story as posted on Inquirer.net
Filed under: as it happens | Tagged: GSIS, Jose Sabio, meralco, vicente roxas
