The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed from the judiciary Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Vicente Roxas and suspended CA Justice Jose Sabio for two months for their irregularities and improprieties in connection with the bribery scandal involving the Manila Electric Co. and Government Service Insurance System (Meralco-GSIS) case.

Two out of the 15 justices did not take part in the decision imposing penalties on the erring CA justices.

Twelve SC justices voted to dismiss Roxas while one voted for suspension. He was dismissed with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued benefits. 

In Sabio’s case, 10 voted to suspend him without pay for two months, one voted for a six-month suspension, one voted for a reprimand since he was the whistleblower, and one voted for dismissal.

The SC reprimanded Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez for his failed leadership in handling the bribery case.

The SC admonished Justice  Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal  for allowing herself to be rushed by Justice Roxas to sign the July 8, 2008 decision granting Meralco’s request for a temporary restraining order, which allowed the election of a new board and the Lopez family to maintain control of Meralco.

As for CA Justice Bienvenido Reyes, the SC found him guilty of simple misconduct. He was reprimanded and given a stern warning.

The SC called on the Department of Justice to conduct a preliminary investigation of businessman Francis de Borja, who allegedly tried to bribe Justice Sabio with P10 million so that another justice can handle the Meralco-GSIS case.

With respect to Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman Camilo Sabio, the SC directed the Office of the Bar Confidant to conduct disbarment proceedings against Camilo for trying to influence his brother, Jose, to support the GSIS in its battle for control of Meralco.

Probe panel report

Earlier, a three-man panel composed of three retired SC justices indicted five justices for committing a range of irregularities and improprieties. The five are Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez  and Justices Jose Sabio, Vicente Roxas, Bienvenido Reyes and Myrna Vidal.

Vasquez was castigated for his failed leadership, while Vidal and Reyes were found to have been discourteous and too compliant respectively. Vasquez was cited for his indecisiveness in dealing with the issue, Reyes for signing the decision without waiting for Vasquez to settle the issue while Vidal allowed herself to be rushed into signing the first version of the Meralco decision without reading the memoranda and knowing fully well that they have not deliberated on the case.

But compared with the panel’s judgment on Sabio and Roxas, the three however, received only a minor admonition.

SC sources said, however, that it is not be unusual for SC-formed panels to stop short in recommending sanctions, to give the Tribunal leeway on the proper disciplinary action.  Other observers however say such panel has the latitude to go beyond administrative sanctions and recommend further investigation on possible criminal charges. Its failure to come up with suggested sanctions indicate “they do not want to rock the boat from their level.”

The panel concluded that Sabio violated the new Code of Judicial Conduct when he allowed his brother, Presidential Commission on Good Government chair Camilo Sabio, to influence his conduct on the Meralco case and was remiss on his duty to inform the Presiding Justice about his brother’s phone call.

Sabio was also reprimanded for discussing the Meralco case with businessman Francis de Borja as it broke the seal of confidentiality in pending court cases.

The 59-page report cited Sabio’s violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct as follows: (See Panel findings in Research section)

Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently…free from extraneous influence…
   
Sec. 4.  Judges shall not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
   
Roxas: dishonest

As for Roxas, who penned the Meralco decision, the panel described him as dishonest and untruthful for fabricating a transcript of the deliberation and claiming there was actual deliberation of the case.

The panel further said Roxas showed “undue interest” in the case because he prepared the decision before the parties filed their memoranda.

“He cheated the parties’ counsel of the time, effort, and energy that they invested in the preparation of their ponderous memoranda which, as it turned out, neither he nor the other members of the Eighth Division bothered to read before signing his decision,” the report said.

The panel also found that Roxas violated the rules of court by “ignoring or refusing” to act on the motion for his inhibition and by failing to act on the other motions of the parties.

Missing in SC report

In the discussion on Vasquez, however, the panel did not cite two issues which came up during the public hearings.

One was Vasquez’s failure to disclose to the CA that he has relatives who work in GSIS, a party to the case. They include his two daughters and a sister.

The other is his non-disclosure of the opinion of Justice Edgardo Cruz who said that the Meralco case belonged to the Eighth Division because the main writer or ponente, Roxas, is in the said division. – with reports from PURPLE ROMERO and ARIES RUFO, Newsbreak/abs-cbnNEWS.com

news.abs-cbn.com is the online news department of  ABS-CBN Interactive, a subsidiary of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp., part of the Lopez Group of Companies

Source