Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, Motion For Leave To Intervene , 6 August, 2008, 49 pages
Citation preview
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator
SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A
In Re: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)"
A.M. No. 08-8-11-C
Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., (123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan) Petitioner-in-Intervention.
X------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
Verified Motion For Leave To Intervene / Petition-in-Intervention In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With -
Urgent Omnibus Motions
I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, andII. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.”
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, S.C. Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, Supreme Court, and The (Acting) Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila &
Mme. Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, Chairperson,59-D Tuason St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, M.M.,
Mme. Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Member and 11 Champaca St., Tahanan Village, Paranaque City, 1700, M.M., and
Mr. Justice Romeo Callejo, Jr., Member9 Ruego St., BF Homes, Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City, 1121, M.M.
Your Honors,
I, the undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / Intervenor, in this case, as
concerned citizen, and taxpayer, inter alia, AND WITH LEAVE OF COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that:
Prefatory
Jurisprudence applicable to this landmark case
The Darkest Hour in the Court of Appeals’ History
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080803-152292/Salonga-CA-corruption-expos-good-for-reforms
Salonga: CA corruption exposé good for reforms
By Norman Bordadora Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 00:41:00 08/03/2008
FORMER SENATE PRESIDENT JOVITO Salonga on Saturday confirmed the purported corruption in the Court of Appeals and said reforms were urgently needed.
“It is true that there is bribery in the appellate court,” the 88-year-old founder of the judiciary watchdog group Bantay Katarungan told the Inquirer. “It should be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice.”
Preventive suspension
On Friday, a former Malabon City Judge asked the Supreme Court to order the preventive suspension of all appellate court justices involved in the Meralco vs GSIS case.
In a “verified complaint-letter affidavit,” RTC Judge Florentino Floro Jr. said these justices should be investigated for gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest and violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct and of Professional Responsibility, among others. Floro said the high court should once and for all “cleanse the entire Court of Appeals.” “The undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this court, because of the shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial system: CA justices accusing each other, not in courts, but in the media. This is too much. This is the darkest hour of the CA since its creation,” he said.
Floro named as respondents in the case Sabio and Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Apolinario Bruselas, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente
2
Roxas, as well as CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. He said the high court should appoint one of its retired associate justices as an independent investigator and a special prosecutor to look into the matter.
Headline maker
Floro himself made headlines when he was ordered dismissed from the judiciary in 2006 by the Supreme Court. The high court declared him mentally unfit after he admitted to having “psychic visions,” having dwarfs as friends and being an “angel of death” who could inflict pain on people, especially those he perceived to be corrupt. Undeterred, Floro filed cases against judiciary officials he claimed to have violated the law. In April 2007, he filed administrative charges against what he called the CA’s “Dirty Dozen,” whom he accused of corruption. He said those found guilty should be dismissed from government service and disbarred. With reports from Jerome Aning in Manila; Ma. Cecilia Rodriguez, Inquirer Mindanao
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/am_00-7-09-ca_2001.html
“EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS CHARGING COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO DEMETRIA WITH INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF A SUSPECTED DRUG QUEEN: COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA. PER CURIAM:
"Men and women of the courts must conduct themselves with honor, probity, fairness, prudence and discretion. Magistrates of justice must always be fair and impartial. They should avoid not only acts of impropriety, but all appearances of impropriety. Their influence in society must be consciously and conscientiously exercised with utmost prudence and discretion. For, theirs is the assigned role of preserving the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary. (Rule 2.04, Code of Judicial Conduct).
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates a judge to "refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency." The slightest form of interference cannot be countenanced. Once a judge uses his influence to derail or interfere in the regular course of a legal or judicial proceeding for the benefit of one or any of the parties therein, public confidence in the judicial system is diminished, if not totally eroded.
Such is this administrative charge triggered by newspaper accounts which appeared on the 21 July 2000 issues of The Manila Standard, The Manila Times, Malaya, The Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today. The national dailies collectively reported that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk Lai, who went in and out of prison to play in a Manila casino. (21 July 2000 issue of The Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. 20). That same day, 21 July 2000, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., issued a Memorandum to Justice Demetria directing him to comment on the derogatory allegations in the news items.3
3
On 24 July 2000, Justice Demetria submitted his Compliance. Subsequently, Chief State Prosecutor (CSP) Jovencito R. Zuño, who disclosed to the media the name of Justice Demetria, and State Prosecutor (SP) Pablo C. Formaran III, a member of the Task Force on Anti-Narcotics Cases of the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuting the case of the suspected Chinese drug queen, filed their respective Comments on the Compliance of Justice Demetria.
On 8 August 2000, the Court En Banc ordered an investigation and designated Mme. Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino as Investigator and Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo as Prosecutor. An investigation then commenced on 22 August 2000 and continued until 16 November 2000.
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy of responsibility. His at all times must be characterized with propriety and must be above suspicion. His must be free of even a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his judicial duties, but also his behavior outside the courtroom and as a private individual. Unfortunately, respondent failed failed to live up to this expectation. Through their indiscretions, they did not only make a mockery of their high offices, but also caused incalculable damage to the entire Judiciary.
The mere mention of their names in the national newspapers, allegedly lawyering for or against any of the parties of the case pending before the Court of Appeals, seriously undermined the integrity of the entire Judiciary. Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness that a seat in the Judiciary. High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in the Judiciary so indispensable in orderly society cannot be preserved. There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.
(Jereos, Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., AM No. 141, 31 May 1976, 71 SCRA 126; Dia-A onuevo v. Bercacio, AM No. 177-MJ, 27 November 1975, 68 SCRA 81; Candia v. Tagabucba, AM No. 528, MJ, 12 September 1977, 79 SCRA 51; Barja Jr., v. Judge Bercacio, AM No. 561-MJ, 29 December 1976, 74 SCRA 355).
WHEREFORE, we sustain the findings of the Investigating Justice and hold Justice Demetrio G. Demetria GUILTY of violating Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency or instrumentality, including any government owned or controlled corporation or institution.”
4
Moral, Religious Basis: Rule of Law, the cause of sin, and sin, of death.
While this Court can motu proprio investigate, docket administrative or
disbarment cases, and cite in contempt, inter alia, the respondents, still, the
undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this Court, because of the
shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial
system:
CA Justices accusing each other, not in Courts, but in media. This is too much.
This is the darkest hour of the Court of Appeals, since its 1936 creation. Who
else, should file this case, to stop this root cause of extra-judicial killings, and
Divine punishments, as Our Lady of Fatima direly warned us, her children, and
the world, in 1918. I am here, your Honors, asking you to cleanse the entire
Court of Appeals and judiciary. Hear my pleas, your Honors, fail us not.
Critical and Undisputed Facts: Bill of Particulars:
Who are the justices squabbling over the Meralco case?
By PURPLE S. ROMERO abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreakhttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=126890
July 24, 2008 Letter of P.J. Conrado Vasquez, Jr. to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/CAdocs.pdf
July 26, 2008 Letter of Justice Jose L. Sabio to P.J. Conrado Vasquez, Jr. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/Court%20of%20Appeals.pdf
Justice Sabio appeared on TV being interviewed by GMA News reporter Carlo Lorenzo TV in his chambershttp://www.gmanews.tv/video/26500/QTV-CA-justice-says-decision-on-Meralco-GSIS-row-railroadedQTV: CA justice says decision on Meralco-GSIS row railroaded07/31/2008 | 12:07 PM
Instead of submitting their confidential letters/complaints to the OCAD or
Supreme Court, Sabio and Roxas both published their voices, opinions, word
wars, and confidential letters to Philippine broadcast and print media: the Daily
Inquirer and GMA News, internet, TV and internet Video, inter alia.
5
“GSIS-Meralco bribery case”
REPRODUCED, hereunder, is “GSIS-Meralco bribery case” - the
Wikipedia online encyclopedia (the biggest in the whole world) article, created
by –
User:Florentino floro (Florentino Floro) -
Established Wikipedia editor and contributor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Florentino_floro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSIS-Meralco_bribery_case
GSIS-Meralco bribery case
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The GSIS-Meralco bribery case, legally termed criminal obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office, is a political controversy and pending Supreme Court of the Philippines legal case, involving the P 10-million bribery attempt which allegedly involved a Manila Electric Company (Meralco) 'emissary' and Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio. [1]
The "case-switching" scandal originated from Meralco and Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) row, after Sabio - in a letter-complaint against Justices Vicente Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes - complained of the "fishy" circumstances that he was removed from the Meralc-GSIS case, and an alleged bribe attempt by Meralco in consideration for him giving way to Reyes' chairmanship of the CA's Special 9th Division.[2]
It has caught wide media coverage and has achieved political, international and judicial significance because of its very threat to the integrity and credibility of the Philippine judicial system. The corruption scandal forthwith caused the motu proprio assumption of jurisdiction over the issue, by the High Tribunal per its Chief Justice's rare agendum of an En Banc hearing and deliberation on August 6, 2008.[3] The Senate of the Philippines' legislators, inter alia, called for speedy resolution of the issues.[4][5] The scandal engulfs the Judiciary and has uncloaked a dark, transactional periphery of the justice system.
History
It started when, on May 11, 2008, the Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) accused Meralco of unlawful refusal to grant corporate access to documents despite the GSIS’ holding 4 seats in the 11-member Meralco board, amid GSIS' denial of plans to wrest control from the Lopez family.
6
Background
In 1962, Don Eugenio López, Sr. acquired MERALCO and it finally became Filipino-owned, but Ferdinand Marcos, by decree, placed it under a shell company called the Meralco Foundation, Inc., controlled by crony under government controlled Napocor.[6]
In 1978, Meralco was fully controlled by the Marcos administration, but its ownership was finally returned to the Lopez family after the People Power Revolution by President Corazon Aquino. By executive order, she allowed Meralco to directly compete with NAPOCOR.[7]
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on May 2, 2008, announced plans to reduce Luzon high power rates, amid a “tough legal fight” with Meralco before state energy regulators. Accordingly, GSIS, thru its President Winston Garcia, on May 11, stated it "planned not only to buy out the Lopez family and other shareholders in Meralco but also to break up its concession to promote efficiency and transparency." But Meralco chair and CEO Manuel Lopez said he was not selling the utility.
The cases and facts
Oscar Lopez blamed the Arroyo administration's moves to take over Meralco in a “reverse privatization,” because of the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN's negative publicity against the government.[8]
May 27 stockholders’ meeting
During the May 27, 2008 stockholders’ meeting, GSIS' President Winston Garcia obtained a Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) “cease-and-desist order” to stop and defer the counting of proxy votes held by the Lopez group until questions on its validity were resolved. GSIS accused the Lopezes of “rigging” the process.[9] In the end, GSIS failed to gain control of Meralco, since, the SEC order was not honored. Meralco retained its 5 seats, the government its 4, while the 2 others are independent directors Artemio Panganiban and Vicente Panlilio. Aside from Manuel Lopez, the Meralco directors elected are Jesus Francisco, Felipe Alfonso, Christian Monsod and Cesar Virata, while the government board members elected aside from Garcia, are Bernardino Abes, Daisy Arce and Jeremy Parulan.
Lopez, however, obtained, on May 30, a temporary restraining order from the Philippine Court of Appeals, against the SEC order. The Court’s 8th Division chaired by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, rendered a 57-page judgment, on July 24, affirming Meralco’s stance that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the issue.[10][11]
Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Special 9th Division member, challenged the Reyes' decision, per letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr., thus: "How can the 8th Division issue an order when it is the 9th that has been
7
hearing the complaint of alleged irregularities in the Meralco election?" It is also the 9th Division that issued the temporary restraining order on the SEC order to Meralco on May 30."
Assistant Clerk of Court, lawyer Manuel Cervantes, said no irregularity had been committed when the 8th division came out with the decision instead of the 9th, simply a result of the reorganization of the court. “Due to the retirement of some justices, Justice Vidal was reassigned to the 6th Division while Reyes became chair of the 8th,” Cervantes said. Roxas was moved to the 8th division, Vidal went to the 6th, and Sabio to the 9th. "The case goes with the ponente(justice assigned to pen the case),” Cervantes explained. “Justice Vicente Roxas is the ponente. Even with the change in division, the case stays with him." And since the rule is that the case goes with the ponente,the 57-page decision was issued by the division of which Justice Roxas was now a part, he said. [12] Permission is not required from the previous division or its justices.He said the RIRCA (Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended in 2205) does not require the justices who issued the TRO be the same justices to render the decision.
The Court of Appeals Reorganization Office Order No. 200-08-CMV was issued by Presiding Justice Vasquez on July 4, three weeks before the decision was released.
Justice Jose L. Sabio, with the encouragement of Justice Vidal (his colleague in the 9th Special Division) broke the bribery attempt news and wrote to P.J. Vasquez, Jr. on July 26.[13] He joined Justice Vidal, initiating further, a media expose of their squabbles, alleging something “stinks” in the Meralco court ruling. Presiding Justice Vasquez released his opinion, also, per his July 24, 2008 Letter to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas.[14][15][16]
Businessman Francis de Borja surfaces and reveals to the media a notarized and sworn affidavit that it was Justice Sabio who brought up a P50 million price for him to act in favor of Meralco in its dispute with the GSIS. Mr. de Borja asserts that Mr. Sabio had told him a Supreme Court seat was being offered in exchange for a ruling in favor of the GSIS, which is trying to wrest control of Meralco from the Lopezes. Expecting Sabio to answer that he would not be swayed by any offer and would rule according to his conscience, De Borja asked what it would take for him to resist the supposed government offer of a seat on the Supreme Court and money. He was taken aback when Sabio replied "P50 million”, and then left.[17]
Manolo Lopez calls the accusations of Sabio a malicious and a pure fabrication. He vehemently denied the allegations, together with the claim that he (Lopez) was waiting in the car during the meeting. He said he was out of the country for a medical check-up when the incident supposedly happened, and returned only last July 13. As proof, he showed tickets showing his departure dated June 27 and his arrival dated July 13.[18]
The CA Justices in the case
8
ABS-CBN and Philippines Newsbreak Magazine reported on the CA Justices of the case.[19] ABS-CBN researched and published that:[20]
* Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.'s daughters Agnes Rosario and Ruth Almira are currently employed by the GSIS. Agnes Rosario is a dentist in the GSIS medical department while Ruth Almira is with the office of the Company secretary. Vasquez’ sister, Lenny Vasquez de Jesus, was a GSIS trustee from 1998-2004. She is also the ninang (godmother) of the youngest son of GSIS president Winston Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. * Associate Justice Sabio, Jr., chair of the CA ninth division, graduated from the Ateneo de Manila University College of Law. He is a pre-bar reviewer in Legal Ethics at the Ateneo School of Law where he also teaches, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law I. In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against him for ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with deliberately causing the delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, “People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert John Sobrepeña, Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr.” The case was dismissed by the SC, signed by 12 of the 14 incumbent Justices. [21] * Associate Justice Vidal was awarded a plaque of recognition as outstanding judge by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) in 2001, and in 2004, she was an outstanding judge who received Supreme Court Judicial Excellence awards. * Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is the chairman of the 8th division that promulgated the decision. He obtained his Ll.B Degree from San Beda College and passed the Bar examinations in the same year. Reyes was promoted CA associate justice on August 8, 2000, after serving as RTC Judge, in Br. 74, Malabon City, from 1990. He was was also a finalist in the 1997 Awards for Judicial Excellence.[22][23] * Associate Justice Vicente Roxas is a top ten bar exam topnotcher from the University of the Philippines College of Law. He was En Banc Consultant for the SEC(Securities and Exchange Commission) for eleven years, and taught at the UP college of law. He was a RTC Judge in Quezon City for ten years before his appointment as associate justice of the CA. In 2007, the Manila Times reported that Erlinda Bilder-Ilusurio, president of Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. (Philcomsat) filed an administrative case against him for ‘gross ignorance of the law’ after he ruled on a petition that was withdrawn already by Emmanuel Nieto, a Philcomsat stockholder. The SC unanimously dismissed the case.[24] * Associate Justice Bruselas was a regional trial court judge in Quezon City before being appointed to the court of appeals. He served as a member of the technical working group of the judiciary's action program for judicial reform. He penned the decision in Steel Corp. and Subic rape case.[25]
Name - Position - Date of Appointment - Date of Birth - Date of Retirement
9
Hon. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. - Presiding Justice - March 22, 1994 January 6, 1940 January 6, 2010
Hon. JOSE L. SABIO, JR. - Associate Justice - May 28, 1999 May 25, 1941 May 25, 2011
Hon. BIENVENIDO L. REYES - Associate Justice - August 22, 2000 July 6, 1947 - July 6, 2017
Hon. VICENTE Q. ROXAS - Associate Justice - February 9, 2004 December 8, 1949 December 8, 2019
Hon. MYRNA DIMARANAN-VIDAL - Associate Justice - January 24, 2005 December 20, 1939 - December 20, 2009
Hon. APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR. - Associate Justice - August 1, 2005 May 6, 1956 - May 6, 2026
Attempted bribery and discipline of Philippine jurists and lawyers
Bribery attempt, in Philippine Jurisprudence, is considered a criminal offense or felony.
Philippine Court of Appeals Justices are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and may be disciplined by Disbarment or dismissal from service, under the Revised Rules of Court (1997 Code of Civil Procedure).
Also, the Philippine Court of Appeals' "Process of Adjudication" is governed by A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA 2005, the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to, 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, February 28, 2005.[26][27][28]
The laws
The Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) regarding the matter are as follows:
Rule I, SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions. - (a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of a Division. Assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in accordance with the order of seniority. (n)
PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION Rule VI, SEC. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and Report. – Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division. (Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])
The Revised Penal Code of 1930 now defines the felony of attempted bribery as follows:
Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such
10
officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime,xxxx and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification. The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to xxx any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).[29] Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — xxx There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.[30]
The Revised Rules of Court, now also provides for the discipline of jurists and lawyers, as follows:
A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, Discipline of Judges and Justices: SECTION 1. How instituted. – Proceedings for the discipline of judges xxx Justices of the Court of Appeals xxx may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person xxx SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; xxx SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.[31] Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys: Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of
11
the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.[32]
Application to this case
Justice Sabio informed Philippine media that he was offered P 10 million (through a Makati businessman, which he rejected) to inhibit himself from the GSIS-Meralco case, which was decided by the 8th Division's Justice Vicente Roxas, the designated ponente, with the concurring opinions of Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Antonio Bruselas. Roxas was transferred from the 9th Division, when the case was pending. Sabio revealed to media that: “It turned out that he was brokering for Meralco.” Sabio appeared on a TV interview by GMA Network reporter Carlo Lorenzo in his chambers.[33]
Cagayan de Oro businessman Francis Roa de Borja, in his July 31, 2008 affidavit, swore that: "when he asked what it would take for him to resist the government offer, Sabio's reply was: “Fifty million (pesos)"; Sabio wanted to remain as acting chairman of the 9th Division because he was up to something; that Sabio consulted his other colleagues in the CA and they told him that he was in the right and should stick to his guns; that was then Sabio told Borja about the offer of unnamed government officials for a promotion at the SC and money for a favorable ruling for GSIS."[34][35]
De Borja accused Sabio of twisting the facts: "No, I never said that. If you know Manolo Lopez -- he is somewhat aristocratic -- he would be the last person to wait for somebody in the car, and they did not know that he was abroad at that time. I said in my affidavit that he told me his wife would be waiting for him in the car and he says now that Manolo was waiting in my car..."
De Borja stated that he was ready to face charge of perjury and to take a lie detector test with Sabio before competent foreign experts and together: "It’s a free county, let him file it and we’ll see. I’m prepared, the moment I signed my affidavit obviously I considered the consequences so I wouldn’t have made up a story. And my third comment is he is a lawyer and a justice. He knows that a lie detector test is not admissible as evidence so why is he asking for it?’’[36] De Borja was interviewed and appeared at ABS-CBN News Channel's (ANC) Dateline Philippines, and he repeated his media statements: "No definitely not...He [Sabio] says that Manolo was waiting for me in my car. I never said it. And if you know Manolo...Can you imagine somebody like Manolo being made to wait in a car? Di ba, yung pagka aristocratic ni Manolo, maghihintay sa kotse? The fact is, he was abroad."[37][38]
Meanwhile, a shadowy group, "Tanglaw ng Bayan," paid an advertisement on a Metro Manila newspaper, appealing "that the CA justices not be subjected to malicious imputations just to advance the agenda of powerful interests, and to allow the CA to "sort out its internal issues." In 2007, it also petitioned the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Senate to probe the Wowowee Willyonaryo controversy.[39]
12
On July 31, 2008, after a rare 3-hour, closed-door En Banc session attended by 64 CA Justices presided by P.J. Vasquez, Jr., the CA Clerk of Court Atty. Teresita Marigomen announced the appellate court's resolution:[40]
* "that they will refer the investigation of the propriety of action of concerned justices to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator"; * "they will leave the matter on the validity of the Meralco decision to the parties, to take whatever steps they may deem necessary after all the allegations"; and, * "they will refer the issue of the conflict on rules to an internal committee within the appellate court."[41][42]
Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered all records of case be delivered forthwith to the high court, and the Supreme Court Public Information Office OIC said all magistrates of the high court would deliberate on the case on August 5.[43]Justice Roxas challenged the En Banc meeting as a “disguised investigation” of the 8th Division’s judgment on the Meralco case, further alleging that under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a case followed the ponente to whatever division the ponente went: “Besides, all hearings in the Court of Appeals are recorded and the members of the 8th Division only need the transcripts of the hearing or the memoranda, briefs, comments and replies of the parties—which are all written.”[44]
Sabio, however, told media that he has text messages plus phone call records evidence to prove that Francis Roa de Borja bribed him.[45][46][47]
Sabio's former client (1978), Evelyn Clavano, a Cagayan de Oro City resident, gave media, on August 1, an affidavit saying that: "Francis de Borja requested me if I have the cell phone number of Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. He related that because he is very close to the Lopezes of Meralco, he wanted to call him (Sabio) regarding his possible inhibition in a certain Meralco case, wherein he was designated as a substitute member of the division vice a justice who was temporarily on-leave by reason of sickness. He further said that the Lopezes desire that the same Justice, with whom the Lopezes are more comfortable, to sit in the division. So, I gave Francis de Borja the cell phone number of Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. through business card."[48][49]
Meralco chair Manolo lopez, in a press conference on August 2, denied any involvement in the alleged bribery attempt: “I categorically and vehemently deny the allegations of Justice Jose Sabio. Mind you, I do not have the habit of waiting in the car for anybody except my wife. The [allegations are] malicious and pure fabrication. I am a resident of Rockwell. I know Francis but I have not authorized him or anybody to make representations for [me on] any matter that involves cases of Meralco and the Lopez family. We have retainers and lawyers to handle legal matters. I was out of the country when the alleged meeting between Francis and Justice Sabio took place. I was in the United States for a medical checkup and returned on July 13." Lopez’s officials showed media, tickets of his departure, June 27, and his arrival, July 13.[50]
13
The Lopez group led by First Philippine Holdings Corp. has a 33.47% share interest in Meralco, while the Philippine government financial institutions own 33.32%. Other shareholders hold 34.21%. Meralco said, the government share is, to wit: GSIS, 22.05%; Social Security System, 5.52%; Land Bank of the Philippines, 4.41%; Philippine Health Insurance Corp., 0.17%; and the Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG, 0.17%.[51]
CA chambers press conference
Sabio, on August 1, First Friday, held a press conference in his CA chambers, and stated to media:“ ...I expect matters to get worse because I am up against the billions of the Lopezes. But that Mr. de Borja would have the nerve to make these lies, under oath, is utterly disgusting when it was he who came to me with the offer of the bribe. He [de Borja] further said that the Lopezes desire that the same justice, with whom the Lopezes are more comfortable, sit in the division. Mr. de Borja called me, so suddenly, and after having had no contact [with him] for almost a year. At that point, he [de Borja] mentioned the impasse between Justice Bienvenido Reyes and myself. Then he [de Borja] explained that he was there to offer me a win-win situation. He said, Justice, we have P10 million. At that point, I was shocked that he had a very low regard for me. He was treating me like there was a price on my person. I could not describe my feelings. I was stunned. I cannot in conscience agree to that [offer to bribe me]. The Lopezes will do everything possible using their money and power to discredit me. This is just the beginning. I know that they will not stop at doing everything to discredit my integrity.” ”
[52][53]Jurisdictional issue
The internal strife and open quarrel over signature space on a judgment pushed the appellate court to the edge and is now at the center of a maelstrom.[54] The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), raised a legal point, challenging the 8th CA Division's judgment dismissing GSIS's petition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) against Meralco. The certiorari and injunction CA lawsuit was raffled off to the CA’s 9th Division chaired by Justice Bienvenido Reyes (on leave at the time). A special raffle designated Reyes’ replacement, Justice Jose Sabio (as chair). With Justices Vicente Roxas and Myrna Vidal as members, the 9th Division heard the case. (The GSIS moved to inhibit Roxas on account of reports that "he met with Meralco lawyers on the day a temporary restraining order [TRO] was issued by the CA, barring the SEC from taking jurisdiction over the GSIS complaint against Meralco.")
Sabio’s chairmanship issue with Reyes over the Special Ninth Division was overtaken by a July 4, 2008, reorganization at the Court of Appeals. Reyes and Roxas ended up in the 8th Division, which finally resolved the case in favor of the Lopez group on July 23. Sabio was reassigned as chairman of the 6th
14
Division. Sabio later complained that Roxas penned the decision even before either side had submitted their arguments.[55]
Justice Reyes failed to assume the chairmanship of the 9th Division in place of Sabio, and the CA’s 8th Division, chaired by Reyes and with ponente, Justices Roxas and Apolinario Bruselas as members, forthwith promulgated the challenged judgment in favor of Meralco. GSIS called the ruling, a “patent nullity for such dismissal [of the GSIS case before the SEC] was not even prayed for by Meralco in its petition with the Court of Appeals.”[56]
P.J. Vasquez wrote Justices Sabio and Vidal that as members of their newly reconstituted 8th division, they are not very familiar with the case. Vasquez earlier granted Sabio a verbal go-signal to proceed in hearing the June 23 oral argument. Vasquez reiterated that "Sabio’s 9th division, since it issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), and its members heard and participated in the June 23 hearing, should “sign and resolve” the case. To allow the new division of Justice B.L. Reyes as Chairman, Justice Roxas, as ponente, and Justice Bruselas, Jr. as the third member, the resolution of the pending incidents in the case will be participated by two (2) members who were not present and did not hear the arguments during the hearing on the injunctive relief…”[57][58]
Investigation
A.M. No. 08-8-11-C
The Supreme Court, on August 4 created a panel composed of 3 retired Supreme Court justices, to investigate the scandal.[59][60] The High Court's resolution "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" directed chair Associate Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, and Members Justices Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Jr. to conduct daily hearings from August 7, and submit the final report before August 21.[61] In the docketed adminstrative matter, Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Antonio Carpio inhibited for legal reasons.[62] The SC PIO officer announced that: "The hearing will be opened to the public and to the media. It's going to be a regular hearing, like the oral argument, except that there will be no cameras inside the hearing room.”[63]
Joker Arroyo criticized the High Court's ruling, saying it should be, as sitting Justices investigate the case instead, since: "Delegating the investigation to a panel of retired justices who in turn will submit their findings to the high court for review and determination [is] akin to a trial by commissioners."[64]
House Resolution 705
Meanwhile, 2 pro-administration congressmen, Masbate Rep. Antonio Kho and Nueva Ecija Rep. Joseph Gilbert Violago, on August 4 called for a House of Representatives probe on the bribery case.[65] Accordingly, House Resolution
15
705 was filed by Manila Representative Bienvenido Abante Jr., petitioning Congress, through the committees on energy and justice, to probe the bribery case.
Judicial corruption
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].[59][60]CA controversies
Created on February 1, 1936, the Philippine Court of Appeals was initially composed of Justice Pedro Concepcion as the first Presiding Judge and 10 Appellate Judges appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly. In March 1938, the appellate Judges were named Justices and their number increased from 11 to 15, with 3 divisions of 5 under Commonwealth Act No. 259. On December 24, 1941, there were 19 Justices under Executive Order No. 395. On February 23, 1995, R.A. No. 7902 expanding the jurisdiction of the Court effective March 18, 1995. On December 30, 1996, R.A. No. 8246 created six (6) more divisions in the Court, thereby increasing its membership from 51 to 69 Justices (additional divisions - 3 for Visayas and 3 for Mindanao, the court's regionalization).
The Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 21, 2008, upon recommendation of the investigator, Bernardo P. Pardo, dismissed Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of considerations.[61] He was only the 2nd Court of Appeals jurist to be dismissed, since the first firing in Philippine judicial history of CA Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, for interceding in theDOJ drug case of Yu Yuk Lai.[62]
The CA, thereafter became the center of controversy after Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered an investigation of the so-called "Dirty Dozen," particularly on the alleged “sale” of "Temporary Restraining Orders" (Injunction, Restraining order abuse).[63] On August 18, 2007, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, president of IBP — Cebu City Chapter, opposed the abolition of the CA in Cebu City, for it will cause inconvenience for both litigants and lawyers. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes was tasked to investigate and submit recommendation to the High Tribunal because of the alleged massive graft and corruption of justices, especially in the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TRO’s).[64]
16
On April 03, 2007, Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes (now S.C. Justice) ordered an investigation and a regular auditing and inventory of temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by the 69 CA Justices. Reyes stated: “I will order a monthly or quarterly inventory of TROs, for transparency and to watch the movements of the so-called Dirty Dozen [the 12 most corrupt CA justices].” Reynato Puno said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had not yet submitted the list and the Supreme Court was waiting for its delivery amid her formal investigation against the “Dirty Dozen.”[65]
On February 1, 2008, the Court celebrated its 72nd Anniversary.[66]
Reactions
* Government Service Insurance System chief Garcia, on July 31,2008, asked Justices Vicente Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes to resign and save the CA institution amid plans to file criminal and administrative lawsuits. Garcia accused both Justices as “Meralco switcheroo" in the case against GSIS: “The sordid details of Meralco’s behind-the-scene maneuverings as narrated by Justice Sabio merely put in public display the contempt the Lopezes have for the law. Lady Justice lies bleeding on the ground, and those who have bloods in their hands must be made to answer for this dastardly crime! I call on all Filipinos, especially my colleagues in the noble practice of law, to rise up in unison to condemn these moves by Meralco to protect its interest at the expense of what is right and just."[67] * Senator Francis Pangilinan, in a statement, asked the High Court to "act swiftly to get to the bottom of the scandal and immediately punish the guilty. The SC must show no hesitation whatsoever in pursuing this controversy. The entire judiciary's reputation is tarnished by this scandal, and the swiftness within which the SC responds will determine whether the damage is temporary and minimal or if it will be massive and irreparable. The SC must respond with clear and convincing resoluteness by dismissing from the service the CA justices involved in the irregularities, if the evidence warrants it." * Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Sabio's distant relative, said "whoever tried to bribe the CA should be made to account for the crime (Kung sino ang nag-offer ng bribe kay Justice Sabio, dapat ihabla kasi krimen yon e. Of course yung sinsabi ng abogado, dapat pakinggan din. Ang sama ng dating sa taongbayan because kumbaga, right at the doorstep na ng Supreme Court ito e. It's not only the national, but also the international reputation of the judiciary could be compromised). No formal investigations have been conducted regarding alleged irregularities in the judiciary, particularly in the Court of Appeals, because witnesses are afraid to testify against the so-called “hoodlums in robes". * Senator Edgardo Angara said: "Of course, my God when you say that the second-highest level of the judiciary in the Philippines is corrupt and bribable, who's going to be safe investing here or even travelling here?" * Senator Francis Escudero said: "there were enough laws to deal with the controversy. Besides, inter-branch courtesy dictates that the Senate would not
17
meddle with the internal affairs of the judiciary. Supreme Court ang may jurisdiction to discipline erring judges and justices." * Senator Loren Legarda, a former broadcaster of Lopez-owned ABS-CBN, said: "the gravity of the accusation raised by Sabio were so damaging to the justice system and that they cannot be left unresolved. Sabio's revelation calls for everyone to have an open mind, and to come to conclusion only after a dispassionate and objective appreciation of evidencer. The appropriate criminal, civil or administrative cases must be filed against whoever will be found to have transgressed the law. The judiciary should be above suspicion if it will be effective in dispensing justice. We cannot have one branch of government being diminished by scandals like this."[68] * The Senators jointly stated that: "Regardless of the outcome of Meralco-GSIS case at the CA, the senators also said it is clear the case can no longer be heard by Sabio since his fairness has already been tarnished by the various allegations."[69] * Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, dean emeritus of the Ateneo School of Law, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer, that:“The allegations will not do the judiciary any good but the investigation of the Supreme Court will. I don't know the facts. I consider (Sabio) to be an honest man.” * Ateneo Law Dean Cesar L. Villanueva vouched for Sabio, saying "the CA justice is one of the well-respected faculty members of the Ateneo Law School."[70] * The Ateneo Law School student body, per by student council president Jess Lopez, stated: "We, his current students, stand as witnesses to his fairness and impartiality, which are beyond reproach, and the genuine manner in which he implores us to stand against all forms of corruption in all aspects of law and governance. The respect we have for Sabio is derived not only from his remarkable skill in teaching, but likewise from his indubitable sense of justice, moral conduct, and service to society. Sabio’s reputation of being a “professor of utmost integrity who will not and cannot be fazed by unjust and wrongful considerations.”[71] * Alberto Lim, executive director of the Makati Business Club (MBC) MBC, said: "if Sabio is telling the truth, the MBC would be dismayed at Meralco's moves to bribe a CA justice. On the other hand, if De Borja is telling the truth about Sabio's P50 million bribe demand, it would be a big setback to the judiciary." Sabio said that De Borja told him "the MBC was happy with his earlier decision to sign a temporary restraining order (TRO) favoring Meralco." Lim, however, clarified that De Borja is not its member.[72] * Jovito Salonga, 88, Bantay Katarungan or Sentinel of Justice chair, said: “It is true that there is bribery in the CA. It should already be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice. The lawyer-members and even the “student monitors” of Bantay Katarungan know who these personalities are and how the corruption works in the appellate court. They know who these people are. We, in Bantay Katarungan... have been exposing and underscoring the need for reforms in our system of justice. We have written to the Judicial and Bar Council and from time to time the appointing power on the need for reforms in specific instances not only in the CA but in the other courts.”
18
* Rufus Rodriguez , Cagayan De Oro Opposition congressman and former law school dean, said: “This may be an initial black eye for the Court of Appeals...but if (Sabio) just remained silent nothing will happen.”[73] * Joker Arroyo said: “This is a very good opportunity to clean the CA because like cancer, this is now a severe case that must not be allowed to worsen. The bribery issue involving CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio and the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) was a blessing in disguise because people would finally be made aware of what had been going on in the judiciary. We cannot just have remedial measures, we need to cleanse the CA because (corruption) has been vulgar. This is corruption right in their front door. Lawyers know all of these but the people don’t. With this scandal, it’s like a case that only lawyers talked about before had been opened. But nobody wanted to come forward because they were afraid of the justices and if nothing happened to their complaint, they would only suffer along with their cases and their clients. Now that this has been opened, it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide (what to do). Why? Because it has been criticizing corruption in the executive department, it complains against delay in the decisions of lower courts, now we have an actual case, there was an (alleged) offer to a justice. Why does (De Borja) have an unusual interest in this case? There are many who are involved. What happens now is that the SC should decide on it firmly. Once it is within the judiciary, nobody can interfere except the SC, only the SC can discipline them. We (in the Senate) cannot intervene and so (they) must resolve this.” * Camilo Sabio, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman, and elder brother of Justice Jose Sabio said: "The CA justice will have a “good fight. I believe he’s in the right side and I have trust in him. I’ve known him for a long time. He’s my brother. He’s a man of integrity.” * CBCPNews, of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said "the Ateneo de Manila Law School found the bribery allegations against Sabio as “incredible.” * Consumer group National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reform (Nasecore), meanwhile, said "Sabio’s revelations affirmed that Meralco does not play by the books on court and regulatory cases it is involved in. There were times in the past that we felt that Meralco had control of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) because of so many ERC rules that were patently biased in favor of the power company,. So the damning recounting made by no less than a respected justice of the Court of Appeals on how the minions of Meralco operate should give the public a very clear picture of what kind of adversary Nasecore has been facing in our lonesome in the past.” Nasecore won a S.C. case against Meralco for a refund of P827 million, on Aug. 16, 2006.[74]
The ACCUSATION / CHARGES
With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / AuthoritiesWith due respect -
Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondents, with ---
19
a. GraveViolations of - - -
i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES
OF COURT -
“SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include:
1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019);
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in
an appropriate proceeding;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order,
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and
SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following
sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.”
ii.) CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT -
“CANON 1 A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF
THE JUDICIARY RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity
and independence. RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without
delay. RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the
independence of the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source
intended to influence the performance of official functions.
CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
RULE 2.0, 2.04 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
CANON 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH
IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE
ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.
20
RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.
RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should
avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the
courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within
the required periods.”
iii.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, the Canons, to wit:
Respondents, like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly
the following Canons, viz:
“CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.”
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988)“CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY - CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSIONCANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
21
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.”
– in that respondents miserably failed to be the embodiment of competence,
integrity, and independence; (due to their ardent desire and lust for money and
financial gain); they did not behave to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; they failed to follow the strict
mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF
LAW, and due process.
b. conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, gross
misconduct, as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession;
c. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and their duty as attorney
or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds enumerated under Sec.
27 of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248),
including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in rendering unjust
orders and decision
d. The following civil and criminal laws, inter alia, were also violated by
respondents’ promulgation and rendering of the Partial Judgment of April 15,
2008, causing damages, loss, and utter INJUSTICE to Judge Floro, to wit:
“CHAPTER 2 - HUMAN RELATIONS (n)
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.
22
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for
damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
administrative action that may be taken.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights
and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law ;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely
separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be
proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and xxx a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
CHAPTER 2 - QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.”
23
Revised Penal Code: Chapter Two - MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
Section One. — Dereliction of duty
Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly
render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by
prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance
and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.
Burning issue – Urgent and compelling - chilling effect on litigants' and lawyers' recourse to the Courts – first and foremost cause of extra-judicial killings
Respondents’ acts and omissions have far-reaching consequences,
because every litigant especially the pauper and less privileged have to worry
that he or she may be forced to pay huge sums or bribes to magistrates in the
Court of Appeals’ Dirty Dozen and these fighting in media magistrates.
Petitioner believes in the Supreme Court’s long history of vigilance on this
matter of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:
Argument
Unethical conduct – Sabio:
Moreover, in his affidavit, Borja said that he paid Sabio P 300,000 for
giving legal advice on a land deal he was brokering. At that time, Sabio was
RTC judge in Cagayan de Oro. According to Sec. 11 of Canon Code of
Judicial Conduct, “Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial
office.” In addition, Section 13, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, “Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be
done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of
judicial duties.” Another count of ethical breach, on Sabio’s part, is his meeting
with Borja, who was interested in a case. The New Code on Judicial Conduct is
clear on safeguarding the integrity of the court: “Judges shall ensure that not
24
only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view
of a reasonable observer.”
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=business5_aug4_2008 Justices on cross-hairs
2 Mystery man identified
Justice Jose Sabio Jr. held an illegal and unethical press conference in
his chambers when the latter was fulminating Friday on national TV against the
Lopezes and Meralco “broker” Francis de Borja. 2 non-Court of Appeals
personnel, stood by his side as seen in TV and news photos. The mystery men
—the balding Chinoy chap clad in short-sleeved barong, happened to be lawyer
Vicente Chuidian, and, the other, mustachioed companion, Chuidian
associate, Romeo Gutierrez—apparently came not only to succor Sabio but
also give counsel to the justice in his trying times.
A corporate lawyer with a checkered and colorful past, Chuidian in his
own right has joined Sabio in his crusade against Vicente Roxas, one of the
Court of Appeals justices implicated by Sabio in the “fishy” transfer of the
Meralco case. Chuidian, according to the grapevine, has a pending
administrative complaint against Roxas, who, despite his Masters of Law
degree from Georgetown University, is being accused by Chuidian for gross
ignorance of the law. Chuidian is steaming from the Roxas order removing the
former from making any claims on the multi-billion inheritance of the late Miss
Philippines and corporate lawyer Pacita de los Reyes-Phillips. Chuidian, who
represents the late estranged American husband of the billionairess, was also
prevented by virtue of the Roxas judgment from even making an entry of
appearance into the testate intestate case now being heard by Makati Regional
Trial Court Judge Ma. Cristina Cornejo. Because of the Chuidian complaint,
Chief Justice Reynato Puno has decided to review the Roxas decision, assigning
the Supreme Court’s Second Division to the task.
Meanwhile, guess who Francis de Borja was seen with after the Manolo
Lopez friend and schoolmate appeared Friday at the ANC cable channel? Why,
none other than De Borja’s good friend, Wilfrido Villarama, the former Gloria
25
Macapagal Arroyo aide and lightning rod who is now with El Shaddai’s Bro.
Mike Velarde. De Borja and Villarama were seen in a huddle with a third man
at the Manila Polo Club, in one of the nipa huts past by the olympic-sized pool
for maximum privacy. What could the three men be discussing over sheafs of
legal-looking documents?
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=127272
Analysis: Appellate justices displayed undue interest in the Meralco-GSIS
row
By LALA RIMANDO abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak (First of two parts)
2 major reasons caused the current brouhaha at the Court of Appeals.
The first is the undue interest displayed by several magistrates during the
almost two months that the appellate court was handling the corporate case
involving two warring shareholders of the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco)—the
Lopez family and their allies, and the Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS). Some appellate justices displayed eagerness, and in some instance,
aggressiveness, in ensuring that they are included in the team that determined
the fate of the two camps.
The second is the weak leadership displayed by the court's Presiding
Justice Conrado Vasquez over the Meralco-related issues that were brought to
his attention by the various magistrates. The referral of these issues to the
court's Rules Committee and his firm support for whatever that committee
decides on could have doused the brewing rift among his subordinates early on.
At the end of the day, however, the biggest loser is the integrity of the appellate court.
When elephants fight
The Meralco case, which was triggered by the contentious May 27 annual
stockholders meeting is basically a jurisdictional issue: should the Securities
and Exchange Commission be followed since it was out to protect the investors'
interest, or should the stakeholders' dispute be heard by the regular courts,
26
which has long been in-charge of intra-corporate cases? That question pitted
two formidable players: the wealthy Lopez family and the government through
Winston Garcia, GSIS's general manager. Each has about one-third stake in
Meralco. What started as a boardroom row in March that evolved into a proxy
fight during the annual stockholders meeting in May, has caused an almost
similar, and troubling, discord among the Court of Appeals justices.
Roxas's questionable interest
Among all the 5 appellate justices who handled the case—whether they
heard the oral arguments of the parties' lawyers, or read the written explanations
of the contending parties, or issued either the temporary restraining order
(TRO) or the decision on the case—the justice that displayed the most undue
interest was Justice Vicente Roxas. Roxas, being the ponente, or the assigned
writer of the case, clearly has an upper hand as far as the CA's internal rules are
concerned. When the CA underwent a reorganization where justices were
shuffled and assigned to other divisions because of retirement of some justices,
the Meralco case was transferred to the new division where Roxas was
assigned.
In this case, since he came from the 9th division—with Justices Jose
Sabio, Jr. and Myrna Vidal completing the three-person division—and was
transferred to the 8th division—with Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Apolinario
Bruselas—the CA's internal rules say that the Meralco case should be handled
by the new 8th division because the ponente, Roxas, was there. So far, the two
positions that the CA has taken, namely the 60-day TRO in May issued by the
original 9th division, and the decision promulgated in July 23 issued by the new
8th division, favored the Lopezes and their allies. In both instances, which were
separately handled by the two different divisions, Roxas displayed dubious behavior.
Sabio, in his July 26 letter to the presiding justice, noted that when Roxas
completed the draft of the TRO in May, Roxas personally delivered the
document to his office. We learned that in the courts, decisions are routed to
ensure that the magistrates do not display their personal interest toward any of
the litigants. Sabio described Roxas's personal delivery of the draft TRO as "surprising."
27
In July, Roxas again did this with Vidal when he personally brought the
draft decision to the latter's office. Vidal, in her July 24 letter to the presiding
justice, said she agreed with the decision favoring Meralco but was concerned
about the "apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of CA GR SP No.
103692 (Meralco case)." Vidal, who was with Sabio and Roxas in the old 9th
division, would later express her disappointment that "judicial courtesy was not
observed." She noted how she was "hurried[ly] eased out of the case," thus the
time she spent time studying the case went to waste since it was eventually the
new 8th division that promulgated it.
One-day 50-page decision
Roxas seemed to have also hurried in another task related to the Meralco
case: the time it took him to write the decision that favored Meralco. The parties
—Meralco and GSIS—submitted their memoranda, or the summary of all their
arguments, including those not included during the oral argument, on July 11, a
Friday. The next working day, July 14, Monday, the new 8th division
conducted its final deliberation and on that same day, Roxas already finished
writing the decision—a whole set that added up to more than 50 pages.
Sabio, in one of his media interviews, showed that the memoranda
from the two parties piled up to almost a foot high and that it took him a good
number of days to go through all of them. Roxas then forwarded the document
to Bruselas, who in turn also affixed his signature that same day. With one more
signature to go—Reyes's—Roxas relentlessly urged the new 8th division
chairman through various memoranda between July 14 and 22 to make up his
mind. In Reyes's letter to the presiding justice, he recalled that Roxas was
urging him to dissent so that a division of five could be convened in time to
decide before the 60-day TRO expired on July 30. It was around that time that
Roxas personally delivered the draft decision to Vidal for her signature. Reyes
finally signed the decision on July 23. In the end, it was still the three members
of the new 8th division that signed the decision that supports the Lopez family's
continuing control of the utility firm.
28
Sabio, too
Justice Jose Sabio, Jr., who first questioned the procedure surrounding the
decision favoring Meralco, himself demonstrated his own undue interest toward the
case. During the June 23 oral argument, Sabio was just a substitute to Reyes at the 9th
division. Reyes was on leave when the case was raffled to the 9th division, which
Reyes chaired. When Reyes reported back to work in June 16, he wanted to assume
the Meralco case already, but Sabio appeared to want to keep the post as chairman of
the 9th division. In a statement submitted to the CA en banc meeting called by
Vasquez, Roxas relates that Sabio “refused to relinquish the acting chairmanship of
the 9th division and he left the regular 9th division chairman justice Reyes out in the
cold when Justice Sabio presided over the June 23 hearing….Justice Reyes did not
want to make a scene at the hearing. Justice Sabio embarrassed Justice Reyes by
simply showing up, forcing Justice Reyes to retreat.” Sabio, we learned, did not
disclose to the parties to the case that Reyes had already returned to work.
Rules committee chair snubbed
Reyes then went to the rules committee chaired by Justice Edgardo Cruz, who
then issued a written reply that based on the rules, Reyes should already assume
the case since he's the designated chair of the 9th division. Sabio, however, was
slighted that Reyes, who is "junior to him in the court," was telling him to
disengage. Sabio even said Cruz was just issuing a personal opinion. Instead,
Sabio consulted Justice Martin Villarama, whom he described in his letter as
"more senior, experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation
and guidance." Villarama, according to Sabio, advised him to chair the 9th
division during the oral argument.
In July, as the rift among the justices grew, Sabio would tell his
colleagues, Bruselas and Vidal to also seek the opinion of Villarama. Villarama,
however, is not with the rules committee. GSIS, defending Sabio, said in a press
release that Sabio was "unceremoniously excluded" from the case. A week after
the oral argument, the alleged bribe offer took place. It is surprising, though,
that Sabio did not immediately report the attempted bribery, which happened on
July 1. It was only on July 26, or weeks later, when he wrote Vasquez and
29
narrated the incident. The behavior of the appellate justices, particularly that of
Roxas's and Sabio's, casts doubt on the integrity of the court. The CA presiding
justice, however, was slow to act on the all this.
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=jojoRobles_aug5_2008
Why not our court? Let everything be done by the rule book. But let it all
be done in the open.
For a day last week, the Manila offices of the Court of Appeals—never
a tightly guarded bulding—were shut down like those in a high-security facility.
During the four-hour en banc session of the entire court last Thursday, uppity
security guards screened everyone who attempted to enter, taking special care
not to let in anyone who even resembled a journalist. When the court
spokesman finally called a press conference after the marathon session, the
assembled reporters learned that the justices of the country’s second-highest
court had tossed the matter of the recent allegations of bribery to the Supreme
Court. In a none-too-subtle attempt at stonewalling, the spokesman could not
answer any questions—not being a justice, the court’s mouthpiece was not
present at the session and thus could not deviate from a prepared statement. Not
one of the usually gregarious justices could be gotten to go on record about
probably the biggest controversy to grip the appellate court in a long time.
The lockdown and gagging of the Court of Appeals betrays a distrust of
what the members of the judiciary often derisively call “the court of public
opinion,” represented by the media, whose members the judges and justices
often accuse of playing fast and loose with the laws, rules, procedures and
protocols that they are the sole sworn guardians of. This alternate court is now
also on an extended session, feasting on report after lurid report that one justice
is either accusing his own colleagues or is himself being accused of
impropriety. But why not try this case in front of everyone, using the free-
wheeling rules of media and public opinion, instead of the usual legal and
administrative methods, we want to know? Why shouldn’t the Court of Appeals
30
be subjected to the intense (if often attention-challenged) investigation by the
public and the media, just like any office of the executive or Congress?
Make no mistake: Regardless of the outcome of the official investigation
that the Supreme Court will conduct on the charges leveled by Associate Justice
Jose Sabio Jr., the verdict is already being decided right now in the hearts and
minds of the public, through their often ill-informed, deadline-plagued, self-
appointed advocates in media. And the final decision in that case could spell the
difference between the redemption of the Court of Appeals as an institution or
irreparable damage to it in the eyes of all Filipinos—in whose name and by
whose sufferance, after all, the courts exist.
In handling the controversy, the last thing the court needs to do is to start
lockdown procedures. The court (or at least some of its members, anyway), is
being inundated with accusations and counter-accusations of large-scale
bribery, selling its decisions and dealing with characters with no visible
connection to it except for knowing the right people and having a knack for
“packaging” multi-million deals. These are not charges that can be dismissed
peremptorily like a nuisance suit filed by a litigious ambulance-chaser. They
deserve to be aired, just like similar charges regularly hurled—and ventilated
openly—against any other government office. And if our fragile, much-
criticized legal system depends on a social contract that cedes rulings in legal
matters to an elite corps of jurists, the people who agreed to this bargain have a
right to know what is really going on behind the court’s musty—and recently
shut—doors. No less than a public hearing by the Supreme Court will blow
away the nascent impression of the appeals court as an unaccountable and
corrupt organization where money is the sole currency of justice.
To a man, the members of the judiciary find fault in Justice Sabio’s
accusations against some of his own colleagues on the bench. But they will
always qualify that their problem is not in his charges themselves, but in the
manner by which he ventilated them—to the media, no less! But Sabio is a
long-standing member of the judiciary, first as a provincial trial court judge and
for the last decade as an associate justice of the Court of Appeals. He must have
31
known that by going public with his charges, he was putting his entire career on
the line—if he was indeed angling to become a member of the Supreme Court,
he must also have decided that his “outing” in the press, so to speak, could put
that ambition forever out of his reach. Already, the reputation of Sabio is being
undermined. This is the same person, said businessman and deal-maker Francis
de Borja (whom the justice accused of offering him a P10 million bribe) who as
a trial court judge readily accepted P300,000 from him for his help in
“advising” in a real estate development scheme in Cagayan de Oro City.
(Still, while De Borja seems intent on discrediting Sabio, a careful reading of
his affidavit will show that he stops short of accusing the justice of actually
demanding the P50 million bribe that he says Sabio wanted to let go of the
Meralco case. According to De Borja, he was shocked by Sabio’s reply that it
would take that much for him to sway him—without saying that the amount
was what Sabio actually wanted from the businessman and the people who
allegedly sent him.)
Given Sabio’s current all-or-nothing frame of mind, it is doubtful if he can
still be convinced to play along with his colleagues and keep his mouth shut.
And now that the man he accused of offering him a bribe has also come out
swinging, as well, it is likely that Sabio will react by further escalating his
attacks, instead of backing down. De Borja’s insinuation of long-time official
impropriety by the man he calls his “friend,” more than being just the
proverbial shot across the bow, seems to have sealed the deal for Sabio—who
cannot be expected to back away without giving credence to all of the
businessman’s charges. As for his career in the judiciary, Sabio seems to have
sealed his fate there, as well, making him the sort of dangerous man without
fear of anything further to lose.
As for the judiciary itself, it should undergo a cleansing process at the
very least as a result of the Sabio incident— which makes it all the more
imperative for the Supreme Court to be absolutely transparent about its entire
investigation of the matter. Stonewalling now will only reinforce the belief held
by many that the Court of Appeals (or any other part of the judiciary) is as
32
graft-prone as any other branch of government. As for Sabio himself, is he the
savior of the judiciary or its destroyer? Only time will tell. As the saying goes,
heroes have very short lives—especially in our amnesiac society. Or, as the
current Batman movie paraphrases it, you either die a hero or you live long
enough to see yourself become the villain.
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=connieVeneracion_aug5_2008
Perception of character
One night last week, my husband and I were watching the evening news
over GMA-7 (because we are able to tolerate Saksi by a hair’s breadth better
than ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol). There was a long segment on Sabio. His students,
former students and fellow faculty members at the Ateneo Law School were
interviewed and everyone was saying the same thing —that Sabio’s character
was unsullied, he was incorruptible and he would never accept bribes. I paused,
not quite believing what I was hearing. When was Sabio’s character ever the
issue? Were the perceptions of people who know him determinative of whether
or not he did intimate to De Borja that he was willing to sell his integrity for
P50 million?
As if the lack of objectivity in news reporting wasn’t enough, the segment
went on to air interviews with people from De Borja’s neighborhood—people
who hardly knew him. People who only knew that De Borja owned property in
the neighborhood and that De Borja spent time in the cockpit. Beyond that,
those people knew nothing of him. Taken all together, the entire segment built
up Sabio as a man of good character and De Borja as a shady character. What
was GMA-7 trying to achieve? Strike a blow indirectly at its competitor, ABS-
CBN, by painting De Borja as an unsavory character and all but deciding that,
between Sabio and De Borja, it is Sabio who is telling the truth? Is that fair
news reporting? Is it part of the role of media to play judge and jury, and to
decide for the public what it ought to believe?
Is it responsible reporting considering the implications and the bias it
builds on the minds of the people? Everything about the SEC-GSIS-Meralco
33
case, including the allegations and counter-allegations of Sabio and De Borja, is
about whether certain events did or did not happen, and whether certain people
did or did not commit particular acts. Everything else is irrelevant. Character is
irrelevant; perception of character is a thousand times more irrelevant. No one
knows another entirely. No one knows if the person he sees is an image
intentionally projected to hide an ugly truth. No one can judge the truth about
another’s character based on a few hours of interaction every day. Gee, his
neighbors considered Josef Fritzl to be an intelligent and respectable citizen
until his secret basement was uncovered and, with it, the story of how he kept
his own daughter a prisoner for 24 years, raping her repeatedly and fathering
her seven children. Even husbands and wives who have lived together for half a
century still manage to spring surprises on one another every now and then.
While opinions are welcome, there is a line between an opinion and a
straight news report. The problem with most TV news programs is that producers,
writers, directors and news readers do not seem to know where the news reports
end and the opinion begins. And I’m not just talking about GMA-7. ABS-CBN
news programs resort to the same pretend-profiling gimmick just as often. Truth be
told, they don’t seem to know where news reports end and entertainment begins.
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news3_aug4_2008
Frat, family ties in Meralco case under scrutiny
Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was very clearly favoring the
GSIS because he had close relatives working for it. “Instead of calming down
the situation and protecting the image of the court by dealing with the affair as
an internal matter to be resolved in accordance with the rules, CA Presiding
Justice Vasquez adds fuel to the fire. He creates a media spectacle by calling a
rare en banc meeting of the CA when all that the [rules of the court] provides is
for him to report his actions to the CA en banc. Something that he could have
easily done in writing.” Vasquez ‘ bad faith consists in not disclosing that his
daughter, Ma. Ruth Almira Vasquez, was connected with the GSIS corporate
secretary, another daughter, Ma. Agnes Tosario Vasquez, was a dentist at the
medical department, that his sister, Leonora de Jesus, was a former GSIS
34
trustee, and that De Jesus’ daughter, Luisa Hernandez, was connected with the
vice president for treasury. She is also the ''ninang'' (godmother) of the youngest
son of GSIS president Winston Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118,
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City.
In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against Sabio for
ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with
deliberately causing the delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, “People of
the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert John Sobrepeña,
Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr.” The SC
dismissed the case with 12 votes.
http://ca.supremecourt.gov.ph/index.php?action=resume_of_justices&x=25
CA Profile of J. Sabio
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/aug/04/yehey/opinion/20080804opi2.html
Inconsistencies - BIG DEAL By Dan Mariano CA justice’s woes
For one thing, even the casual observer should be able to detect some
inconsistencies in Justice Sabio’s version of events. The first inconsistency
concerns dates. Sabio said the alleged bribery try took place on July 1. The CA
Eighth Division’s decision favoring Meralco over the SEC and GSIS, which
Sabio is contesting, was released July 23. He disclosed the alleged bribery
attempt on July 26. Observers ask: Why did it take Sabio so long to publicly
reveal such a blatant offense? Would it not have been better if Sabio had
reported the purported bribery attempt to his CA colleagues and the public soon
after it was made, say, July 2—and not July 26?
If Sabio had exposed the alleged bribery attempt soon after it was made,
the current scandal would not have erupted. Moreover, the court would have
probably issued a ruling radically different from the one favoring Meralco. That
Sabio withheld information on the alleged bribery try from his CA colleagues
for three weeks or so significantly diminished the believability of his story. Had
he been “shocked” and “angered” by the alleged bribery attempt, shouldn’t he
35
have immediately taken certain legal steps—such as ordering the arrest of the
alleged bribe-givers and working toward to their speedy prosecution, trial and
imprisonment? Moreover, why did he allow the Eighth Division to continue
deliberating on the motion Meralco filed against the SEC and GSIS even after
he was offered P10 million?
Had Sabio told his colleagues that the bribe offer was made right after his
purported meeting with de Borja, wouldn’t that have given the CA a chance to
avoid the mess it now finds itself in? Wouldn’t that have given the presiding
justice time to make his move without exposing the entire court to public
embarrassment?
Another hole
Here is another hole in the magistrate’s story. Where he and de Borja
were talking, Sabio said, the Meralco chairman was close by inside a car.
However, on the date of the supposed bribe offer, it turns out that Lopez was
out of the country. If true, the bribery attempt should be countenanced by no
one. The problem is that in the heated exchange of accusations and counter-
accusations, little convincing proof has been presented. During a rare en banc
session last week, the CA justices decided to elevate the matter to the Supreme
Court, where hopefully the facts can be sorted out and where all those involved
would have their day.
Despite the seeming inconsistencies in his narration, Sabio should be
given the benefit of the doubt. He is certainly entitled to a chance to explain the
questionable timing of his revelation and to demolish the accusation that he
tried to extort P50 million from the Lopezes. A Supreme Court inquiry should
help Sabio do that—although his son, who reportedly works for Chief Justice
Reynato Puno, needs to keep a respectable distance from the case. This
controversy should be resolved and put to rest soon—before more reputations
are damaged.
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080803-152291/Slash-and-burn
36
Against Justice Sabio are the troubling questions of his “casual
friendship” with De Borja -- a friendship that seems to have been based on a
prior business relationship dating back to the days when Sabio was a Regional
Trial Court judge in Cagayan de Oro City. This was a lucrative friendship,
according to De Borja. It was certainly a friendship that enabled De Borja to
meet with Sabio last July 1—a meeting that ought never to have taken place at
all. The Judicial Code of Ethics is quite clear: “Judges shall ensure that not only
is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer.”
There was no reason for Sabio to be entertaining people in the lobby of
the Ateneo de Manila’s college of law; no justification for him to even entertain
questions on cases, past, pending, or future; and no way he could have been
viewed to have been acting in any manner except with imprudence, and to the
prejudice not only of his reputation but also of the Court of Appeals. The legal
profession is rife with stories of cases up for sale to the highest bidder; and of
decisions being determined less by the law and more by interventions made by
powerful parties on susceptible judges. Both the private and public sectors are
widely perceived to be engaged in influence-peddling on a particularly lucrative
scale when it comes to the higher courts. The only thing unusual about the
allegations being made now is that they are being made in public, by means of
affidavits, and not merely being whispered about in legal circles.
And yet it is Sabio’s decision to go public with the bribe allegedly offered
to him by De Borja that, for now, gives weight to the justice’s claim. His having
gone public, while embarrassing to the Court of Appeals, is the proper action of
a man who has nothing to hide, and who fulfilled his duty by informing his
superior of an attempt at bribery, and of the possibility that his colleagues may
have succumbed to similar blandishments.
For its part, Meralco, if shown to be indeed behind De Borja, cannot
justify the alleged bribe offer in the context of self-preservation and self-
defense, just because the GSIS, its current institutional nemesis, has proven
adept at using institutions like the SEC to further its own ends. The only thing
37
going for Meralco is that the link between De Borja and his alleged client
(Meralco) is slightly more tenuous than the damaging link between De Borja
and Sabio himself.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=127392
CA weak leadership allowed justices' rift to prosper.
The alleged bribe offer to an appellate justice handling a high-profile
corporate case, which has triggered an investigation by the Supreme Court, has
brought to the public consciousness a more important issue—the deepening rift
among the magistrates at the Court of Appeals (CA). Based on a review of the
circumstances and events, including the alleged bribery, which led to a rare en
banc meeting of the majority of the 65 CA justices all over the country, abs-
cbnnews.com/Newsbreak found that weak leadership allowed the rift to
prosper. CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was aware of the issues
related to the Meralco case from the start. Two justices—Jose Sabio Jr. and
Vicente Roxas—were squabbling over who would handle the case in the light
of a reorganization that transferred the ponente, Roxas, to another division. CA
internal rules say that a ponente, the justice to whom the case is raffled off,
should study and decide on the case. Yet Vasquez allowed these issues to drag
because he apparently could not enforce his own opinion—which favored
Sabio. Sabio was one of the three justices of the CA 9th Division who signed
the TRO in favor of Meralco.
Later, on June 23, Sabio presided over the oral argument although he
was not the chairman of the 9th Division. He was just a substitute of Justice
Bienvenido Reyes, the chairman of the 9th Division, who took a leave—but
returned before the oral argument. Accounts show that Sabio did not inform the
parties of the return of Reyes. When the issues became too hot to handle and the
bribery attempt on Sabio was reported in the media, Vasquez then called for an
en banc meeting last July 31 to settle the discord. n the end, the appellate
justices decided to toss these issues to the High Court.
Rules committee chair disregarded
38
Sabio, the substitute chairman of the 9th division, which was then
handling the case, called on Vasquez three days before the oral argument
because Reyes, the resident 9th division chairman, was back from his leave and
was claiming back his post. How Sabio, Reyes, and the case's ponente, Roxas,
behaved thereafter, fueled what was already a constant topic in the justices' rift
among those in the CA. Vasquez sided with Sabio, while Reyes was banking on
the opinion of the CA Rules Committee chairman, Justice Edgardo Cruz. To
Vasquez, the issue revolved around the fact that the 9th division then chaired by
Sabio issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in May favoring the
Lopezes and their allies. GSIS had a standing motion to reconsider the TRO, so
Vasquez said the 9th division should continue handling it, even when Reyes
was already back. The issue should have been moot when Vasquez himself
enforced a reorganization effective July 4 when all the justices had to be
shuffled and assigned to different divisions. According to the CA's internal
rules, the Meralco case should follow whichever division Roxas would be
assigned because Roxas is the case's ponente. With the reorganization, Roxas
was transferred to the new 8th division, which also had Reyes as the chairman.
Then in July 1, the alleged P10 million bribery offer to Sabio happened.
Sabio made this known verbally to Vasquez the day after, on July 2, but Sabio
interpreted the bribe offer as a way to "take him out of the case." (Sabio
formalized the bribery attempt in his July 26 letter to Vasquez) Vasquez then
stuck to his original position, even when Reyes and Roxas kept on hammering
the fact that based on the CA's internal rules, the TRO is not one of the allowed
reasons for the Meralco case to stay with the old 9th division. Meralco's lawyers
even filed an urgent motion in July 10 pushing for Reyes to assume the
chairmanship of the division handling the case.
Injunction
The TRO, which was issued in May 30, was only good for 60 days, or up to
July 30. The Lopezes and their allies, who were favored by the TRO, has a
pending request to replace the TRO with a preliminary injunction since the
latter has a longer life span. The preliminary injunction would have assured the
39
Lopezes that they would continue their current control of the Meralco board. If
the TRO was allowed to expire in July 30, GSIS would have the chance to
contest the Lopezes' grip of the board. The CA rules only allowed the
preliminary injunction, not the TRO, as one of the reasons for the Meralco case
to stay with the old 9th division. The new 8th division, however, issued a
decision on the case, not a preliminary injunction, last July 23. The new 8th
division's decision, facilitated by Roxas and had the blessings of Reyes, held
their final deliberation last July 14—after Vasquez learned of the bribery
attempt on Sabio—because Vasquez did not make a firm move on whether it
should be the new 8th or old 9th division which should continue handling the
Meralco case.
Was Vasquez torn?
During that time, Vasquez was torn whether the Meralco-related issues at
the CA was under his purview. In his two July letters—one addressed to Reyes
and Roxas and the other addressed to all the justices—he acknowledged that
"the presiding justice is simply given control and supervision over
administrative affairs of the Court." In separate occasions, Justice Bruselas of
the new 8th division and Justice Myrna Vidal of the old 9th division even
approached Vasquez to express that they were disturbed by the bribery attempt
after Sabio told them about it. Bruselas even said he has already signed the
decision on the case and did not know about this disturbing "background",
referring to the alleged bribery attempt. As the bribery allegations made their
way to various media organizations, only then did Vasquez call for the en banc
meeting. Vasquez could have spared the Court this trouble and the on the
court's integrity had he tapped on the rules committee early on. But the rules
committee chair Justice Cruz was downplayed by Sabio way back in June
because Cruz was only a "junior justice." Cruz's opinion then was that Reyes
should take over Sabio as the chairman when the old 9th division was still
handling it. Had the rules been followed after the reorganization, Reyes would
still have handled it since he chaired the new 8th division that was supposed to
take over the Meralco case.
40
Daughters with GSIS
With Vasquez's opinion favoring Sabio even after the reorganization, and
the lack of a preliminary injunction that would exempt Meralco from being
transferred to Reyes’s and Roxas's division, inevitably casts doubt on Vasquez's
motivations. Vasquez could have doused cold water over these doubts if he
inhibited himself from any issues related to the Meralco-GSIS row. Based on
abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak's research, his two daughters, Maria Ruth Almira
and Ma. Agnes Rosario, are currently employed by GSIS.
Abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak called the GSIS office and confirmed that
Almira currently works at the GSIS corporate secretary's office but is on leave.
Agnes, on the other hand, is with the dental office of the medical department.
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryID=127270
Timeline: The Meralco-GSIS clash - Tug of war
By PUPPLE S. ROMERO - abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak
May 29, 2008 – Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) files a petition with the Court of
Appeals which questions the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) to intervene in the power utility’s contentious proxy
validation held on May 27, 2008. Meralo argues that it is the regional trial court
which has jurisdiction over the dispute. The Lopez-owned power distributor
also seeks for the nullification of an SEC cease-and-desist order and the
issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining SEC to implement a show
cause order against Anthony Rosete, corporate secretary of Meralco. Following
the temporary leave of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, chair of the 9th Division
where Meralco’s petition is initially raffled off, Meralco files an urgent motion
for a re-raffle. Aside from Reyes, other members of the 9th Division include
Justice Vicente Roxas, the ponente, and Justice Myrna Vidal.
A raffle is conducted for the division’s acting third member, who eventually became
Justice Jose Mendoza. However, Mendoza inhibits himself from the case because he
is a former legal counsel of the power utility. Another raffle is held and Justice Jose
41
Sabio is designated acting chairman of the Ninth Division. The Government Insurance
Service System (GSIS) files an urgent ex parte motion which asks for a re-raffle of
the case on the ground that the petition was raffled in the absence of a legal
representative from the state pension fund.
May 30, 2008 - The 9th Division rules in favor of Meralco and issues the TRO,
which would lapse in 60 days, against SEC. Hearings on oral arguments are
scheduled on July 23 and 24. GSIS files an urgent motion to lift the TRO.
Sabio says Roxas, the ponente, personally brought the TRO he prepared to
Sabio’s office.
June 16 – Reyes returns from leave.
June 19 – Reyes consults CA Rules Committee chairman Justice Edgardo Cruz
on who should hear the oral argument scheduled for June 23.
June 20 – In a letter to Reyes, which Sabio got a copy of, Cruz says Reyes
should decide the Meralco case as the designated chair of the 9th Division.
Sabio calls PJ Vasquez, saying Cruz was acting in his personal capacity, and
says the letter offends him since Cruz is junior to him in the court. Sabio also
wonders why Reyes bypassed and did not openly deliberate and discuss the
issue with PJ Vasquez.
June 23 – Oral argument. Sabio, in his letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado
Vasquez, says he consulted a more senior colleague, Justice Martin Villarama Jr.
before the hearing and asked him if he (Sabio) should stay on the case. Villarama
advised him to remain with the case. Sabio described Villarama as “a more senior,
experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation and guidance.” The
oral argument is held by the 9th Divison, with Sabio still at the helm. The parties are
ordered to submit their respective memoranda 15 days after. According to a motion
filed by Meralco, however, they got the impression that Reyes would preside over the
hearing after they were initially led to a room where a name plate of Reyes was placed
at the table. But they were eventually re-directed to another room where the name
plates contained ‘Sabio, Roxas and Vidal.’ Roxas, in his statement to the CA en banc,
said that such incident “caused by Sabio was the talk of the Court of Appeals for
weeks.”
42
June 25 – PJ Vasquez issues an order, previously approved by SC, to
reorganize the court effective July 4 since three justices retired/were about to
retire, while two new justices are about to be appointed.
July 1 – Sabio meets with a businessman allegedly brokering for Meralco and
wangles a P10 million-bribe for him to hand over the case to Reyes. In the
account of Sabio, he says the emissary mentioned that other means will be
resorted to have Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship.
July 4 – The CA Division is reorganized following the retirement of Associate
Justices Lucenito Tagle, Agustin Dizon and Rodrigo Cosico last June. Reyes
and Roxas are transferred to the 8th Division, with Justice Apolinario Bruselas
as the third member. Sabio and Vidal move to the 6th Division.
July 8 –Reyes goes to Sabio’s office to discusss, among others, the
chairmanship of the 9th division handling the Meralco case. Sabio informs
Reyes of the P10 million-bribe.
July 10 – Meralco files an urgent motion for Reyes to assume the chairmanship
of the hearing division. The company argues that according to the Internal
Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), a case can remain with the justices only
when giving due course, granting a writ of preliminary injunction, a new trial,
or of execution pending appeal.
July 11 – Meralco and GSIS file their respective memoranda. Meralco assails
the government for its purported moves to seize the power utility, while GSIS
insists Meralco should have taken heed of the SEC order. Sabio makes a
resolution referring the “Urgent Motion for Justice B. Reyes to Assume the
Chairmanship” to the respondents for comment and forwards it to the office of
Roxas, but is allegedly not released. Vidal says she signed the ponencia of
Roxas (50 pages) on the same day, but Roxas took the decision from her
because he reportedly has to incorporate 10 additional pages.
July 14 – The 8th Division holds final deliberations. In the transcript of the
deliberations, Roxas says that he “deliberately” chooses not to inform Justices
43
Sabio and Vidal that the 8th division would take over the case because he wants
to look for “other opportunities” to explain the situation so as not to hurt his
colleagues’ feelings. Sabio and Roxas are in a flag raising ceremony together.
Sabio tells Roxas he and Vidal want to discuss the memoranda since Sabio
already read them. The rollo of the case and finalized decision are officially
transmitted by Roxas to Bruselas, then by Bruselas to Reyes.
July 17 – Bruselas reportedly signs “corrected” decision.
July 21 – Roxas files an interpleader petition where he asks Vasquez to stop
Sabio and Vidal from “clinging” to the case, adding that the two could not
argue that they were exempted from the case following the reorganization of the
division.
July 22 – Reyes writes PJ Vasquez, referring to conversations during July 17
meeting, and asks the latter to rule on the impasse. Between July 14 and 22,
Roxas, through various memoranda, urges Reyes to just dissent so that a
division of five could be convened in time to decide before the TRO expires on
July 30. Reyes tells Vasquez that Meralco’s motion for his assumption of the
hearing division should be internally resolved (based on the IRCA), and not by
private litigants. Reyes also states that the issuance of a TRO is not among one
of the instances where the case should stay with the justices in the face of
division movements. Reyes stresses that the chairman of the committee on rules
and ponente (Roxas) echo his position. “Again, the PJ has to urgently decide on
the matter… Otherwise, deadlock of opinions…”
July 24 – Reyes transmits the rollo of the case and the finalized decision to
Roxas. The 8th Division promulgates its decision, which junks the SEC cease-
and-desist order. They also rule that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the
questioned proxy validation.
July 25 – Vasquez issues his reply to the Interpleader-Petition filed by Roxas
and the letter sent by Reyes, where he says that the division that issued the TRO
should continue hearing the case because of their familiarity with the petition –
they were present and participated in the hearing on oral arguments. Vidal
44
writes Vasquez on the “apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of
CA GR SP No. 103692,” adding that she agrees with the decision favoring
Meralco and that she already signed a draft decision signed by Roxas (Note:
Vidal says Roxas personally presented to her the final decision, which she
studied, then signed. But Roxas did not forward to Sabio because he will still
add 10 pages). Vidal questions why she is not informed that it was the 8th
division that will decide on it, is disappointed that judicial courtesy is not
observed—she is taken out of the case after she spent time studying it and
signed the draft decision. GSIS, in a press release, says that Sabio was
“unceremoniously excluded” from the case. Sabio calls Bruselas and Vidal and
relays to them the alleged bribery attempt of a Meralco emissary.
Bruselas personally meets with Vasquez to discuss phone call of Sabio. He says
this is the first time to hear that “background.” Troubled, Bruselas says he
called Reyes that day and asked if he knows of this “background.” Reyes says
yes, and when Bruselas asked why missed telling him, Reyes “leaned back and
said that he thought he mentioned it to me; that it may have escaped his mind,
and that nevertheless, it had no place in the deliberation on the case.”
July 25 – Bruselas files a memorandum for Vasquez where he relays Sabio’s
call. He earlier relays this personally to Vasquez July 24. Bruselas mentions the
P10 million bribe to Sabio. Bruselas wonders why the information came very
late, though joins Sabio in calling for a probe into the matter. Bruselas also
recounts that during meeting with PJ Vasquez, Vidal walked in and said she
received same phone call from Sabio. Media starts reports on rift among the
justices handling the case.
July 26 – Sabio writes Vasquez and informs him about the bribery attempt. He
also pushes for an investigation following the hasty promulgation of the
decision and his and Vidal’s ‘unceremonial ouster’ from the case. He questions
the timing of the decision, which was handed down days before the TRO
lapsed.
45
July 28 –Bruselas delivers his July 25 letter to Vasquez. He says he just got a
copy of Sabio’s letter that day, so he called Sabio and supported him in the call
to investigate the bribery. Vasquez gives all of the CA justices copies of the
correspondences he received from the justices, and calls for an en banc session.
July 30 – The 60-day TRO ends.
July 31 – CA en banc meeting. The 65-member en banc tosses the investigation
on the alleged bribery to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court
Administrator. They also ask the CA rules committee to settle the different
interpretations of the IRCA.
Meanwhile, a businessman named Francis Roa de Borja alleges in his affidavit
that Sabio informed him that the government offered the CA justice a Supreme
Court seat in return for a pro-GSIS decision. When asked however what would
take him to decline such offer, Sabio reportedly answered “P50 million.” Sabio
denies Borja’s allegations.
August 1 – Sabio says he will file bribery, perjury and libel charges against de
Borja. He also says that Meralco chairman Manuel ‘Manolo’ Lopez was with de
Borja, “waiting at the car,” when the businessman offered him the P10 million
bribe. Lopez, in a press conference, denies Sabio’s claim and shows his
boarding pass to the media to prove that he was abroad when the alleged bribe
attempt was made. Several senators urge for a swift investigation into the
matter.
RELIEF
IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that
the instant –
Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint – Letter-Affidavit[Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct &
Professional Responsibility, inter alia] – and –
Verified Motion To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With -
46
Urgent Omnibus Motions
I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, andII. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.”
- be duly NOTED, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents
COMMENTS / ANSWERS, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the
Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring them GUILTY
of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT be imposed
upon them, ordering that their names be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys,
and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, and Rule 140, Revised Rules of
Court, inter alia.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavit-complaint, this 5th day of August, 2008, at Malolos City , BULACAN.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner/Complainant, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].
NOTICE
TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama,The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila,
Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
& AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
47
Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.
I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that:
I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\
I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any disbarment action or filed any administrative or other claim against respondents, involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
I certify that on August 6 th , 2008 , I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus – Justice B. Reyes et al ”, A.M. OCA IPI No. _______, upon respondents, thru the Court of Appeals’ Clerk of Court, Atty. Teresita Marigomen, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila, by registered mail with return card and explanation, as evidenced by the attached hereunder registry receipt after it, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 6th day of August, 2008, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. _____, BOOK NO. 76, SERIES OF 2008. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.
Reservation:
Because of time constraints, undersigned reserves his right to file amended or supplemental pleadings, in due course, if needed, to conform to truth, or justice, and to add respondents if needed.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
COPY FURNISHED:(By Personal Service):
Office of the Court Administrator, (Personal Service)OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila,
48
By registered mail with receipt and return card. Explanation: Due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, I served copies of this complaint and annexes to respondents by registered mail with return card as evidenced by the attached receipt, hereunder. Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas,Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal,Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.,and “Jane Doe” & Sahah Doe” (Lawyers, daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.),Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila,c/o Atty. Teresita Marigomen, Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila,Respondents.
49
