RL: LL11LR OI PRLSIDING JUS1ICL

CONRADO M. VASQULZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP NO. J03692

A.M. No. 08-8-JJ-CA, 09 September 2008, LN BANC, (Per Curiam)

1bere i. av ota aaage rbicb .a,. to gaiv re.ect ove vv.t tearv to gire it. f ;vage. ava ;v.tice. are eectea to
treat titigavt., covv.et. ava .vboraivate. ritb re.ect ava fairve.., ritb vore rea.ov, tbat ;vage. ava ;v.tice. .bovta gire
tbeir fettor vagi.trate. tbe covrte., ava rofe..iovat regara ave to tbev a. tbeir cotteagve. iv tbe ]vaiciar,. 1bv., iv Cavov
:, ectiov of tbe ^er Coae of ]vaiciat Covavct, ;vage. are eectea to carr, ovt ;vaiciat avtie. ritb aroriate
cov.iaeratiov for att er.ov., .vcb a. tbe artie., ritve..e., tar,er., covrt .taff ava ;vaiciat cotteagve., ritbovt aifferevtiatiov
ov av, irreteravt grovva, ivvateriat to tbe roer erforvavce of .vcb avtie..

Justice Jose C. Mendoza ,Justice Mendoza, was designated by the Rale Committee as Acting
Chairman o the Ninth Diision during the absence o Justice Reyes. Justice Mendoza was authorized to
take cognizance o the cases iled submitted beore the ninth diision except ovevcia or until Justice
Reyes reports back or duty. Antonio V. Rosete, Manuel M. Lopez et at. as oicers, directors or
representaties o the Manila Llectric Company ,Meralco,, iled with the Court o Appeals ,CA, a
petition or certiorari and prohibition with prayer or the issuance o a writ o preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order ,1RO, against the Securities and Lxchange Commission ,SLC,,
Commissioner Jesus Lnrique G. Martinez, Commissioner lubert B. Guearra, and the Goernment
Serice Insurance System ,GSIS,. 1he case was raled to Justice Vicente Q. Roxas ,Justice Roxas,.
loweer, Presiding Justice Vasquez receied a letter rom Atty. Lstrella C. Llamparo ,Atty. Llamparo,,
the chie legal counsel o the GSIS asking or the re-raling o the case. Justice Mendoza inhibited
himsel rom the Meralco case since he used to be a counsel o the latter. Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
,Justice Sabio, was assigned as Acting Chairman o the Ninth Diision by rale, in lieu o Justice
Mendoza.` Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal ,Justice Dimaranan-Vidal, and Justice Roxas together with
Justice Sabio composed the Special Ninth Diision. 1he Special Ninth Diision issued granted the 1RO.

Upon return o Justice Reyes, he belieed that it is proper that he should be the one presiding
oer the case. Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice Vasquez a letter calling the attention o Justice
Ldgardo P. Cruz ,Justice Cruz,, Chairperson o the Committee on Rules, to the dilemma` as to who
between him and Justice Sabio should receie` the Meralco case. Justice Cruz opined that the case
reerted to the regular Chairman ,Justice Reyes, o the Ninth Diision upon his return. A certain Mr. de
Borja conronted Justice Sabio asking the latter to gie way or Justice Reyes in exchange or 10 milllion
pesos. Justice Dimaranan-Vidal receied a call rom Justice Sabio, inorming her that Meralco had
oered him a bribe o P10 million in exchange or his oluntary stepping out rom the Meralco case in
order to gie way to Justice B. L. Reyes,` and that the decision in the Meralco case had been
promulgated by the Lighth Diision. Justice Roxas was astounded when Justice Roxas did not inorm
her as a matter o judicial courtesy` o the scrapping o the decision which she signed earlier in lieu
hereo she sent a letter to the Presiding Justice in connection with the apparent and obious
irregularities in the handing o Meralco case. 1he Supreme Court ,SC, constituted the Panel o
Inestigators to inestigate alleged improprieties o the actions o the Justices o the Court o Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ,.vtovio 1. Ro.ete, et at. r. C, et at.,. 1he report yielded positiely that
irregularities hae been committed in the aboe-mentioned case. lence, this petition.

ISSUL:

\hether or not the CA Justice acted with impropriety in taking cognizance o the MLRALCO
case, CA-G.R. SP No. 103692

HLLD:

Petition GRAN1LD.
Justice Roxas inexcusably failed to act on a number of motions of the parties prior to the
promulgation of the Decision
As ound by the Panel o Inestigators, seeral motions were not resoled or acted upon by
Justice Roxas. 1hese were enumerated in the Report as ollows:
,a, 1he Urgent Lx-Parte Motion to Deer Action on any Incident o the Petition Pending
Resolution o Re-Rale` iled by GSIS on May 29, 2008 soon ater this case was iled on
that date ,Rotto, pp. 185-186,

b, GSIS` Urgent Lx-Parte Motion to Inhibit` Justice Roxas, which was iled on May 30, 2008.
As the motion raised a prejudicial question, Justice Roxas should have resolved it
before issuing the 1RO sought by Meralco, but he never did ,Rotto, pp. 220-223,

,c, GSIS` Motion to Lit 1RO which was iled on May 30, 2008 ,Rotto, pp. 18-210,

,d, GSIS` Motion iled on June 18, 2008, praying that it be allowed to use Power point at the
hearing on June 23, 2008 . On June 20, 2008, the SLC iled a similar motion. Both motions
were not acted upon by Justice Roxas ,Rotto, pp. 593-621,,

,e, Meralco`s Motion or Lxtension o 1ime to ile their Consolidated Memorandum o
Authorities and Reply to Repondent SLC`s Comment` iled on June 25, 2008 ,Rotto, pp. 981-
98,

,, Meralco`s Urgent Motion or lonorable Justice Bienenido L. Reyes to Assume
Chairmanship o the Diision in the Instant Case,` which was iled on July 10, 2008 ,Rotto,
pp. 1262-124,
1he Court agrees with the Panel o Inestigators that by ignoring or reusing to act on the
motion or his inhibition, Justice Roxas iolated Rule V, Section 3, third paragraph o the IRCA, which
proides that he should resole such motion in writing with copies urnished the other members o the
Diision, the Presiding Justice, the Rale Committee, and the Diision Clerk o Court.` 1he pertinent
portion o the said proision states:
Sec. 3. Motion to Inhibit a Diision or a Justice. - x x x
A motion or oluntary inhibition o a Justice shall be acted upon by him alone in writing, copy
urnished the other members o the Diision, the Presiding Justice, the Rale Committee and the
Diision Clerk o Court.
1his Court cannot agree with Justice Roxas` proposition that the issuance o the 1RO
constitutes an implied denial o the motion to inhibit since under IRCA the obligation o the Justice to
act on such a motion is mandatory.
lurthermore, the Court inds well-taken the Panel`s inding that Justice Roxas` ailure to act on
the other motions o the parties iolated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 o the 1989 Coae of ]vaiciat Covavct ,which
applies in a suppletory manner to the ^er Coae of ]vaiciat Covavct or the Philippine Judiciary, proiding
that:
Rule 3.05. - A judge shall dispose o the court`s business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods.`
Len Section 5, Canon 6 o the ^er Coae of ]vaiciat Covavct mandates that |j|udges shall perorm
all judicial duties, including the deliery o resered decisions, eiciently, airly and with reasonable
promptness.` 1hus, it has become well-settled in jurisprudence that een just undue delay in the
resoling pending motions or incidents within the reglamentary period ixed by law is not excusable and
constitutes gross ineiciency. \ith more reason, this Court inds suspicious and reprehensible the ailure
o Justice Roxas to act at all on pending motions and incidents in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692.
1his is in act not the irst time that Justice Roxas has been cited administratiely or ailure to
resole pending incidents in cases assigned to him. In Orocio r. Roa., A.M. Nos. 0-115-CA-J and CA-
08-46-J, this Court imposed a P15,000 ine on Justice Roxas or unwarranted delay in resoling two
motions or reconsideration in another case and sternly warned him that uture commission any act o
impropriety will be dealt with more seerely.
Justice Roxas is guilty of gross dishonesty
Apart rom Justice Roxas` inexcusable inaction on pending incidents in the Meralco case, the
Panel o Inestigators ound that he had been dishonest and untruthul in relation to the said case. 1he
Court adopts the ollowing indings o the Panel
Justice Roxas was dishonest and untruthful.

,a, Justice Roxas admitted that the 1ranscript o linal Decision,` which is supposed to be a
transcript o the deliberation on July 14, 2008 o the Lighth Diision on the inal decision in the
Meralco case was not a true transcript` o the minutes o the meeting, but purely a transcript rom
memory` because no notes were taken, no stenographer was present, and no tape recorder was used.
It was in act a drama which he composed rom my recollection` to comply with Sec. 9, Rule VI o
the IRCA which requires that minutes o the meeting, i.e., deliberation, shall be kept.` 1he so-called
transcript` is a fabrication designed to deceie that there had been compliance - when actually there
was none -- with the prerequisite o the IRCA that consultation and,or deliberation among the
members o the Diision must precede the drating o a decision.

,b, 1he statement in the transcript` that it was a recap rom our preious deliberations`
was another falsehood because there had been no preious deliberations.

,c, 1he reerence in the transcript` to a linal Report o Justice Roxas` was also false or
Justice Roxas admittedly did not submit a report` as ovevte, as required by Sec. 9, Rule VI o the
IRCA, or deliberation by the Lighth Diision on July 14, 2008. 1he linal Report` which he
submitted was admittedly the decision itsel which he and Justice Bruselas, Jr. had already signed. 1he
linal Report` was merely the title o the page that sered as the coer o the decision. lence, Justice
B.L. Reyes` supposed closing statement in the transcript` that -- \e hae coered eery angle o
the linal Report o Justice Roxas extensiely` is also false. Justice B.L. Reyes testiied at the
inestigation that he had not seen the transcript` until the copy in the rotto was shown to him by
Justice Callejo, Sr. during his cross-examination o Justice B. L. Reyes on August 26, 2008.

x x x

,e, Justice Roxas` testimony that when he brought the Meralco decision to Justice
Dimaranan-Vidal on July 8, 2008, it was only a drat or her to read, because she asked i she may read
it, not or her to sign it, is completely false. 1his testimony was labelled by Justice Dimaranan-Vidal
as a lie, and she called Justice Roxas a liar, because she did not ask to borrow the decision or her
reading pleasure, but Justice Roxas personally brought it to her oice or her to sign as a member o
the Special Ninth Diision. Ater poring oer it the whole night, she signed it, as well as three ,3,
additional signature pages which were to be attached to three ,3, other copies o the decision.

x x x
Indeed, the abrications and alsehoods that Justice Roxas blithely proerred to the Panel in
explanation,justiication o his questioned handling o the Meralco case demonstrated that he lacks the
qualiication o integrity and honesty expected o a magistrate and a member o the appellate court.
Under Rule 140 o the Rules o Court, dishonesty is considered a serious oense that may warrant
the penalty o dismissal rom the serice. Under the Rule IV, Section 52 o the Uniorm Rules on
Administratie Cases in the Ciil Serice, dishonesty is likewise considered a grae oense and warrants
the penalty o dismissal een or the irst oense. In the past, the Court has had the occasion to rule
that:
.dishonesty and alsiication are considered grae oenses warranting the penalty o dismissal rom
serice upon the commission o the irst oense. On numerous occasions, the Court did not hesitate
to impose such extreme punishment on employees ound guilty o these oenses.
Dishonesty, being in the nature o a grae oense, carries the extreme penalty o dismissal
rom the serice with oreiture o retirement beneits except accrued leae credits, and perpetual
disqualiication or re-employment in the goernment serice. Dishonesty has no place in the
judiciary.
Justice Roxas showed a lack of courtesy and respect for his colleagues in the Court of Appeals
1he Panel o Inestigators reported on this matter in this wise:
x x x
,, Justice Roxas was thoughtlessly disrespectful to a colleague and a lady at that, when he
unceremoniously discarded, shredded, and burned the decision that Justice Dimaranan-Vidal had
signed, because he allegedly orgot that Justice Dimaranan-Vidal and Justice Sabio, Jr. had already
been reorganized out` o the Special Ninth Diision as o July 4, 2008, hence, out o the Meralco
case. Out o courtesy, he should hae explained to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal the reason why he was
not promulgating the decision which she had signed.

1he truth, it seems, is that Justice Roxas, who had consulted Justice Villarama, Jr. on which
Diision should decide the Meralco case, may hae been coninced that it should be the Special Ninth
Diision. 1hat is why he brought his decision to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal or her signature. loweer,
somehow, somewhere, during the night, while Justice Dimaranan-Vidal was patiently poring oer his
decision, Justice Roxas was persuaded to bring his decision to the Lighth Diision ,to which he and
Justice B.L. Reyes belong ater the July 4, 2008 reorganization o the Court,, it may hae dawned on
him that i the case remained in the Special Ninth Diision, Justice Sabio, Jr. might dissent, requiring
the Presiding Justice to constitute a special diision o ie. I he ,Justice Roxas, should ail to obtain a
majority o the Diision on his side, he would lose his ovevcia, someone else would become the
ovevte ,perhaps Justice Sabio, Jr.,. 1hat may be the reason why he junked Justices Sabio, Jr. and
Dimaranan-Vidal ,een i the latter concurred with his decision, because he was unsure o Justice
Sabio, Jr. le chose to cast his lot with his companions in the Lighth Diision -- Justices B. L. Reyes
and Bruselas, Jr. -- with whom he and Meralco were comortable`.

,g, J. Roxas was disrespectful to Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. whose ruling on his
Interpleader Petition` he sought on July 21, 2008, but he promulgated the Meralco decision two ,2,
days later, on July 23, 2008, without waiting or Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.`s ruling which came out
on July 24, 2008, only three ,3, days ater the Interpleader Petition was iled by him, and two ,2, days
ater Justice B.L. Reyes also reiterated in writing his request or Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. to
resole the same chairmanship issue raised in the Interpleader. Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. was
embarrassed and humiliated by Justices B.L. Reyes` and Roxas` lack of courtesy and respect or his
position as head o the Court.
x x x
1here is an old adage which says to gain respect one must learn to gie it. I judges and justices
are expected to treat litigants, counsels and subordinates with respect and airness, with more reason,
that judges and justices should gie their ellow magistrates the courtesy and proessional regard due to
them as their colleagues in the Judiciary. 1hus, in Canon 5, Section 3 o the New Code o Judicial
Conduct, judges are expected to carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all
persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court sta and judicial colleagues, without
dierentiation on any irreleant ground, immaterial to the proper perormance o such duties.`
1his Court cannot iew lightly the discourteous manner that Justice Roxas, in his apparent haste
to promulgate his decision in the Meralco case, treated his colleagues in the Court o Appeals. It
behooes the Court to remind all magistrates that their high oice demands compliance with the most
exacting standards o propriety and decorum.
Justice Roxas' questionable handling of the Meralco case demonstrates his undue interest
therein
In the Report, the Panel o Inestigators obsered that Justice Roxas in act began drating his
decision een prior to the submission o the parties` memoranda. As discussed in the Report:
x x x
,d, Although the parties were gien 15 days ater the hearing on June 23, 2008, or up to July
8, 2008, to simultaneously submit their memoranda and memoranda o authorities, and actually
submitted:
On July , 2008 - GSIS`s 39 page- memorandum
On July 9, 2008 - SLC`s 62 page-memorandum
On July 10, 2008 - MLRALCO`s 555 page- memorandum ,by messenger, with
memorandum o authorities

Justice Roxas prepared the decision beore the parties had iled their memoranda in the case
and submitted it to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal or her signature on July 8, 2008. lis rush to judgment`
was indicatie o undue interest and unseemly haste,` according to J.Romero.

le cheated the parties` counsel o the time, eort, and energy that they inested in the
preparation o their ponderous memoranda which, as it turned out, neither he nor the other members
o the Lighth Diision bothered to read beore signing his decision. le made a mockery o his own
order or the parties to submit memoranda, and rendered their compliance a utile exercise.
x x x
1he Court agrees with Mme. Justice Romero`s obseration that the rush to judgment` ,een
beore the iling o the parties` memoranda, was indicatie o Justice Roxas` undue interest and
unseemly haste, especially when taken together with other circumstances. 1his inexplicable haste in
resoling the case on the merits is likewise apparent in Justice Roxas` ailure to resole the seeral
pending incidents and instead jumping ahead to deciding the case on the merits, his rushing` o Justice
Dimaranan-Vidal into signing his drat Decision on July 8, 2008 when the parties` memoranda hae not
yet all been iled with the CA, his precipitate transer o the case to the Lighth Diision or promulgation
o decision, without notice to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal o the Special Ninth Diision who had already
signed his drat Decision and despite the unresoled Chairmanship dispute between Justice Reyes and
Justice Sabio which he ,Justice Roxas, een submitted to the Presiding Justice or appropriate action, just
a ew days beore the promulgation.
1he Court reiterates here that as the isible representation o the law and justice, judges are
expected to conduct themseles in a manner that would enhance respect and conidence o the people in
the judicial system. 1he New Code o Judicial Conduct or the Philippine Judiciary mandates that judges
must not only maintain their independence, integrity and impartiality, but they must also aoid any
appearance o impropriety or partiality, which may erode the people`s aith in the judiciary. 1his standard
applies not only to the decision itsel, but also to the process by which the decision is made. 1his Court
will not hesitate to sanction with the highest penalty magistrates who exhibit maniest undue interest in
their assigned cases.
In sum, this Court inds that Justice Roxas` multiple iolations o the canons o the Code o
Judicial Conduct constitute grae misconduct, compounded by dishonesty, undue interest and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest o the serice, which warrant his DISMISSAL rom the serice.
1he circumstances of the telephone call of Chairman Sabio to his brother Justice Sabio showed
that Justice Sabio failed to uphold the standard of independence and propriety expected of him
as a magistrate of the appellate court
In his testimony beore the Panel, Chairman Sabio admits that he called up Justice Sabio on May
30, 2008 rom Daao City, in response to a resquest or help rom a member o the Board o 1rustees o
Meralco. Notwithstanding the act that Chairman Sabio called to relay to Justice Sabio the rightness` o
the GSIS` cause and asked him to help GSIS` and that Justice Sabio allegedly told his brother that he
would act in accordance with his conscience, the same still constituted a iolation o Canon 13 o the
Coae of Profe..iovat Re.ov.ibitit, or lawyers, which proides that:
A lawyer shall x x x refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the
appearance of influencing the Court.
As they were both members o the Bar, it is incomprehensible to this Court how the brothers
can justiy their improper conersation regarding the Meralco case. As the Panel obsered in its Report:
Ironically, both o them ound nothing wrong with brother Camilo`s eort to inluence his
younger brother`s action in the Meralco case, because both beliee that our lilipino culture allows
brother-to-brother conersation, een i the purpose o one is to inluence the other, proided the
latter does not agree to do something illegal.
lor the Panel, Justice Sabio iolated Sections 1, 4, and 5, Canon 1 o the ^er Coae of ]vaiciat
Covavct for tbe Pbitiive ]vaiciar,, which proide that -
Sec. J. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently x x x free from extraneous
influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or
for any reason.

x x x

Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. 1he prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are
in a special position to influence the judge.

Sec. S. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by,
the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer.
In the Inestigators` mind, although Justice Sabio signed the 1RO in aour o Meralco contrary
to his brother`s adice, Justice Sabio`s unusual interest in holding on to the Meralco case,` seemed to
indicate that he may hae been actually inluenced by his brother to help GSIS.` In arriing at this
conclusion, the Panel noted the ollowing circumstances: ,1, Justice Sabio adamantly reused to yield the
chairmanship o the Special Ninth Diision although the regular chairman, Justice Reyes had returned to
duty on June 10, 2008, and, ,2, Justice Sabio oiciously prepared and signed a resolution ,a chore or the
ovevte Justice V. Roxas to perorm,, requiring the GSIS and the SLC to comment on Meralco`s Motion
or Justice B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship o the 9
th
Diision,` which he probably intended to
delay the decision on the preliminary injunction beyond the lie o the 1RO to the prejudice o Meralco
and the adantage o the GSIS.
Based on the acts on record, the Court is wary o declaring that Justice Sabio had been inluenced
by his brother by speculating that he would hae aored GSIS had he been a part o the diision which
rendered the decision in the Meralco case. loweer, we do ind that it was improper or Justice Sabio to
hold on to the chairmanship o the Ninth Diision the despite the return o Justice Reyes, when Justice
Sabio`s designation as acting chairman was clearly only or the duration o Justice Reyes` leae o
absence. \e likewise note with disaor his stubborn insistence on his own interpretation o the IRCA
and hostile, dismissie attitude towards equally well-reasoned positions o his colleagues on the proper
interpretation o their rules. Such conduct on the part o Justice Sabio did nothing to aid in the swit and
amicable resolution o his dispute with Justice Reyes but rather anned the lames o resentment between
them. \e deem this sort o behaior unbecoming or a magistrate o his stature.
Justice Sabio's conversations with Mr. De Borja were improper and indiscreet
On this matter, the Court accepts the ollowing indings in the Report:
Knowing the nature o De Borja`s proession, Justice Sabio, Jr. should hae been wary o
the ormer. le should hae oreseen that De Borja had the Meralco case on his mind when he called
Justice Sabio, Jr. 1rue enough, De Borja mentioned the Meralco case and congratulated Justice Sabio,
Jr. or haing signed the 1RO in aour o Meralco.

But that was not the last time Justice Sabio, Jr. would hear rom De Borja. A month later,
ater Justice Sabio, Jr. had presided at the hearing o Meralco`s prayer or preliminary injunction on
June 23, 2008, and the case was ripening or decision or resolution, De Borja again called up Justice
Sabio, Jr. and asked to meet him oer dinner to chit chat` about the Meralco case.

Instead o telling o De Borja that he could not, and would not, talk about the Meralco case,
Justice Sabio, Jr. agreed to meet De Borja in the lobby-lounge o the Ateneo Law School ater his
eening class in Legal Lthics in said school.

Justice Sabio Jr.`s action o discussing the Meralco case with De Borja was highly
inappropriate and indiscreet. lirst, in talks with his brother, the second time in conersation with
De Borja, Justice Sabio, Jr. broke the shield o confidentiality that coers the disposition o cases in
the Court in order to presere and protect the integrity and independence o the Court itsel. le
ignored the injunction in Canon 1, Section 8 o the ^er Coae of ]vaiciat Covavct for tbe Pbitiive ]vaiciar,
that: Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct (and discretion) in
order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is fundamental to the maintenance
of judicial independence.

It was during that meeting with De Borja in the lobby-lounge o the Ateneo Law School,
that De Borja allegedly oered him P10 million, in behal o Meralco, to step out o the case and
allow Justice Bienenido Reyes to assume the chairmanship o the Special Ninth Diision because
Meralco was not comortable` with him ,Justice Sabio, Jr.,. le rejected the bribe oer because he
could not in conscience accept it.`

Justice Sabio, Jr. was allegedly shocked and insulted that De Borja would think that he
,Justice Sabio, Jr., could be bribed or bought. 1he Panel is, howeer, honestly perplexed why in spite
o his outraged respectability, Justice Sabio, Jr. called up De Borja two ,2, days later ,on July 3, 2008,,
to tell De Borja to stop pestering` him with his calls. 1he Panel is nonplussed because, normally, a
person who has been insulted would neer want to see, much less speak again, to the person who had
disrespected him. le could hae just shut o his cell phone to De Borja`s calls. De Borja denied that
he reiterated his oer o P10 million to Justice Sabio, Jr. le denied saying that een i the case should
go up to the Supreme Court, GSIS would still lose, hence, .a,avg tavg ,vvg P10 million, ba/a .i.ibiv /a
a vg vga ava/ vo.` le testiied that his reply to Justice Sabio, Jr.`s call was aeaava` or indierence.
Justice Sabio, Jr. blamed that call o his to a lapse in judgment` on his part.

Be that as it may, the Inestigating Panel inds more credible Justice Sabio, Jr.`s story about
De Borja`s P10 million-bribe-oer on behal o Meralco, than De Borja`s denial that he made such an
oer. \hy does the Panel beliee him, and not De Borja

lirst, because Justice Sabio, Jr. erbally reported the rejected bribe oer to CA Presiding
Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. the next day - a act admitted by Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.

Second, een though Justice Sabio, Jr. did not mention the bribe-oeror`s name in both his
erbal and written reports to Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr., De Borja identiied himsel to the media
as the person alluded to.

1hird, De Borja`s allegation, that Justice Sabio, Jr. wanted P50 million, not P10 million, is
not belieable, or, i Justice Sabio, Jr. quoted P50 million as his price, he would not hae reported the
P10 million bribe oer to Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. le would hae waited or Meralco`s reply to
his counter-oer.
x x x
Indeed, the Court agrees with the Panel that the allegation o solicitation on the part o Justice
Sabio is not credible. Neertheless, the continued communications between Justice Sabio and Mr. De
Borja een ater the latter`s rejected bribery attempt is highly inappropriate and shows poor judgment on
the part o Justice Sabio who should hae acted in preseration o the dignity o his judicial oice and
the institution to which he belongs.
Premises considered, this Court is o the iew that Justice Sabio`s indiscreet and imprudent
conersations regarding the Meralco case with his brother and Mr. De Borja and his actuations in the
chairmanship dispute with Justice Reyes constitute simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming o a
justice o the Court o Appeals which warrant the penalty o two ,2, months suspension without pay.
Iindings regarding the conduct of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
As preiously discussed, Justice Reyes appealed to Presiding Justice Vazquez in a letter dated July
22, 2008, reiterating his ,Justice Reyes`, request that the Presiding Justice render an opinion which
Diision o the Court o Appeals - the Lighth Diision with him as chairman, or the Special Ninth
Diision chaired by Justice Sabio should resole the Meralco case. 1his was in conjunction with an
Interpleader iled by Justice Roxas on the same issue with the Presiding Justice. \et, despite the act that
the Presiding Justice inormed Justices Reyes and Roxas that he would study the matter, Justices Reyes
and Justice Roxas, together with Justice Bruselas, promulgated the decision in the Meralco case on July
23, 2008. Justice Reyes and Justice Roxas did not withdraw their request or a ruling nor did either o
them adise the Presiding Justice beorehand o their intention to proceed with the resolution o the
Meralco case. 1hus, when the Presiding Justice issued his ruling on the chairmanship dispute on July 24,
2008, he was unaware o the promulgation o the Meralco decision on July 23, 2008, under the aegis o
Justice Reyes` Lighth Diision. As ound by the Panel, Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. was completely
taken aback when he learned about it on July 24, 2008, the same day that he issued his opinion on the
chairmanship issue which by then had become fvvctv. oficio. le elt belittled and humiliated by the
discourtesy o the two justices to him.` It bears repeating here that under Canon 5, Section 3 o the New
Code o Judicial Conduct, judges are mandated to show the appropriate consideration and respect or
their colleagues in the Judiciary.1hus, we adopt the inding o the Panel on this point and ind Justice
Reyes guilty o simple misconduct, which is mitigated by the act that he repeatedly asked Presiding
Justice Vasquez to act on his request to rule on the conlicting interpretation o the IRCA. loweer,
Justice Reyes should be reprimanded or taking part in the decision o the subject case without awaiting
the ruling o the Presiding Justice.
Iindings regarding the conduct of Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal
1he Court inds well-taken and adopts the indings o the Panel o Inestigators, to wit:
Justice Dimaranan-Vidal deiated rom the IRCA when she allowed hersel to be rushed by
Justice Roxas to sign the Meralco decision on July 8, 2008, without reading the parties` memoranda
and without the deliberation among members o the Diision required by the IRCA. She knew that
the 1RO would not expire until July 30, 2008 - some three ,3, weeks away rom July 8, 2008 - yet she
allowed hersel to beliee Justice Roxas` misrepresentation that signing the decision was urgent. ler
compliance with certain dissembling practices o other justices o the Court, in iolation o the IRCA,
showed weakness and lack o independence on her part.

1he ollowing sections o Canon 1 o the Code o Judicial Conduct are instructie in this regard:
SLC. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial unction independently on the basis o their assessment o
the acts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding o the law, ree o any extraneous
inluence, inducement, pressure, threat or intererence, direct or indirect, rom any quarter or or any
reason.

SLC. 2. In perorming judicial duties, judges shall be independent rom judicial colleagues in respect
o decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.
Allowing a ellow justice to induce her to deiate rom established procedure constitutes conduct
unbecoming a justice or which Justice Dimaranan-Vidal should be ADMONISlLD to be more
circumspect in the perormance o her judicial duties.
Iindings regarding the conduct of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez
It is the iew o the Panel o Inestigators that Presiding Justice Vasquez ailed to proide the
leadership expected o him as head o the Court o Appeals. 1he ollowing quote rom the Report
summarizes the perceied lapses on the part o the Presiding Justice:
Clearly, Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. had been indecisive in dealing with the turmoil arising
rom the Meralco case. le vacillated and temporized on resoling the impasse between Justice
Sabio, Jr. and Justice B. L. Reyes oer the chairmanship o the Diision that should hear and decide
the Meralco case. le ailed to take action on the reported bribe-oer by Meralco to J. Sabio, Jr. le
hesitated to assert his leadership o the Court een when the parties repeatedly urged him to lay
down the rule or them to ollow. \as he hampered by the act that he has relaties - two daughters
- employed in the GSIS, and a sister who is a consultant thereo le pleaded lack o authority. \as
he not aware then, or did he discoer too late, that under Section 11, Rule VIII o the IRCA, he is in
act authorized to act on any matter inoling the Court and its members 1hat Rule proides:

Sec. JJ. x xx the Presiding Justice or any one acting in his place is authorized to act
on any matter not covered by these Rules. Such action shall, however, be reported
to the Court en banc.

le should hae conened the Court ev bavc as soon as the alleged bribery attempt on Justice
Sabio, Jr. was reported to him, or it was an attempt to corrupt a member o the Court, calling or the
protection and preseration o the integrity o the judicial processes` o the Court, hence, an
administratie matter cognizable by the Court ev bavc. Section 5 ,c,, Rule I o the IRCA, proides:

Sec. S. Matters cognizable by the Court en banc.- 1he Court en banc shall, inter
alia:
(a) x x x
(b) Adopt uniform administrative measures, procedures, and policies for the
protection and preservation of the integrity of the judicial processes, x x x.

Presiding Justice Vasquez admitted his lapses in judgment
In the light o the oregoing obserations o the Panel, this Court is o the iew that much o the
trouble now being aced by the Court o Appeals could hae been aerted by timely, judicious and
decisie action on the part o the Presiding Justice. Certainly, this unpleasant and trying episode in ailure
to act in the early part o his tenure as Presiding Justice has indelibly impressed upon him what is
required o him as leader o the second highest court in the land. Neertheless, Presiding Justice Vasquez
is hereby seerely reprimanded or his ailure to act promptly and decisiely on the controersy as
required o him by the IRCA.