In Re Conrado M Vasquez

A.M. No. 08811CA. September 9, 2008.
RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M.

VASQUEZ, JR. ON CAG.R. SP NO. 103692 [Antonio
Rosete, et al. vs. Securities and Exchange Commission, et
al.]
Judicial Ethics Courts For judicial decisions, which form
part of the law of the land, to be credible instruments in the
peaceful and democratic resolution of conflicts, our courts must be
perceived to be and, in fact be, impartial, independent, competent
and just.The Judiciary, which is acclaimed as the firmest pillar
of our democratic institutions, is vested by the Constitution with
the power to settle disputes between parties and to determine
their rights and obligations under the law. For judicial decisions,
which form part of the law of the land, to be credible instruments
in the peaceful and democratic resolution of conflicts, our courts
must be perceived to be and, in fact be, impartial, independent,
competent and just. To accomplish this end, it is imperative that
members of the Judiciary from its highest magistrates to its
humblest employees adhere to the strictest code of ethics and the
highest standards of propriety and decorum. Indeed, it is
unfortunate that one of the countrys second highest courts, the
Court of Appeals, should be presently embroiled in scandal and
controversy. It is this Courts bounden duty to determine the
culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved
in the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct
has failed to conform to the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold
integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety
in the performance of official functions.
Same Same Court of Appeals Internal Rules of the Court of
Appeals (IRCA) Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges A
justice of the Court of Appeals, by ignoring or refusing to act on the
motion for his inhibition, violates Rule V, Section 3, third
paragraph of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA),
which provides that he should resolve such motion in writing with
copies furnished the other members of the Division, the Presiding
Justice, the Raffle Committee, and the Division Clerk of Court The
Court cannot agree with Justice Roxas proposition that the
issuance of the Temporary Restraining
_______________
*EN BANC.
366
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA

G.R. SP No. 103692
Order constitutes an implied denial of the motion to inhibit since

under Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA) the obligation
of the Justice to act on such a motion is mandatory.We agree
with the Panel of Investigators that by ignoring or refusing to act
on the motion for his inhibition, Justice Roxas violated Rule V,
Section 3, third paragraph of the IRCA, which provides that he
should resolve such motion in writing with copies furnished the
other members of the Division, the Presiding Justice, the Raffle
Committee, and the Division Clerk of Court. The pertinent
portion of the said provision states: Sec. 3. Motion to Inhibit a
Division or a Justice.x x x x x x A motion for voluntary
inhibition of a Justice shall be acted upon by him alone in writing,
copy furnished the other members of the Division, the Presiding
Justice, the Raffle Committee and the Division Clerk of Court.
This Court cannot agree with Justice Roxas proposition that the
issuance of the TRO constitutes an implied denial of the motion to
inhibit since under IRCA the obligation of the Justice to act on
such a motion is mandatory.
Same Same Same New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary Code of Judicial Conduct Speedy
Disposition of Cases Justice Roxas failure to act on the other
motions of the parties violated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the 1989
Code of Judicial Conduct (which applies in a suppletory manner to
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary)
providing that a judge shall dispose of the courts business
promptly and decide cases within the required periods.The
Court finds welltaken the Panels finding that Justice Roxas
failure to act on the other motions of the parties violated Canon 3,
Rule 3.05 of the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct (which applies in a
suppletory manner to the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary) providing that: Rule 3.05.A judge shall
dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within
the required periods.
Same Same Same Same Same Same Gross Inefficiency It has
become wellsettled in jurisprudence that even just undue delay in
the resolving pending motions or incidents within the
reglamentary period fixed by law is not excusable and constitutes
gross inefficiency.Even Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct mandates that [j]udges shall perform all
judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Thus, it has

become wellsettled in juris
367
VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
367

G.R. SP No. 103692
prudence that even just undue delay in the resolving pending

motions or incidents within the reglamentary period fixed by law
is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. With more
reason, this Court finds suspicious and reprehensible the failure
of Justice Roxas to act at all on pending motions and incidents in
CAG.R. SP No. 103692.
Same Same Same Dishonesty The fabrications and
falsehoods that Justice Roxas blithely proferred to the Panel in
explanation/justification of his questioned handling of the
Meralco case demonstrated that he lacks the qualification of
integrity and honesty expected of a magistrate and a member of the
appellate court.Indeed, the fabrications and falsehoods that
Justice
Roxas
blithely
proferred
to
the
Panel
in
explanation/justification of his questioned handling of the Meralco
case demonstrated that he lacks the qualification of integrity and
honesty expected of a magistrate and a member of the appellate
court. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, dishonesty is
considered a serious offense that may warrant the penalty of
dismissal from the service. Under the Rule IV, Section 52 of the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
dishonesty is likewise considered a grave offense and warrants
the penalty of dismissal even for the first offense. In the past, the
Court has had the occasion to rule that: . . . dishonesty and
falsification are considered grave offenses warranting the penalty
of dismissal from service upon the commission of the first offense.
On numerous occasions, the Court did not hesitate to impose such
extreme punishment on employees found guilty of these offenses.
Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the
extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of
retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual
disqualification for reemployment in the government service.
Dishonesty has no place in the judiciary.
Same Same Same New Code of Judicial Conduct There is an
old adage which says to gain respect one must learn to give itif
judges and justices are expected to treat litigants, counsels and
subordinates with respect and fairness, with more reason, that
judges and justices should give their fellow magistrates the
courtesy and professional regard due to them as their colleagues in
the Judiciary.There is an old adage which says to gain respect
one must learn to give it. If judges and justices are expected to
treat litigants, counsels and subordinates with respect and

fairness, with more
368
368

G.R. SP No. 103692
reason, that judges and justices should give their fellow

magistrates the courtesy and professional regard due to them as
their colleagues in the Judiciary. Thus, in Canon 5, Section 3 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are expected to carry
out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons,
such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial
colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such duties. This Court
cannot view 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 of Appeals. It behooves
the Court to remind all magistrates that their high office
demands compliance with the most exacting standards of
propriety and decorum.
Same Same Same Same As the visible representation of the
law and justice, judges are expected to conduct themselves in a
manner that would enhance respect and confidence of the people in
the judicial system The Court will not hesitate to sanction with
the highest penalty magistrates who exhibit manifest undue
interest in their assigned cases.We reiterate here that as the
visible representation of the law and justice, judges are expected
to conduct themselves in a manner that would enhance respect
and confidence of the people in the judicial system. The New Code
of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that
judges must not only maintain their independence, integrity and
impartiality but they must also avoid any appearance of
impropriety or partiality, which may erode the peoples faith in
the judiciary. This standard applies not only to the decision itself,
but also to the process by which the decision is made. This Court
will not hesitate to sanction with the highest penalty magistrates
who exhibit manifest undue interest in their assigned cases.
Same Same Legal Ethics Attorneys Lawyers should refrain from
any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance
of influencing the Court.In his testimony before the Panel,
Chairman Sabio admits that he called up Justice Sabio on May
30, 2008 from Davao City, in response to a resquest for help from
a member of the Board of Trustees of Meralco. Notwithstanding
the fact that Chairman Sabio called to relay to Justice Sabio the
rightness of the GSIS cause and asked him to help GSIS and
that Justice Sabio allegedly told his brother that he would act in
accor
369
369

G.R. SP No. 103692
dance with his conscience, the same still constituted a violation of

Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers,
which provides 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 of the Bar, it
is incomprehensible to this Court how the brothers can justify
their improper conversation regarding the Meralco case.
Same Same Court of Appeals It was improper for Justice
Sabio to hold on to the chairmanship of the Ninth Division despite
the return of the regular Chairman The Court likewise notes with
disfavor Justice Sabios stubborn insistence on his own
interpretation of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA)
and hostile, dismissive attitude towards equally wellreasoned
positions of his colleagues on the proper interpretation of their
rules.Based on the facts on record, the Court is wary of
declaring that Justice Sabio had been influenced by his brother by
speculating that he would have favored GSIS had he been a part
of the division which rendered the decision in the Meralco case.
However, we do find that it was improper for Justice Sabio to hold
on to the chairmanship of the Ninth Division despite the return of
Justice Reyes, when Justice Sabios designation as acting
chairman was clearly only for the duration of Justice Reyes leave
of absence. We likewise note with disfavor his stubborn insistence
on his own interpretation of the IRCA and hostile, dismissive
attitude towards equally wellreasoned positions of his colleagues
on the proper interpretation of their rules. Such conduct on the
part of Justice Sabio did nothing to aid in the swift and amicable
resolution of his dispute with Justice Reyes but rather fanned the
flames of resentment between them. We deem this sort of
behavior unbecoming for a magistrate of his stature.
Same Same Same Simple Misconduct Conduct Unbecoming of a
Justice The continued communications between a Court of
Appeals Justice and another person even after the latters rejected
bribery attempt is highly inappropriate and shows poor judgment
on the part of the Justice Justice Sabios indiscreet and imprudent
conversations regarding a pending case with his brother and
another person and his actuations in the chairmanship dispute
constitute simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a justice
of the Court of Appeals.The Court agrees with the Panel that
the allegation of solicitation on the part of Justice Sabio is not
credible. Nevertheless, the continued communications between
Justice Sabio and Mr. De Borja
370
370

G.R. SP No. 103692
even after the latters rejected bribery attempt is highly

inappropriate and shows poor judgment on the part of Justice
Sabio who should have acted in preservation of the dignity of his
judicial office and the institution to which he belongs. Premises
considered, this Court is of the view that Justice Sabios indiscreet
and imprudent conversations 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 of a justice of the Court of Appeals which
warrant the penalty of two (2) months suspension without pay.
Same Same Same New Code of Judicial Conduct Under
Canon 5, Section 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges
are mandated to show the appropriate consideration and respect
for their colleagues in the Judiciary.It bears repeating here that
under Canon 5, Section 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
judges are mandated to show the appropriate consideration and
respect for their colleagues in the Judiciary. Thus, we adopt the
finding of the Panel on this point and find Justice Reyes guilty of
simple misconduct, which is mitigated by the fact that he
repeatedly asked Presiding Justice Vasquez to act on his request
to rule on the conflicting interpretation of the IRCA. However,
Justice Reyes should be reprimanded for taking part in the
decision of the subject case without awaiting the ruling of the
Presiding Justice.
Same Same Same Code of Judicial Conduct Conduct
Unbecoming a Justice The act of Justice of the Court of Appeals
Justice in allowing a fellow justice to induce her to deviate from
established procedure constitutes conduct unbecoming a justice.
The following sections of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
are instructive in this regard: SEC. 1. Judges shall exercise the
judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of
the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of
the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure,
threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for
any reason. SEC. 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be
independent from judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which
the judge is obliged to make independently. Allowing a fellow
justice to induce her to deviate from established procedure
constitutes conduct unbecoming a justice for which Justice
DimarananVidal should be ADMONISHED to be more
circumspect in the performance of her judicial duties.
371
371

G.R. SP No. 103692
Same Same Same Much of the trouble now being faced by

the Court of Appeals could have been averted by timely, judicious
and decisive action on the part of the Presiding Justice Presiding
Justice Vasquez is severely reprimanded for his failure to act
promptly and decisively on the controversy as required of him by
the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA).It is the view
of the Panel of Investigators that Presiding Justice Vasquez failed
to provide the leadership expected of him as head of the Court of
Appeals. The following quote from the Report summarizes the
perceived lapses on the part of the Presiding Justice: Clearly,
Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. had been indecisive in dealing with
the turmoil arising from the Meralco case. He vacillated and
temporized on resolving the impasse between Justice Sabio, Jr.
and Justice B. L. Reyes over the chairmanship of the Division
that should hear and decide the Meralco case. He failed to take
action on the reported bribeoffer by Meralco to J. Sabio, Jr. He
hesitated to assert his leadership of the Court even when the
parties repeatedly urged him to lay down the rule for them to
follow. Was he hampered by the fact that he has relativestwo
daughtersemployed in the GSIS, and a sister who is a
consultant thereof? He pleaded lack of authority. Was he not
aware then, or did he discover too late, that under Section 11,
Rule VIII of the IRCA, he is in fact authorized to act on any
matter involving the Court and its members? In the light of the
foregoing observations of the Panel, this Court is of the view that
much of the trouble now being faced by the Court of Appeals could
have been averted by timely, judicious and decisive action on the
part of the Presiding Justice. Certainly, this unpleasant and
trying episode in failure to act in the early part of his tenure as
Presiding Justice has indelibly impressed upon him what is
required of him as leader of the second highest court in the land.
Nevertheless, Presiding Justice Vasquez is hereby severely
reprimanded for his failure to act promptly and decisively on the
controversy as required of him by the IRCA.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Impropriety among CA Justices Involved in CAG.R. SP
No. 103692 Entitled Antonio Rosete, et al. vs. SEC, et
al.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Estrella C. Elamparo for Government Service

Insurance System.
372
372
Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

CAG.R. SP No. 103692
Vitaliano N. Aguirre II for Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes.

PER CURIAM:
The Judiciary, which is acclaimed as the firmest pillar of
our democratic institutions, is vested by the Constitution
with the power to settle disputes between parties and to
determine their rights and obligations under the law. For
judicial decisions, which form part of the law of the land, to
be credible instruments in the peaceful and democratic
resolution of conflicts, our courts must be perceived to be
and, in fact be, impartial, independent, competent and just.
To accomplish this end, it is imperative that members of
the Judiciary from its highest magistrates to its humblest
employees adhere to the strictest code of ethics and the
highest standards of propriety and decorum. Indeed, it is
unfortunate that one of the countrys second highest courts,
the Court of Appeals, should be presently embroiled in
scandal and controversy. It is this Courts bounden duty to
determine the culpability or innocence of the members of
the Judiciary involved in the said controversy and to
discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to
the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity,
independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in
the performance of official functions.
The present administrative matter arose from the Letter
dated August 1, 2008 of Court of Appeals Presiding Justice
Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (Presiding Justice Vasquez),
referring to this Court for appropriate action the much
publicized dispute and charges of impropriety among the
justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) involved in CAG.R.
SP No. 103692 entitled Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities
and Exchange Commission, et al.
To assist in its investigation of this sensitive matter, the
Court in its Resolution dated August 4, 2008 constituted a
threeperson panel (the Panel of Investigators) composed
of retired Justices of the Court namely, Mme. Justice
Carolina GrioAquino as Chairperson, Mme. Justice
Flerida Ruth P.
373
373

Romero and Mr. Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. as Members.

The Panel of Investigators was tasked to investigate the (a)
alleged improprieties of the actions of the Justices of the
Court of Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 103692 (Antonio V.
Rosete, et al. v. SEC, et al.) and (b) alleged rejected offer or
solicitation of bribe disclosed respectively by Mr. Justice

Jose Sabio and Mr. Francis de Borja.
A narration of relevant events and facts, as found by the
Investigating Panel, follows:
On April 15, 2008, Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (Justice
Reyes), then Chairperson of the Ninth Division of the CA,
filed an application for leave from May 15, 2008 to June 5,
2008.1
In Office Order No. 14908CMV dated May 14, 2008
issued by Presiding Justice Vasquez, Justice Jose C.
Mendoza (Justice Mendoza) was designated by the Raffle
Committee as Acting Chairman of the Ninth Division
during the absence of Justice Reyes. Apart from his duties
as regular senior member of the Fifth Division, Justice
Mendoza was authorized to act on all cases submitted to
the Ninth Division for final resolution and/or appropriate
action, except ponencia, from May 15, 2008 to June 5, 2008
or until Justice Reyes reports back for duty. The said office
order likewise applied to the other Division(s) where
Justice Reyes had participated or took part as regular
member or in an acting capacity.2
On May 29, 2008, Antonio V. Rosete, Manuel M. Lopez,
Felipe B. Alfonso, Jesus P. Francisco, Christian S. Monsod,
Elpidio L. Ibaez, and Francis Giles B. Puno, as officers,
directors and/or representatives of the Manila Electric
Company (hereinafter to be collectively referred to as
Meralco), filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining
order (TRO)
_______________
1Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Reyes, par. 2.
2Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 383.
374
374

against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),

Commissioner Jesus Enrique G. Martinez, Commissioner
Hubert B. Guevarra, and the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS).3 Aside from the application for
immediate issuance of a TRO, petitioners prayed for the
issuance of a preliminary injunction that should thereafter
be declared permanent, as well as a declaration of nullity of
the cease and desist and show cause orders issued by the
SEC through Commissioner Martinez. The petition was
received by the CA at 10:49 a.m. on May 29, 2008 and

docketed as CAG.R. SP No. 103692.
On the same day, petitioners simultaneously filed at
10:48 a.m. an urgent motion for a special raffle. Presiding
Justice Vasquez granted the motion in a handwritten note
on the face of the urgent motion,4 and CAG.R. No. 103692
was raffled to Justice Vicente Q. Roxas (Justice Roxas).5 At
3:10 p.m., the Office of Presiding Justice Vasquez received
a letter from Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo (Atty. Elamparo),
Chief Legal Counsel of the GSIS, requesting the reraffling
of the case in the presence of the parties in the interest of
transparency and fairness.6 At 4:10 p.m. on that day, the
GSIS filed an ex parte motion to defer action on any
incident in the petition pending the resolution of their
motion for the reraffle of the case.7
Atty. Elamparo, accompanied by Atty. Orlando P.
Polinar, also of the GSIS Law Office, personally filed the
urgent motion to defer action on the petition pending the
resolution of their motion to reraffle the case. Since the
receiving clerk of the Court of Appeals could not assure
them that the motion
_______________
3 The petition was filed by counsel for Meralco, Quaison Makalintal
Barot Torres Ibarra & Sison through Atty. Roel Eric C. Garcia.
4Rollo of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, p. 178.
5Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Presiding Justice Vasquez, par. 1.
6 Annex A to Affidavit dated August 19, 2008 of Atty. Estrella C.
Elamparo.
375
375

would be transmitted to the Court of Appeals Division,

Attys. Elamparo and Polinar allegedly went to the office of
Justice Roxas for the sole purpose of personally furnishing
him a copy of the motion.8 They initially talked to a male
clerk who referred them to one of the lawyers, who,
however, told them that it was not possible for them to
personally hand a copy of the motion to Justice Roxas.
Thus, Attys. Elamparo and Polinar left a copy of the motion
to the staff but no one wanted to sign and acknowledge
receipt of the copy.9
On May 30, 2008, Justice Reyes filed an application for
the extension of his leave until June 6, 2008.10 In the
meantime, Justice Mendoza, who had been designated to
replace Justice Reyes during the latters absence, informed

Justice Roxas through a letter that he (Justice Mendoza)
was inhibiting from the case on the ground that he used to
be a lawyer of the Meralco.11 Hence, in an Emergency
Request for Raffle, Justice Roxas informed the Raffle
Committee about the inhibition.12
Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. (Justice Sabio) was assigned as
Acting Chairman of the Ninth Division by raffle, in lieu of
Justice Mendoza.13 At 11:30 a.m., the office of Justice
Myrna DimarananVidal (Justice DimarananVidal)
received a notice of emergency deliberation with the new
Acting Chairman of the Special Ninth Division, apparently
sent by Justice Roxas, stating that her presence and that of
Justice Sabio, Jr. were indispensable on account of the
national interest involved in CAG.R. SP No. 103692.14
_______________
8 Affidavit dated August 19, 2008 of Atty. Elamparo, par. 7.
9 Affidavit dated August 19, 2008 of Atty. Elamparo, par. 7.
10Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, par. 1.
376
376

Meanwhile, Atty. Elamparo received a telephone call

from somebody who did not identify herself but (who) said
that she had important information regarding the Meralco
case. The unidentified caller told Atty. Elamparo that a
TRO was already being prepared and that certain Meralco
lawyers had in fact been talking to Justice Roxas. The
caller warned Atty. Elamparo against Justice Roxas who
had administrative cases and was very notorious, but
when prodded, the caller would not disclose more details.15
At about 1:30 p.m. also on May 30, 2008, Justice Sabio
received a telephone call in his chambers from his older
brother, Chairman Camilo Sabio (Chairman Sabio) of the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).16
Chairman Sabio informed his brother that he (Justice
Sabio) had been named the third member of the division
to which the MERALCOGSIS case had been raffled.
Justice Sabio was surprised as he had not yet been
officially informed about the matter. Chairman Sabio
likewise informed him that a TRO had been prepared.
Chairman Sabio then tried to convince Justice Sabio of the

rightness of the stand of the GSIS and the SEC, and asked
his brother to help the GSIS, which represents the interest
of the poor people. Justice Sabio told his brother that he
would vote according to [his] conscience and that the most
that he could do was to have the issuance of the TRO and
the injunctive relief scheduled for oral arguments, at
which the respondents must be able to convince him that
the TRO indeed had no legal basis.
In his signed testimony,17 which he read before the
Panel of Investigators, Chairman Sabio narrated the
circumstances of this call to his brother on May 30, 2008. It
appears to have been prompted by a call from a member of
the Board of Trustees of GSIS. To quote from Chairman
Sabios testimony:
_______________
15Affidavit dated August 19, 2008 of Atty. Elamparo, pars. 89.
16Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, par. 2, as corrected
by his testimony (TSN), August 26, 2008, pp. 158161.
17Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 605.
377
377

Last May 30, 2008 I was in Davao City Airport with my wife,
Marlene, waiting for our 1:25 P.M. PAL flight to Manila. xxx
xxx xxx.
As we were boarding, I received a call from Atty. Jesus I.
Santos, a Member of the Board of Trustees of GSIS. We had
known each other and had become friends since before Martial
Law because as Chief Counsel of the Federation of Free Farmers
(FFF) we were opposing counsel in various cases in Bulacan.
Attorney Santos informed me that the dispute between the
GSIS and MERALCO was now in the Court of Appeals and, that
as a matter of fact, my brother, Justice Sabio, was chair of the
Division to which the case had been assigned. Being a Trustee,
Attorney Santos requested me to help. I readily welcomed the
request for help and thanked him. There was no mystery about
his having known of the results of the raffle because the lawyers
are notified thereof and are present thereat. As a Trustee,
Attorney Santos should be concerned and involved. As such it is
his duty to seek assistance for the GSIS where he could
legitimately find it. He was right in seeking my assistance.
I was aware of the controversy between the GSIS and
MERALCO. In essence this was in fact a controversy between the
long suffering public and the mightyfinancially and politically
controlling owners of MERALCO. MERALCO is not only a public

utility but also a monopoly. Fortunately, GSIS had taken up the
cudgels for the long suffering public, who are at the mercy of
MERALCO.
xxx
xxx
x x x.
Immediately, I tried to contact Justice Sabio. But due to the
noise I could not hear him. So I waited until we would arrive in
Manila.
As we were leaving the Airport, I again got in touch with
Justice Sabio. After, he confirmed that he was in fact in the
Division to which the petition of MERALCO had been raffled. I
impressed upon him the character and essence of the controversy.
I asked him to help GSIS if the legal situation permitted. He said
he would decide according to his conscience. I said: of course.
xxx
xxx
x x x.
378
378

On the same day, May 30, 2008, GSIS filed an urgent ex

parte motion to inhibit Justice Roxas from CAG.R. No. SP
103692.18 The Special Cases Section of the Court of
Appeals received a copy of the motion at 11:58 a.m.19
Claiming that the TRO was issued to preempt the
hearing scheduled in the afternoon of that day before the
SEC, the GSIS Law Office, through Atty. Marcial C.
Pimentel, Jr., set forth its reason for the motion for
inhibition as follows:
3. Unfortunately, reports have reached respondent GSIS
that the Honorable ponente has been in contact with certain
lawyers of MERALCO and has in fact already prepared a draft
resolution granting the TRO without affording respondents even a
summary hearing. The records of this case was (sic), per
information, immediately transmitted to the Honorable ponente
upon his instructions. The worries of the respondent were
exacerbated when it learned that there are supposedly two
administrative cases pending against the Honorable ponente, both
of which involve allegations of bias and prejudice.
It turned out, however, that at that time, Justice Roxas

had not yet been officially notified by the Raffle Committee
that the case was raffled to him.20 Moreover, contrary to
the allegation of Atty. Elamparo that the raffle was rigged,
Justice Roxas had no hand in the raffle proceeding, which
was handled by the Division chaired by Justice Mariano del
Castillo with the use of a foolproof Las Vegas tambiolo,
like the lotto machine.21
Justice Roxas brought to the office of Justice Sabio, for

the latters signature, the TRO which he had prepared,
already signed by himself and Justice DimarananVidal.
Convinced of the urgency of the TRO, Justice Sabio signed
it on condition that the case will be set for oral arguments.
_______________
18Affidavit dated August 19, 2008 of Atty. Elamparo, par. 12.
20Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Roxas, p. 3.
379
379

Thus, at 2:08 p.m. on May 30, 2008,22 the Special Ninth

Division composed of Justices Sabio, Roxas, and
DimarananVidal, issued the Resolution granting the TRO
prayed for by the petitioners and directing the respondents
to file their respective comments (not a motion to dismiss)
to the petition within ten days from notice, with the
petitioners given five days from receipt of that comment
within which to file their reply. The Special Ninth Division
also set the hearing on the application for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction for 10:00 a.m. on June 23
and 24, 2008. In the same Resolution, parties were directed
to file their respective memorandum of authorities in
connection with the application for a writ of preliminary
injunction together with their comments/reply. After the
parties had filed their memorandum of authorities relative
to the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, the
prayer for the said writ would be considered submitted for
resolution fortyfive (45) days from promulgation of this
Resolution. The SEC received a copy of the Resolution at
4:03 p.m. on that day.23
For Justice Roxas, the issuance of the TRO was an
implied denial of the motion for inhibition filed against
him. There was no need to put in writing the action on the
motion for inhibition.24
At 3:00 p.m., the Special Cases Section of the Court of
Appeals received the Urgent Motion to Lift Temporary
Restraining Order and To Hold Its Enforcement in
Abeyance filed by the GSIS.25 Justice Roxas did not act on
the Urgent Motion because he did not consider it
meritorious.26
On May 31, 2008, Justice Sabio received a cellular phone
call from Mr. Francis De Borja (Mr. De Borja), a person he
_______________
23 Delivery receipt attached to the dorsal side of the notice of
resolution, Rollo of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, p. 215.
24TSN August 14, 2008 5064.
26TSN August 14, 2008, pp. 7476.
380
380

had lost contact with for almost a year already.27 Mr. De

Borja greeted him with: Mabuhay ka, Justice. When
Justice Sabio, Jr. asked Mr. De Borja why he said that, Mr.
De Borja told him that the Makati Business Club was
happy with his having signed the TRO, to which Justice
Sabio retorted, I voted according to my conscience.
On June 5, 2008, the GSIS Law Office received a letter
dated June 2, 2008 of Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.
informing GSIS Chief Legal Counsel, Atty. Elamparo, that
the Court of Appeals could not grant her request for the re
raffling of CAG.R. SP No. 103692 in the presence of the
parties in the interest of transparency and fairness, as the
case had been raffled in accordance with the procedure
under the IRCA.28
On June 10, 2008, Justice B. L. Reyes reported back to
work.29
On June 11, 2008, at 3:50 p.m.,30 the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the SEC, filed a
manifestation and motion praying for the admission of the
comment (to the petition) attached thereto, as well as the
advance and additional copies of the memorandum of
authorities.
On June 12, 2008, at 4:53 p.m., the GSIS filed its
comment/opposition to the petition in CAG.R. SP No.
103692,31 as well as its memorandum of authorities.
On June 16, 2008, the Division Clerk of Court, Atty.
Teresita Custodio (Atty. Custodio), delivered to Justice
Reyes the cartilla of the Meralco case, and informed him
that a hearing on the prayer for the issuance of a
preliminary injunction had been scheduled at 10:00 a.m. on
June 23 and 24, 2008.32 However, on the same day, the
Division Clerk of Court came back
_______________
27Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, par.4.
28Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 513.

31Rollo of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, Vol. I, p. 335 Vol. II, p. 636.
381
381

to retrieve the cartilla upon instructions of Justice Sabio.

Justice Reyes instructed his staff to return the cartilla and
when he asked the Division Clerk of Court why she was
retrieving it, she said that Justice Sabio demanded that it
be returned back to him. Personally affronted by the
domineering and superior stance of Justice Sabio, Justice
Reyes read and reread Secs. 1, 2(d) & 5, Rule VI (Process
of Adjudication) until he was satisfied that he should sit as
Division Chairman in the Meralco case.33
In either June 17 or 18, 2008, Justice Sabio requested
the rollo of CAG.R. SP No. 103692 from Justice Roxas so
that he could study the case before the hearing.34 Justice
Roxas asked him whether Justice Reyes would preside over
the hearing. Justice Sabio explained the reason why he, not
Justice Reyes, should preside. Justice Roxas promised to
instruct the Division Clerk of Court to send the rollo over
to Justice Sabio. The next day, the Division Clerk of Court
told Justice Sabio that the rollo was with Justice Reyes.
When the rollo was eventually transmitted to Justice
Sabio, the Division Clerk of Court asked him whether the
rollo should be with Justice Reyes. Justice Sabio explained
why the rollo should be with him.
On June 18, 2008, petitioners filed a motion for an
extension of five days or until June 23, 2008 within which
to file their consolidated memoranda of authorities and
reply to the comment of the SEC.35
On June 19, 2008, MERALCO filed an exparte
manifestation together with their reply to the comment of
the GSIS.36 Meanwhile, Justice B. L. Reyes asked Atty.
Custodio to report on what transpired between her and
Justice Sabio when she
_______________
33Affidavit Justice B.L. Reyes, par. 8.
34Affidavit of August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, Jr., par. 6.
36Rollo of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, Vol. II, pp. 862 & 867.
382
382

returned the cartilla. Tearyeyed, Atty. Custodio begged

off from making a report.37
Justice Reyes decided to consult the Presiding Justice
to avoid an ugly confrontation with the Justices on the
highly politicized case involving giants of the Philippine
society. He explained to the Presiding Justice his
understanding of the relevant IRCA rules and the actual
practice in similar situations in the past. The Presiding
Justice promised to talk with Justice Sabio and, for the
sake of transparency and future reference, Justice Reyes
requested permission to write an inquiry on the matter.38
On the same day, Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice
Vasquez a letter39 calling the attention of Justice Edgardo
P. Cruz (Justice Cruz), Chairperson of the Committee on
Rules, to the dilemma as to who between him and Justice
Sabio should receive CAG.R. SP No. 103692. Justice
Reyes posed these questions before the Presiding Justice:
Will the case remain with Justice Jose Sabio, Jr. as Acting
Chairman of the Special 9th Division and who participated in the
initial Resolution of the case?
Will the case revert to the regular 9th Division with the
undersigned as Chairman?
For Justice Reyes, the dilemma was engendered by

this provision of Section 2 of Rule VI of the IRCA:
(2) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of
these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course (2)
granting writ of preliminary injunction (3) granting new trial
and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the
case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned
for study and report and the Justices who participated therein,
regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same
station.
_______________
38Affidavit of Justice B.L. Reyes, par. 9.
383
383

The hearing on the application for preliminary injunction

having been scheduled for June 23 and 24, 2008, Justice
Reyes considered it necessary that the issues be resolved
before that date. Moreover, the referral of the controversy
to the Presiding Justice would give him sufficient time to
seriously study the case before the hearing.40
On June 20, 2008, Presiding Justice Vasquez referred
the letter of Justice Reyes to Justice Cruz, Chairperson of
the Committee on Rules, noting some urgency involved as
the hearing of the case is on Monday, June 23, 2008.41
On that same day, Justice Cruz wrote Justice Reyes a
letter42 quoting Section 2 (d), Rule VI of the IRCA and
stating that the [i]ssuance of a TRO is not among the
instances where the Justices who participated in the case
shall remain therein. Hence, Justice Cruz opined that
[n]otwithstanding the issuance of the TRO (not writ of
preliminary injunction), the case reverted to the regular
Chairman (Justice Reyes) of the Ninth Division upon his
return. Justice Reyes received a copy of the letter of
Justice Cruz in the afternoon of that day.43
During the hearings of this case, Justice Cruz explained
his opinion before the Panel. He opined that the motion to
lift the TRO is not a motion for reconsideration because
Rule 52 of the Rules of Court states that a motion for
reconsideration may be filed with respect to a decision or a
final resolution. A TRO is not a final resolution but an
interlocutory order. Moreover, since the subject of the
hearing on June 23, 2008 was on the application for
preliminary injunction, Justice Sabio had no right to
participate in the hearing because as an Acting Chairman,
his authority was only to act on the motion to lift the TRO.
Under the IRCA, the position of Justice Sabio
_______________
40Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice B.L. Reyes, par. 10.
384
384

invoked the exception to the general rule in the IRCA.

However, the settled principle is to construe a rule strictly
against the exception. The participation of Justice Sabio in

the hearing on June 23, 2008 was a passport to
participation in the decisionmaking process, in violation of
the IRCA.44
Justice Reyes having consulted with him, the Presiding
Justice referred the matter to Justice Sabio who in turn,
opined that a temporary restraining order is part of the
injunctive relief or at least its initial action such that he
should be the one to chair the Division.45 In his office after
that consultation with the Presiding Justice, Justice Reyes
found that the Division Clerk of Court had given him a
copy of the cartilla just in case he would preside over the
hearing. In the evening, the Presiding Justice called up
Justice Reyes to inform him that Justice Sabio insisted
that he would preside over the hearing of the case, and
that the opinion of Justice Cruz, who was junior to
Justice Sabio was no better than his own opinion.46
It turned out that, upon receipt of a copy of the letter of
Justice Cruz, Justice Sabio told the Presiding Justice by
telephone that he disagreed with the opinion of Justice
Cruz because he did not sign in an official capacity as
Chairman of the Rules Committee, but in his personal
capacity and hence, the opinion of Justice Sabio was as
good as his, as in fact I (Justice Sabio, Jr.) am even more
senior than he.47 Justice Sabio told the Presiding Justice
that he smelled something fishy about the move to
transfer the case to the Ninth Division especially because
Justice Reyes did not inform him
_______________
44TSN August 13, 2008, pp. 248259.
46Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Reyes, pars. 12 & 13.
47Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, Jr. par. 7 Rollo of
A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 74.
385
385

about it despite the fact that they were seated together on

three occasions.
Justice Sabio smelled something fishy because a couple
or so weeks ago, he attended a Chairpersons meeting
regarding the leakage of the ponencia of Justice Bato, with
Justice Reyes as Chairperson and Justice Jose Mendoza as
senior member. The meeting was called because prior to
the promulgation of the decision of Justice Bato, the losing
party already filed a motion for the inhibition of the

ponente. According to Justice Sabio information on the
decision could not have been leaked by Justice Bato but by
a member of the Division.48
The Presiding Justice did not do anything anymore to
prevent an unpalatable situation at the scheduled June
23, 2008 hearing, notwithstanding the conflicting
opinions of Justices Reyes and Sabio. The personal view
of the Presiding Justice was at the time with Justice Cruz
but Justice Sabio had a different interpretation. Neither
did the Presiding Justice suggest that the Rules Committee
be convened because the Committee then had only two
members. He felt that it would be better if Justices Reyes
and Sabio could settle it between themselves. The
Presiding Justice was seeing the Justices practically
everyday because he did not want these things to blow
up. However, neither did it enter the mind of the
Presiding Justice that the hearing on June 23 could be
reset. Had he known that there was a motion to inhibit
Justice Roxas, he would have changed his position that it
should be the Sabio group.49
Also on June 20, 2008, the GSIS requested permission to
conduct a powerpoint presentation during the hearing.50
Likewise the SEC, through the OSG prayed that it be
allowed the use of Microsoft Powerpoint Application at the
June 23
_______________
48Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, Jr., par. 8 Rollo of
A.M. No. 08811CA, pp. 7475.
49TSN August 12, 2008 (a.m.) 137141, 146147, 153.
386
386

and 24, 2008 hearings.51 Justice Roxas did not act on the
motions.
On June 21, 2008, Justice Sabio came to know that it
was the Division chaired by Justice Reyes that would
handle the case on account of the opinion of Justice Cruz.52
In the morning of June 23, 2008, Justice Sabio consulted
with Justice Martin Villarama, Jr. (Justice Villarama)
who advised him, in no uncertain terms, that his stand
was correct and that he should remain in the case.53
Justice Villarama said that the case should remain with
the Special Ninth Division regardless of the transfer of the
ponente to the Eighth Division because of the pending

motion to lift TRO, which the Special Ninth Division
should resolve following the general rule that when a
decision or resolution is rendered by a division, a motion for
reconsideration thereof should be acted upon by all the
Members of that division, whether regular or special, which
participated in the rendition of the decision or resolution,
except in case of death, retirement or resignation of such
Member.54
That morning, Justice Roxas also consulted Justice
Villarama. The latter told the former that since there was a
motion to lift the TRO, Justice Roxas should first rule on
the motion. He also advised Justice Roxas to inhibit
himself from the case, as there might be a problem (mag
inhibit ka baka magkaproblema). Justice Roxas told
Justice Villarama that he would follow his suggestion.55
Justice Reyes also went to the office of Justice Villarama
to tell him of his strong conviction that the issuance of a
TRO is not among the instances provided in Sec. 2 (d), Rule
VI when the case shall remain with those Justices who
participated in
_______________
52TSN August 11, 2008, pp. 4447.
54Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Villarama, par. 3.
55TSN August 12, 2008 (p.m.), pp. 206211.
387
387

the case regardless of their transfer to other division(s).

Justice Villarama told Justice Reyes that per his
understanding and interpretation of said provision, x x x
the case should remain with the Special Ninth Division.56
At 9:50 a.m., the Office of the Division Clerk of Court
called Justice Reyes to inform him that the parties and
their counsels were already in the hearing room. Justice
Reyes informed the caller that he could not preside as
Justice Sabio had apparently hardened his position and
he wanted to avoid an ugly spectacle. His name plate was
displayed in the hearing room but Justice Sabio moved to
another hearing room.57 Allegedly, the removal of the
nameplate of Justice Reyes was the talk of the Court of
Appeals for weeks.58
Villaraza Cruz Marcelo and Angangco entered its

appearance as counsel for Meralco.59 At the hearing,
Justice Sabio presided with Justices Roxas and
DimarananVidal in attendance. Justice Roxas, the
ponente, did not ask a single question.60 Not one of the
Justices in attendance brought up the motion for inhibition
filed by the GSIS against Justice Roxas.61 In open court,
the parties in CAG.R. SP No. 103692 agreed to submit,
within 15 days, simultaneous memoranda on the injunctive
relief prayed for by the petitioners, after which the
application for preliminary injunction would be deemed
submitted for resolution.62
On June 25, 2008, or about two days after the separate
conversations of Justice Villarama with Justices Sabio and
Reyes, the Presiding Justice also consulted Justice
Villarama
_______________
56Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Villarama, par. 5.
59Rollo of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, Vol. II, p. 977.
60 Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, par. 11 Rollo of
A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 75 TSN of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, June 23,
2008.
61TSN August 8, 2008 100101.
62TSN of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, June 23, 2008, pp. 169170.
388
388

about the letterqueries of Justices Roxas and Reyes on

which Division should resolve the matter of injunctive
relief or issue the decision in CAG.R. SP No. 103692.63
The Presiding Justice issued Office Order No. 19608
CMV reconstituting the Committee on Rules and
designating Justice Cruz as the Chairperson, with Justices
Rebecca De GuiaSalvador, Reyes, Hakim Abdulwahid, and
Noel G. Tijam, as members.64 The Committee on Rules was
tasked to propose amendments to the IRCA on or before
August 15, 2008 for submission and adoption of the Court
en banc. (The office order was later amended by Office
Order No. 19608CMV on August 4, 2008 to include as
members Justices Mario L. Guaria III, Lucas P.
Bersamin, and Teresita DyLiacco Flores.65) The Rules
Committee used to be composed of only three members,
namely: Justices Cruz, Abdulwahid, and Roberto Barrios,
now deceased, as members, with Justice Cruz as

chairperson.66
It was also on June 25, 2008 that Presiding Justice
Vasquez issued Office Order No. 20008CMV stating that,
in view of the retirement of Justices Enrique Lanzanas,
Lucenito N. Tagle, Agustin S. Dizon, and Rodrigo Cosico,
and the appointments of Justices Ruben C. Ayson and
Edgardo L. delos Santos, the Divisions would have a new
composition effective July 4, 2008.67 Under that office
order, Justice Sabio became the Chairman of the Sixth
Division, with Justice DimarananVidal as a member.
Justice Reyes became the Chairman of the Eighth Division,
with Justices Roxas and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
(Justice Bruselas) as members.
On June 29, 2008, Justice Reyes went on official leave of
absence to use a business class airplane ticket to Sydney,
_______________
63Affidavit of August 7, 2008 of Justice Villarama, Jr., par. 6.
64Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 474.
65Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 475.
66TSN August 8, 2008, pp. 230, 225.
67Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 275.
389
389

Australia that he had won in an APT Golf Tournament in

January 2008. He was still on official leave when the
reorganization of the Court of Appeals took place on July 4,
2008.68
On July 1, 2008, Justice Roxas told Justice Sabio that he
did not attend the Access to Courts (sic) summit on June 30
and July 1, 2008 at the Court of Appeals Auditorium
because he was busy with the Meralco case. Justice Sabio
was taken aback because at that time the parties had not
yet submitted their memoranda.69
That same afternoon, Mr. De Borja again called up
Justice Sabio, seeking to meet with him for an important
matter. Because Justice Sabio had 68 p.m. classes at the
Ateneo Law School, they agreed to meet after his classes
but not for long because his wife and his daughter, Atty.
Silvia Jo Sabio who is an Attorney VI in the Office of the
Chief Justice,70 would be waiting for him.71 According to
Justice Sabio, the conversation at that meeting with
Francis De Borja went as follows:
17. By the time my class was finished at 8 pm, Mr. De Borja

was already waiting for me at the Lobby Lounge of the 3rd Floor
of the Ateneo Law School. His first words to me were: Alam mo
Justice kung sino ang kasama ko sa kotse? Si Manolo Lopez. Then
he said: Noong tinatawagan kita at sinabi kong Mabuhay ka
Justice, si Manolo Lopez ang katabi ko noon. Nasa Amerika siya,
kaya ako na lang ang pumunta dito para makiusap sa yo. Alam
mo, itong kaso na ito is a matter of life and death for the Lopezes.
And alam mo naman what the Marcoses did to them, which is
being done now by the Arroyos.
_______________
69Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio par. 14 Rollo of A.M. No. 08
811 CA, p. 75.
70TSN August 8, 2008, p. 185.
71Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, par. 15 Rollo of A.M. No. 08
811CA, p. 75.
390
390

G.R. SP No. 103692
At that point he mentioned the impasse between Justice

Bienvenido Reyes and myself. He said: Alam naming may
problema kayo ni Justice Reyes tungkol sa chairmanship.
I was surprised how he came to know about it, as this was an
internal matter of the Court of Appeals which only happened
fairly recently and many associate justices of the CA were not
even aware of this. Just the same, I explained my stand and
why I could not relinquish the chairmanship to Justice Reyes.
He then replied: Alam mo, Justice ang opinion dito ni Nonong
Cruz ay ichallenge ang stand mo. Kaya lang, mayroon namang
nagsabi na it might become messy.
Then he bragged to me: Ako din ang responsible sa pag
recommend at paghire ng Villaraza Law Firm.
Then he explained that he was there to offer me a winwin
situation.
He said: Justice, mayroon kaming P10 million. Ready. Just give
way to Justice Reyes.
Then I said: Bakit ganun. Nakasisiguro sila sa kanya, sa akin
hindi?
He said: Mas komportable lang sila sa kanya.
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. But at the same
time, hindi ko rin magawang bastusin siya because I had
known him since 1993 and this was the first time that he had
ever treated me like this, or shown that he believed I could be

bought.
So I just told him: Francis, I cannot in conscience agree to that.
His answer was: Sabi ko nga sa kanila, mahirap ka talaga
papayag. Kasi may anak iyang Opus Dei. Numerary pa.
At this point, I just wanted to leave, so I told him I could not
stay long. I told him my wife and lawyer daughter were waiting.
391
391

G.R. SP No. 103692
Even then, he was already insistent. His parting words before I

left were: Just think about it, Justice.72
At that time, Mr. De Borja was carrying a sealed

brown paper bag, which he was handling as if something
important was inside. However, Justice Sabio did not
know if the bag contained P10 million.73 In his car, Justice
Sabio told his wife and his daughter, Silvia Jo, about the
offer of Mr. De Borja for Meralco.74
In his affidavit submitted to the Panel of Investigators,
Mr. De Borja describes himself as a businessman, a deal
maker, and project packager. On July 1, 2008, he invited
Justice Sabio for dinner to touch base and for chismis
about the MERALCOGSIS case. As the latter would have
evening classes at the Ateneo Law School, and his wife and
daughter would be waiting in their car after his classes,
they just agreed to meet at the lobbylounge of the School.
What Mr. De Borja knew about the MERALCO case
allegedly came from news reports but he was interested in
the news because he is a confirmed freeenterpriser.
Moreover, De Borja thought that there was [n]othing like
hearing things directly from the horses mouth.75
When Mr. De Borja and Justice Sabio met, Mr. De Borja
averred he was indeed carrying a bag, not an expensive
looking luggage. After parking his car at the Rockwell
basement, he took the escalator, intending to walk out of
the mall. On his way, he passed by the Kenneth Cole shop
and, since it was still early, he looked in and saw a Tshirt
he liked. He bought the Tshirt, which he brought before
the Panel of Investigators in the grey Kenneth Cole
Reaction bag. The photographs of the bag and the Tshirt
costing P1,650.00
_______________
72Id., par. 17 Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, pp. 7677.
73TSN August 11, 2008, pp. 9596, 160162.
74 Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Silvia Jo G. Sabio Rollo of A.M.

No. 08811CA, pp. 8384.
75Affidavit dated July 31, 2008 of Mr. De Borja
392
392

are marked Exhibits ADe Borja and A1De Borja and

attached to the rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, while the
photograph of the receipt issued by the Kenneth Cole
Boutique, marked as Exhibit A2De Borja, shows that
the purchase was made on July 1, 2008 at 19:47. He
stressed the bag did not contain P10 million.
Before the Panel, Justice Sabio claimed that the bag Mr.
De Borja brought during the hearing was not the bag that
Mr. De Borja was carrying when Justice Sabio saw him on
July 1, 2008. What Mr. De Borja allegedly brought with
him to the lobbylounge of the Ateneo Law School was a
brown bag with paper handle about 2/3 (of the Kenneth
Cole bag) in size. Justice Sabio was told by the Panel that
it could be the subject of rebuttal evidence but he did not
present such evidence.
According to Mr. De Borja, Manolo Lopez (Mr. Lopez),
the owner of MERALCO whose wife was a member of
Marthas Vineyard just like Mr. De Borjas wife, was also
an acquaintance of Mr. De Borja at the Ateneo grade
school. Mr. Lopez did not ask him (Mr. De Borja) to contact
Justice Sabio. At a party where Mr. De Borja met Mr.
Lopez, Mr. De Borja informed him that he knew Justice
Sabio but Mr. Lopez did not say anything.
Mr. De Borja denied having offered P10 million to
Justice Sabio. Instead, he claimed that Justice Sabio
informed him that the government has offered him (Justice
Sabio) money and a promotion to the Supreme Court to
favor GSIS. When Mr. De Borja asked what would it take
for Justice Sabio to resist the governments offer, Justice
Sabio allegedly replied: Fifty Million.76 He alleged that it
was Justice Sabio who called up after that July 1, 2008
meeting to feel his reaction to the P50 million
solicitation. Justice Sabio asked him: O, ano, kumusta,
ano ang nangyayari.
Mr. De Borja admitted having given P300,000 to Justice
Sabio, some 15 years ago, as a balato because he came to
_______________
76Affidavit dated July 31, 2008 of Mr. De Borja, pars. 16, 1920.
393
393

value the friendship of Justice Sabio that developed while

the latter was helping the Roa family in a business
transaction. Mr. De Borja earned more than P25 million
although he received only P3 million as down payment out
of the sale of 100 hectares of the Roa property. He gave the
balato of 10% of the P3 million to Justice Sabio in cash at
the Roaowned bank in Cagayan de Oro. Since the Roas
had a lot of legal problems, Justice Sabio rendered advice
and consultation at the time that he was an RTC judge in
Cagayan de Oro. After the promotion of Justice Sabio to the
Court of Appeals, Mr. De Borja invited him for dinner.
They would see each other at gettogethers of the Roas with
whom Mr. De Borja is related, even at a gathering in the
house of Mr. De Borjas mother.77
On July 2, 2008, Justice Sabio that informed Presiding
Justice Vasquez that he (Justice Sabio) was offered a bribe
(which he rejected) to have him ousted from the Meralco
case. The news allegedly shocked the Presiding Justice.
Justice Sabio also went to Justice Villarama who was both
shocked and amused. Justice Sabio did not tell them who
the offeror was. However, a day or two later, Justice
Sabio found out that Mr. De Borja had called their mutual
friend, Mrs. Evelyn Clavano, who was also shocked that
Mr. De Borja had the gall to ask her to convince Justice
Sabio to accept the bribe.78
Although Justice Sabio told the Presiding Justice that
the offer of P10 million to a Justice was, in the words of
Justice Sabio, bastusan na ito, and he knew that bribing a
Justice is a criminal act, the Presiding Justice did nothing
because he could not advise a fellow Justice on what to
dothe Justice would know what he should do. Neither
did he think of consulting Justices Roxas and Dimaranan
Vidal on the chairmanship impasse.79
_______________
77TSN August 20, 2008, pp. 259588.
78Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, Jr., pars. 1921.
79TSN August 12, 2008 (a.m.), pp. 158163, 178180.
394
394

On July 3, 2008, to stop Mr. De Borja from pestering

him with phone calls and text messages, Justice Sabio
called up Mr. De Borja who told him: Mabuti naman
Justice tumawag ka, kasi malapit na ang deadline ng
submission ng memorandum. Pinagisipan mo bang mabuti
ang offer namin? Kasi sayang din kung di mo tatanggapin,
Kasi kahit aabot itong kaso sa Supreme Court, matatalo ka
din. Sayang lang yung P10 million. Baka sisihin ka pa ng
mga anak mo. Shocked by what he heard, Justice Sabio
said No. Since Mr. De Borja did not seem to understand
why he kept saying No, Justice Sabio explained to him: If
I accept that, my conscience will bother me forever. How can
I face my wife and two daughters? One a lawyer and the
other a Numerary member of Opus Dei? And besides, how
can I reconcile my being a member of PHILJAs Ethics and
Judicial Conduct Department being a lecturer of the
MCLE and being a prebar reviewer of the Ateneo Law
School on Legal and Judicial Ethics? Mr. De Borja
retorted: Wala naman kaming pinapagawa sa iyo na
illegal, eh. Then he added: You know Justice, after two or
three weeks, makakalimutan na ito ng mga tao. Meron
naman diyang mga Atenista na tumatanggap. Justice
Sabio said: I dont know about them, but I am different. Mr.
De Borja then said: Well, if you will not accept, we will be
forced to look for other ways. To this, Justice Sabio said:
But they will have to contend with me. In parting, Mr. De
Borja said: Justice, no matter what, saludo talaga ako sa
iyo.
Mr. De Borja admitted that Justice Sabio called him up,
but denied the above conversation with Justice Sabio.
On July 4, 2008, the reorganization of the Court of Appeals
became effective and brought Justices Reyes, Roxas and
Bruselas to the Eighth Division. Justice Reyes went to see
the Presiding Justice about the urgent motion for him to
assume the chairmanship of the Division, which shows on
its face that the Urgent Motion dated July 10, 2008 was
received by the Court of Appeals at 2:08 p.m. on July 10,
2008 and by Atty. Teresita C. Custodio on July 9, 2008.
Justice Reyes expressed to the Presiding Justice his
apprehension that should he fail
395
395

to assume the chairmanship, he would face administrative

liability for nonfeasance or dereliction of duty. The
Presiding Justice suggested that the respondents in the
case be required to comment on the Urgent Motion in a
resolution to be issued by the former 9th Division of Justice

J.L. Sabio, Jr. since to allow the new Division of Justice
B.L. Reyes to issue the resolution x x x would render moot
and academic the same motion. Justice Reyes agreed and
told the Presiding Justice that he would be sending over
the records to him so that the Presiding Justice could place
a note thereon as to what had been agreed upon. However,
the records of the case did not reach the Presiding
Justice.80
For Justice Roxas, the July 4, 2008 reorganization was
mandatory and the Meralco case followed him as its
ponente to the Eighth Division. By the reorganization,
Justice Sabio was moved from the disbanded Special Ninth
Division to the Sixth Division, as the reorganization did not
spare any Justice.81 Moreover, the IRCA does not require
that the Justices that issued a TRO be the same Justices
that will render the decision.82 This is because the TRO
does not appear in Section 2 (d), Rule VII of the IRCA.
Accordingly, only the issuance of a preliminary injunction
could be an exception to the July 4, 2008 reorganization of
the CA.83 He believes the IRCA does not require that the
Justices who heard the case should also decide it because
the CA is a court of record and Justices may rely on the
transcript of stenographic notes.84 And so, once the three
Justices have signed the decision, the ponente has the
pressing duty to promulgate the decision.85
_______________
80 Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Presiding Justice Vasquez, pars.
12 & 13.
396
396

Since July 4, 2008, Justice Bruselas alleged that he

acted on all the ponencias of Justices Reyes and Roxas,
just as they had acted on his ponencias.86
On July 7, 2008, the GSIS filed its memorandum.
On or about July 8, 2008, Atty. Silvia Sabio, to help her
father, sought the advice of Atty. Jose Midas Marquez
(Atty. Marquez) regarding the bribery attempt. Atty.
Marquez advised that Justice Sabio should write the Chief
Justice about the incident, detailing not only the bribery

attempt but all that has transpired relative to the
chairmanship issue. Atty. Silvia Sabio immediately called
her father and relayed Atty. Marquezs advice. Later that
date, Justice Sabio handed his daughter, Silvia, a
handwritten letter for her to deliver to the Chief Justice.87
The handwritten letter, in essence, requested permission
for Justice Sabio to unburden himself before the Chief
Justice on the Meralco case.88
At around 2:30 p.m., Justice Reyes went to see Justice
Sabio. The conversation between them, as recalled by
Justice Sabio, was as follows:
As soon as he came in, I said: Why did you stab me behind my
back? He said, Why, what did I do? I asked him Why is it that
you have to resort to that strategy of seeking the opinion of Ed
Cruz, in his personal capacity, when we could have discussed
the matter with the PJ?
I reminded him that we were seated three times near each
other on different occasions only recently and he never
mentioned to me about the plan to oust me.
He said: Perhaps that was my fault. I should have talked to
you.
_______________
86Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Bruselas, par. 5.
87Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Atty. Silvia Jo Sabio, pars. 58.
88Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, pars. 2829 TSN August
12, 2008 (a.m.) 7172.
397
397

G.R. SP No. 103692
I told him, that all the while I thought we were friends. Why did
you have to do these things behind my back and not discuss the
matter with me face to face?
Then he said it just came about due to the urgent motion that
he was afraid Meralco would take action against him for
nonfeasance for not doing his job.
It was then that I said: Are you aware that I was offered 10M for
me to give way to you?
I further asked him the following: In the first place, how was the
Meralco emissary able to know that there was an impasse
between you and me when that was supposed to be an internal
matter?
If you will now insist on assuming the chairmanship

after I told you of the 10Million offer, what will I think of
you?
Are you a Trojan horse? Can you blame me if I think
you are part of this whole scheme or shenanigan?
Does not the timing alone stink of corruption? After
they failed to convince me of their offer, now they will use
you to oust me? Is it because they are certain of your loyalty
and they are uncertain with mine?
And why did they file this stupid urgent motion to
assume? In my nine years in this court, I have never seen
such an animal as this. This is a cowardly act, and whoever
advised this stupid motion is also stupid. Why do you have
to dignify such a foolish motion? They should file a motion
for me to inhibit or recuse myself.
Why is it that Meralco actively participated in the
hearing on the 23rd and never raised any question on the
alleged irregularity of my having presided over the hearing?
Why do you insist on assuming the case? Are you not
aware that several days after the issuance of the TRO,
respondents filed a motion for inhibition of Justice Vicente
Roxas and a motion to lift the TRO. Who then had the right
to resolve such motion?
Under the circumstances, anong iisipin ko sa yo? Ano
ang tingin ko ngayon sa iyo?
398
398

G.R. SP No. 103692
His feeble answer was: you. He then said he did not know of
those pending motions. (Incidentally, these motions were never
resolved.) He also said, wala talaga akong interest dito kundi
ayaw ko lang ma charge ng nonfeasance for failing to do my
duty.
I answered him: Malayo yung nonfeasance. Hindi ito
nonfeasance. I taught the subject for many years and this is not
one of them.
So I told him, I have made my decision on the matter. Bahala
ka na. Then I stood up to show him to the door. He was silent
after that and before he left, he put his arm around me.
For his part, Justice Reyes kept on repeating: Wala talaga

ako dito, wala akong interest kung di yun lang hindi ako
ma nonfeasance. Justice Sabio thought otherwise.
Meanwhile, Justice Roxas brought to the office of Justice
DimarananVidal the final decision on the MERALCO
case bearing his signature, which he gave to Justice
DimarananVidal for concurrence/dissent. According to
Justice DimarananVidal, Justice Roxas explained to her
the rationale for his conclusion. Justice Roxas went out

for a while and returned with an expensive looking
travelling bag from where he pulled out the purported
final decision. Before the close of office hours, Justice
Roxas returned to the chambers of Justice Dimaranan
Vidal to check if he (Justice Roxas) had signed his decision.
When she replied that yes, he had signed it, Justice Roxas
said he would pick it up the next day.89
Justice
DimarananVidal
signed
the
decision
notwithstanding that on July 8, 2008 the Court of Appeals
had been reorganized because she believed that the Special
Ninth Division was still existing on account of its having
issued the TRO.90 She also concurred with the portion of
the decision recom
_______________
89Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice DimarananVidal, pars. 4
& 5.
90TSN August 8, 2008, pp. 8991.
399
399

mending administrative sanctions against the GSIS

lawyers because she believed the OSG or the OGCC should
have appeared for the GSIS.91
Also late that day, Justice Villarama told Justice Sabio
that he had advised Justice Reyes to lay off the case and
allow Justice Sabio to continue and to resolve the urgent
motion for Justice Reyes to assume the chairmanship.
Justice Villarama recalled that Justice Reyes repeatedly
said: Wala talaga ako dito Jun, Wala akong personal
interest dito.
After a careful and judicious study of the more than
56page decision of Justice Roxas, Justice DimarananVidal
signed it. True to his word, Justice Roxas personally picked
up the decision that day purportedly for the action of the
Acting Chairman, Justice Sabio, who was then on leave of
absence until July 11, 200.92 Notwithstanding the fact that
the parties had not submitted their respective memoranda,
Justice DimarananVidal signed the convincing ponencia,
including three copies of the signature page, because
Justice Roxas was insistent of the urgency of the signing of
the decision due to the impending lapse of the TRO on July
29, 2008.93 Justice Sabio thought otherwise.94
However, Justice Roxas denied that the decision he gave
to Justice DimarananVidal was the final decision. He
denied that he gave it to her for her signature. He said it

was only for her to read because she asked to read it. He
said it was a mere draft as everything was unofficial
there was no rollo or logbook with it, it was not placed in
an envelope, and it did not have the special seal of Justice
Roxas. It allegedly was thrown in the garbage can.
_______________
91TSN August 8, 2008, pp. 129135.
92Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice DimarananVidal, par. 9.
93TSN August 8, 2008, pp. 105107, 112, 116, 119.
94TSN August 8, 2008, pp. 218219.
400
400

On July 9, 2008, the OSG filed the memorandum for the

SEC.
On July 10, 2008, Meralco filed an urgent motion
praying that Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship of the
Division,95 alleging the reasons for the urgent motion as
follows:
5. At the scheduled oral arguments on 23 June 2008 in the
instant case, the parties were first directed to one of the Hearing
Rooms of the Court of Appeals. At the said room, the name plate
of Justice Reyes was already placed on the table for the justices.
Thus, petitioners were of the impression that the leave of absence
of Justice Reyes was over and that he would be presiding over the
oral arguments as Chairman of the Ninth Division of the
Honorable Court.
6. However, when the parties were directed to transfer to
another Room of the Court of Appeals for the oral arguments in
the instant case, petitioners saw that the name plates on the table
for the justices included that of Justice Sabio, Jr., together with
that (sic) of Justices Roxas and DimarananVidal. Thereafter,
Justice Sabio presided over the oral arguments as Chairman of
the Special Ninth Division of the Honorable Court. Petitioners
were, thus, of the impression that the regular Chairman of the
Ninth Division, Justice Reyes, was still on temporary leave of
absence.
7. Subsequently, it has come to the attention of the
petitioners that Justice Reyes has already returned from his
temporary leave of absence and has resumed his duties as
Chairman of the Ninth Division of the Honorable Court.
8. Under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Justice
Sabio, Jr. should now refrain from acting as the chairman of the
Division hearing the instant case as he is already disqualified

from acting as such upon the return of Justice Reyes.
8.1. With due respect, Justice Reyes cannot shirk from
his bounden judicial responsibility of performing his duties
and functions as Chairman of the Ninth Division of the
Honorable Court.
8.2. Specifically, under Section 3 (d), Rule IV of the
2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a case can
remain
_______________
95Rollo of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, Vol. II, p. 1262.
401
401

G.R. SP No. 103692
with the justices who participated therein only when any of

the following actions have been taken: (a) giving due course
(b) granting of a writ of preliminary injunction (c) granting
of a new trial or (d) granting of execution pending appeal:
xxx
xxx
x x x.
9.
None of the foregoing instances apply with respect to
Justice Sabio, Jr.s continuing hold on the case. Although Justice
Sabio, Jr. was one of the Justices who issued the temporary
restraining order in favour of the petitioners in the instant case,
this circumstance is not among the grounds as abovequoted,
when a justice of the Court of Appeals may remain in the
Division.
10. As abovequoted, the rule is categorical that it is not the
grant of a temporary restraining order but rather the grant of a
writ of preliminary injunction that sanctions a justices remaining
with the Division. Thus, the continued participation of Justice
Sabio, Jr., in the instant case, considering the clear Rules of the
Honorable Court, is not only irregular but may lead one to
conclude that he is exhibiting undue interest in the instant case.
On this day, Justice Reyes reported back to work after

his trip to Australia.96
On July 11, 2008, Justice Sabio was on leave when
Justice Roxas called him up for a meeting to discuss the
case. Justice Sabio told him that he needed ample time to
read the memoranda of the parties. Justice Roxas promised
to send to Justice Sabio the memoranda immediately.97
At 4:00 p.m., Justice Reyes received from the Eighth
Division Clerk of Court a copy of Meralcos Urgent Motion
for him to assume the chairmanship of the Ninth Division.
On Monday, July 14, 2008 at the flag ceremony, Justice
Sabio requested Justice Roxas to meet with him as he had
by then read the memoranda of the parties. Justice Roxas

initially agreed to the meeting but he later informed
Justice Sabio that he had another matter to attend to
neither was he
_______________
402
402

available in the afternoon. Justice Roxas had become

scarce. Justice Sabio learned that Justice DimarananVidal
was also looking for Justice Roxas.98
Justice Sabio prepared a resolution on the motion for the
reconsideration of the TRO and informed Justices Roxas
and DimarananVidal that he wanted to discuss it with
them. The resolution he prepared never saw light.99
At 10 a.m., Justice Roxas, with his messenger, brought
the rollo of CAG.R. SP No. 103692 to Justice Reyes, and
told the latter that he and Justice Bruselas would be
coming over to deliberate on the case. Ten minutes later,
the Eighth Division deliberated on the case.100 After a
cursory examination of the rollo, Justice Reyes found that
the decision had been signed by Justices Roxas and
Bruselas but Justice Reyes asked for more time to study
the case.101
A transcript of the Final Deliberation on July 14, 2008
is attached to page 1926 of Volume III of the rollo of CA
G.R. SP No. 103692 and marked as Exh. 2 Roxas on page
279 of the rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA. According to
Justice Roxas, it was he who prepared the transcript from
memory to lend credence to the certification of Justice
Reyes at the end of the decision pursuant to Article VIII,
Section 13 of the Constitution.102 Justice Reyes denied
having seen it or having authorized its transcription.
Justice Bruselas did not sign any transcript of the
deliberation as he was not aware that a transcript was
being taken. There was no stenographer present, as only
the three of them, Justices Reyes, Roxas, and Bruselas
were present at the deliberation. Neither was there a
recording machine. Justice Roxas admittedly prepared the
transcript from memory.103
_______________
98 Affidavit of August 7, 2008 of Justice Sabio, Jr., par. 37.

99 TSN August 11, 2008 176179.
100Affidavit of August 7, 2008 of Justice B.L. Reyes, par. 19.
102TSN August 14, 2008 99105.
103TSN August 13, 2008 403405, 419.
403
403

The statement attributed to Justice Reyes in the

transcript that there were previous deliberations were
really meetings, which they had twice, in the office of
Justice Reyes, according to Justice Roxas.104
On July 15, 2008, when she felt that the timing was
right, Atty. Silvia Sabio testified that she handed her
fathers letter to the Chief Justice through his private
secretary, Ms. Jasmin Mateo.105 A few days later, however,
Presiding Justice Vasquez told Justice Sabio that the Chief
Justice would no longer meet with him, as the Presiding
Justice had apprised the Chief Justice about the matter.106
According to Justice Reyes, at 2:00 p.m. that day, the
Office of the Presiding Justice informed him that Justice
Sabio was waiting for him in his office. As soon as Justice
Reyes was seated, Justice Sabio berated him and accused
him of orchestrating matters. Justice Sabio told him that
an emissary of MERALCO had offered him P10 million to
drop off the case, hence, he asked that if he was offered
that much, how much could have been offered to the
principals?107
On July 17, 2008, Justice Reyes went back to the office
of the Presiding Justice and informed him of the episode in
the office of Justice Sabio. He also went to ask Justice
Villarama for his opinion as to who was the rightful
claimant to the chairmanship of the Division that should
decide the Meralco case. Justice Villarama allegedly replied
that they were both correct.
On July 18, 2008, at the prelaunching meeting for the
CACMIS, Justice Villarama had a brief chat with Justice
Bruselas. The former told the latter that both Justices
Sabio and Reyes are correct in the sense that one (1) [of]
them can
_______________
104TSN August 14, 2008 113121.
105Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Atty. Silvia Jo Sabio, par. 9.
106TSN August 12, 2008 (a.m.) 174176.

404
404

properly assume chairmanship either under the exception

provided in Sec. 2 (d), Rule VI of the 2002 IRCA depending
on the final disposition of the prayer for injunctive relief, or
pursuant to the general rule enshrined in Sec. 7 (b), Rule
VI.108
_______________
108Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Justice Villarama, par. 7. Under
the same paragraph, Justice Villarama opined as follows:
xxx the pending motion to lift TRO, which in effect is a motion
for reconsideration of its issuance in the first place, the former
Special Ninth Division x x x which issued the said TRO retains
jurisdiction and should resolve the said motion. Upon the other
hand, if the application for preliminary injunction is denied or
remained unacted upon, the position of Justice Reyes could be
sustained on the ground that the exception under Sec. 2 (d), Rule
VI does not come into the picture and therefore the ponente of the
case (Justice Roxas) and the two (2) other members present Eighth
Division) (sic) to which Justice Roxas was transferred should now
assume jurisdiction over the case. However, considering the
pendency of the motion to lift TRO and the fact that Justice Sabio,
Jr. as Acting Chairman of the Special Ninth Division, together with
Justices Roxas and Vidal, had presided and heard the oral
arguments
of
the
parties
on
MERALCOs
application
for
preliminary injunction, the more prudent course of action is to

allow the Special Ninth Division to resolve the motion to lift TRO
and other pending matters, as well as the application for issuance
of writ of preliminary injunction.
As a matter of procedure and orderly administration of justice in
the CA, I think the case should be retained by the Special Ninth
Division chaired by Justice Sabio, Jr. until the resolution of the
incidents therein, i.e., motion to lift TRO and inhibition. The
impracticality of transferring the case to the present division of the
ponente (Eighth Division), instead of letting the case remain with
those Justices of the Special Ninth Division which had issued a
TRO and heard the application for preliminary injunction, is
highlighted by the fact that there are pending motions still
unresolved, voluminous pleadings and documents have been
submitted by both parties which would take time to study and
deliberated upon by the Justices, and
405
405

On July 21, 2008, Justice Roxas personally filed with the

Presiding Justice109 an Interpleader Petition110 praying
that Presiding Justice Vasquez decide which division
Chairman (Justice Sabios Former Special 9th Division or
Justice B. L. Reyes 8th Division) should sign the
Preliminary Injunction or Decision.111 Justice Roxas
averred that [t]he impasse between two Chairmen from
two Divisions has to be resolved much earlier than July 30,
2008 because July 30, 2008 is the expiration date of the
TRO issued by the Special 9th Division (signed by Justice
Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Justice Vicente Q. Roxas [ponente] and
Justice Myrna DimarananVidal). He opined that the two
Chairpersons differed in the interpretation of Sections 1
and 2 (d) in relation to Section 5 of Rule VI on Process of
Adjudication of the Internal Rules of the Court of
_______________
the extreme urgency of MERALCOs petition necessitating swift
resolution of the legal issues presented.
And as I explained to Justice Bruselas, Jr., in the event that the
Special Ninth Division chaired by Justice Sabio, Jr. grants the
application for preliminary injunction, Justice Bruselas, Jr. and
Justice Reyes would have no authority at all to participate in the
case, in accordance with the mandate of Sec. 2 (d), Rule VI of the
2002 IRCA, since the case shall then remain with Justice Roxas
and Justices Sabio and Vidal of the former Special Ninth Division,
the latter two (2) Justices having both participated in the issuance
of the writ of preliminary injunction. On the other hand, if such
application for preliminary injunction is denied by the Special
Ninth Division, then said provision would have no application.
Hence, there could be no dispute that the two (2) other Members of
the present Eighth Division to which Justice Roxas was
transferred, Justices Reyes and Bruselas, shall participate in the
adjudication of the case
109 Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Presiding Justice Vasquez, par.
13.
111For Justice Roxas the Interpleader Petition was both a letter and
a memorandum for the Presiding Justice (TSN August 14, 2008 6668).
406
406

Appeals (IRCA).112 His stand was that the IRCA should be
Appeals (IRCA).112 His stand was that the IRCA should be

strictly applied because [w]hen the provisions are clear,
there is no room for interpretation.
Justice Roxas endorsed his Interpleader Petition to
Justice Reyes for his signature or dissent to the finalized
MERALCO Decision, which had been in Justice Reyes
possession since July 14, 2008.113 He also gave the rollo of
the case to Justice Reyes.114
Presiding Justice Vasquez allegedly told Justice Roxas
that as Presiding Justice, he had no authority to rule on
the Interpleader Petition, which is not an administrative
concern over which the Presiding Justice must intervene.
Nevertheless, to
_______________
112These rules state:
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 in the same station.
Sec. 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of
Cases.In the determination of the two other Justices who shall
participate in the adjudication of cases, the following shall be
observed:
xxxx
(d)
When, in an original action or petition for review, any of
these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course (2)

granting writ of preliminary injunction (3) granting new trial (4)
granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall
remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and
report and the Justices who participated therein, regardless of their
transfer to other Divisions in the same station.
Sec. 5. Action by a Justice.All members of the Division shall
act upon an application for temporary restraining order and writ of
preliminary injunction. x x x.
113Exh. 8Roxas Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA.
407
407

avoid further discussion, the Presiding Justice told Justice

Roxas that he would study the matter.115
On July 22, 2008, Justice Reyes wrote the Presiding
Justice a letter on what was discussed between us last 17
July 2008 at around 3:30 p.m.116 Apparently the Presiding
Justice had suggested to endorse the case and have the
Special Ninth Division direct the respondents to file their

simultaneous comments on the petitioners Urgent Motion
(For Honorable BIENVENIDO L. REYES to Assume
Chairmanship of the Division in the Instant Case) dated 10
July 2008.
Justice Reyes expressed doubts that the suggestion
was most prudent, as the dispute revolves around the
correct interpretation of the IRCA. He believed that since
the question was purely internal, the CA should not seek
enlightenment from the litigants for it would only be
construed against its competence. He shared Justice
Cruzs and Roxas interpretation of the IRCA. Hence, he
urged the Presiding Justice to decide the matter otherwise,
he would interpret the rules according to his best lights
and act accordingly.
On July 23, 2008, Presiding Justice Vasquez asked for
the rollo of CAG.R. No. SP No. 103692 so he could
properly submit the requested opinion. It was then that
he came across the unresolved motion praying for the
inhibition of Justice Roxas and the pending urgent motion
to lift the TRO or to hold its enforcement in abeyance. The
Presiding Justice considered the latter as a motion for
reconsideration of the Resolution issuing the TRO.117
Meanwhile, at noon of that day, as Justice Reyes had
not yet received any reaction from the Presiding Justice,
he
_______________
115Affidavit of August 7, 2008 of Presiding Justice Vasquez, par. 13.
116 Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 12.
117Affidavit of August 7, 2008 of Presiding Justice Vasquez, par. 15.
408
408

signed the decision as well as the Certification. It was

promulgated on the same day.
The decision was promulgated without waiting for the
Presiding Justices opinion on whether it was the Eighth or
Special Ninth Division that should decide the case. Justice
Roxas alleged that he did not expect the Presiding Justice
to answer or resolve the matter anyway.
On July 24, 2008, Presiding Justice Vasquez issued his
reply to Justice Reyes letter and Justice Roxas
InterpleaderPetition. The Presiding Justice claimed
having doubts on whether he possessed the authority to
decide the subject conflict simply because under the IRCA,
the Presiding Justice has control and supervision only over

administrative affairs of the Court. The controversy was
certainly not an administrative matter but Section 11 of
Rule VIII of the IRCA provides that the Presiding Justice
has the authority to act on any matter not covered by the
Rules although such action should be reported to the Court
en banc.
The Presiding Justice expressed in his letter the view
that the (Special Ninth) Division that issued the
temporary restraining order should continue resolving the
injunctive prayer in the petition because it was the
Division that issued the Resolution granting the TRO and
setting the hearing on the application for the issuance of a
writ of preliminary injunction, aside from the fact that the
parties did not contest the authority of Justice Sabio as
Division Chairman at the time, although Justice Reyes had
reported back to work. Moreover, the motion for inhibition
and the urgent motion to lift the TRO have a bearing on
the application of Section 2 of Rule VI of the IRCA,
especially because Section 7 (b) of Rule VI118 points to the
retention of the case by the Special Ninth
_______________
118 Section 7 (b) of Rule VI of the IRCA provides that a motion for
reconsideration of a decision or resolution shall be acted upon by the
ponente and the other members of the Division, whether of 3 or 5, and
whether regular or acting, who participated in the rendition of
409
409

Division. Furthermore, the new Division headed by Justice

Reyes may not be allowed to resolve the pending incidents
because two of its members, Justices Reyes and Bruselas
did not participate in the hearing on June 23, 2008. He did
not believe that Justice Reyes would be charged with
dereliction of duty should he not assume the chairmanship.
The Presiding Justice ended his letter with the hope that
the matter would be laid to rest and that whoever would
be dissatisfied with its outcome may elevate the matter to
the Supreme Court.
At 2:00 p.m. that day, Justice Sabio informed the
Presiding Justice that a decision had been promulgated in
the Meralco case the previous day. The Presiding Justice
was surprised because Justices Roxas and Reyes had asked
him to resolve the impasse on the Division chairmanship.
Upon inquiry, the Presiding Justice found that the decision
had indeed been promulgated at 4:10 p.m. on July 23,

2008.119
It was also on July 24, 2008 that Justice Dimaranan
Vidal received a call from Justice Sabio, informing her that
Meralco had offered him a bribe of P10 million in
exchange for his voluntary stepping out from the Meralco
case in order to give way to Justice B. L. Reyes, and that
the decision in the Meralco case had been promulgated by
the Eighth Division.120 Shocked that Justice Roxas did not
inform her as a matter of judicial courtesy of the
scrapping of the decision which she signed on July 8, 2008,
Justice DimarananVidal wrote a letter to the Presiding
Justice dated July 24, 2008,121 bringing
_______________
the decision or resolution sought to be reconsidered, irrespective of
whether such members are already in other Divisions at the time the
motion for reconsideration is filed or acted upon, provided that they are
still in the same station, otherwise Section 2, Rule 6 shall apply.
119 Affidavit dated August 7, 2008 of Presiding Justice Vasquez, par.
17.
121Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 19.
410
410

to his attention the apparent and obvious irregularities in

the handing of CAG.R. SP No. 103692, and complaining
about Justice Roxas lack of judicial courtesy in
discarding for reasons she would not know, his purported
final Decision that he had asked her to sign and which she
signed after a judicious study of the records and rollo
thereof. Justice Roxas gave the lame excuse that he had
to incorporate therein some ten pages which he forgot to
include in his Decision.
Justice DimarananVidal expressed surprise and
consternation when she learned on even date that a
Decision in the case had been promulgated on July 23,
2008 by the Eighth Division chaired by Justice Reyes, with
Justices Roxas and Bruselas as members. She said:
My deepest regret is that the undersigned who already signed
the supposed final draft of the Decision in the instant case which
bears the signature of the ponente, was not even informed by the
latter as a judicial courtesy at least, of the hurried easing out of
the undersigned from the case. This inevitably posed even to an
unprejudiced mind the following questions: under what basis was

the case suddenly transferred to the 8th Division and why is it
that neither the undersigned nor the Acting Chairman Justice
SABIO, of the Special 9th Division not consulted thereof? and,
foremost, what happened to the Decision which the undersigned
signed after devoting her precious time and effort in carefully and
laboriously examining the voluminous records and rollo of the
case?
Sad to say the circumstance obtaining herein constitute a
flagrant violation of the provision of Canon 5 particularly Sections
2 and 3 thereof of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 030501SC).
On July 25, 2008, Justice Bruselas wrote the Presiding

Justice a letter,122 which was prompted by a disturbing
telephone call he received from Justice Sabio in the
morning of July 24, 2008. Justice Sabio informed Justice
Bruselas that, after the injunction hearing on June 23,
2008, Meralco of
_______________
122Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, pp. 30 & 359.
411
411

fered him P10 Million to either favor them or yield the

chair to Justice Reyes. Justice Sabio told Justice Bruselas
that he had informed the Presiding Justice of the bribery
incident and that he was disgusted over the turn of
events because he should have remained chair of the
Special 9th Division that issued the TRO on the case.
Justice Bruselas informed Justice Sabio that it was the
first time that he heard of the matter and that he had
participated in the deliberation on the case and concurred
with the ponencia of Justice Roxas without such
information ever being taken up. Justice Sabio told Justice
Bruselas that he would not leave the matter as it is
because he would bring it up in the open, to media, etc.
Justice Sabio asked Justice Bruselas that if P10M was
offered to him, how much would have been offered to the
others.
Troubled by the information, Justice Bruselas went to
the Presiding Justice where Justice DimarananVidal, who
had received the same call from Justice Sabio, joined them.
After that meeting with the Presiding Justice, Justice
Bruselas called up Justice Reyes who confirmed that he
had heard about the bribe offer but that he did not reveal
the same to Justice Bruselas as it escaped his mind. The
effort of Justice Bruselas to get in touch with Justice
Roxas proved futile.
Allegedly prompted by the manner by which the
decision x x x was arrived at, and how the decision was
promulgated, and that unless an immediate and thorough
investigation thereon be undertaken by the Court of
Appeals, both the individual and institutional integrity of
the justices and of the Court of Appeals would
undoubtedly be tarnished, Justice Sabio wrote on July 26,
2008 a letter123 to the Presiding Justice, which precipitated
the present investigation.
On July 28, 2008, the Philippine Daily Inquirer carried
an account of the letter of Justice DimarananVidal to the
Pre
_______________
123Rollo of A.M. No. 08811SC, p. 23.
412
412

siding Justice, without her knowing how her confidential

letter to the Presiding Justice leaked out.124
Before Justice Bruselas delivered his letter to the
Presiding Justice, he received a copy of the letter of Justice
Sabio and, through a telephone call, reiterated his full
agreement with his desired investigation.
The Presiding Justice called the Court of Appeals to an
emergency en banc session at 10:00 a.m. on July 31, 2008
at the Session Hall to elicit the reaction of the Court and on
the possible effect on the decision rendered. The session
was also called in order that the predicament experienced
in CAG.R. SP No. 103692 could be deliberated upon by
the Committee on Rules with a view to amending the IRCA
on the reorganization of the Court of Appeals. The
Executive Justices of Cebu and Cagayan de Oro, Justices
Antonio L. Villamor and Romulo V. Borja, respectively,
were instructed to attend the en banc session to report to
the other Justices in their stations what transpired at the
session, and to collect the personal reaction, comment or
view of the Justices on the matter.125
In its closed door en banc session on July 31, 2008, after
a torrid discussion of all the issues, the Court of Appeals
decided, as follows:
(1) Refer the propriety of the actions of the Justices

concerned to the Supreme Court, through the Office of the
Court Administrator
(2) Leave the matter regarding the validity of the decision
rendered in the aboveentitled case to the parties for them to take
whatever legal steps they may deem appropriate in the usual
course of procedure and
_______________
125Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 233.
413
413

G.R. SP No. 103692
(3) Refer the conflict in the interpretation of our Internal

Rules to the Committee on Rules of the Court of Appeals in order
to prevent the recurrence of a similar situation.126
After the en banc session, Justice DimarananVidal

expressed in a letter for the Presiding Justice127 her strong
reaction to the paper of Justice Roxas falsely imputing to
her grandstanding before the media or resorting to media
recourse instead of just filing an administrative complaint
before the Supreme Court, and taking exception to the
equally outrageous, revolting and baseless accusation that
she is allegedly clinging to the case. She asserted that she
never leaked a copy of her letter to the Philippine Daily
Inquirer, as her letter was only intended to bring to the
attention of the Presiding Justice the impropriety done by
Justice Roxas in the MERALCO case that resulted in her
having been eased out of the case notwithstanding that she
carefully and judiciously examined the ponencia with
more than 50 pages, after devoting her precious time to
such study, and affixing her concurrence thereto. Justice
DimarananVidal reiterated her prayer for an investigation
of the matter.
Meanwhile, on that day, Mr. De Borja, executed an
affidavit admitting that he was the businessman referred
to by Justice Sabio, Jr. in his letter to Presiding Justice
Vasquez. Mr. De Borja publicly claimed having learned
from the news that Justice Sabio was one of the justices
in the case arising from the order of the SEC to nullify the
proxies issued in favor of the MERALCO management. He
also alleged that Justice Sabio told him about the
blandishments coming from the government side, that he
was being offered a promotion
_______________
126 Affidavit of August 7, 2008 of Presiding Justice Vasquez, par. 21.
According to the Presiding Justice, at one point, Justice Celia Leagogo
commented something like perapera lang yan. She allegedly asked
Justice Roxas why he could not answer the question of Justice
DimarananVidal on where the decision she signed was (TSN August 12
[p.m.] 8081).
127Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 42.
414
414

to the Supreme Court and money to favor the GSIS

position. Mr. De Borja asked Justice Sabio, Jr., What
would it take for you to resist the governments offer? and
that the response of Justice Sabio, Jr. was Fifty Million.
Justice Sabio asked permission from the Presiding
Justice to hold a press conference the next day on account
of the publicized affidavit of Mr. De Borja. The Presiding
Justice told Justice Sabio that this is a matter of self
defense on his part, hence, the Presiding Justice cannot
stop him from doing so.
Justice Sabio issued a signed statement as an initial
response to the affidavit of Mr. De Borja, vehemently
denying that Mr. De Borja asked him what it would take
for him to inhibit from the case, and that he never asked
for money from him.128
_______________
128 Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, pp. 102 & 120. It reads in full as
follows:
INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF MR. FRANCIS
ROA DE BORJA date July 31, 2008.
As initial reaction to the affidavit of Francis de Borja. I find it not
only ridiculous but also incredible. He has absolutely twisted the
facts to suit a wicked end.
I vehemently deny that he ever asked me what it takes to inhibit
from the case nor give any reply in the manner that he stated in
the affidavit. I NEVER ASKED FOR MONEY.
On the contrary, he told me that he was sent by Manolo Lopez, who
was with him in the car because it was a matter of life and death
for them. And so they wanted the case to be ensured. He
mentioned about the abuses committed against the Lopezes during
the Marcos time and now being done by the Arroyo administration.
And so he pleaded for me to accept what he called a winwin
situation of ten million.
What they are doing now is obviously a SMEAR CAMPAIGN. Since

they have the money and the resources, they will do all they can to
discredit me.
415
415

On August 1, 2008, Justice Sabio called the press

conference to read a signed statement entitled My
Reaction to Mr. Francis De Borjas Affidavit dated July 31,
2008 on the MeralcoSEC Case.
Expressing anger at the filthy lie of Mr. De Borja,
Justice Sabio decided to narrate almost word for word his
conversations with Mr. De Borja.
In an affidavit dated August 1, 2008, which Evelyn
Clavano129 executed in Davao City, she stated that
Francis de Borja requested me if I have the cell phone number
of Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. He related that because he was very
close to the Lopezes of Meralco, he wanted to call him 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.
xxx
xxx
x x x.
On August 4, 2008, the Supreme Court constituted the

Panel of Investigators to investigate (1) alleged
improprieties of the actions of the Justices of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 103692 (Antonio V. Rosete, et al.
v. SEC, et al.)
_______________
This is only my initial statement. I will hold a press conference at
about ten oclock in the morning tomorrow at may office in the
Court of Appeals and detail everything that transpired between me
and Mr. Francis Roa de Borja.
31 July 2008
(Sgd.)
JOSE L. SABIO, JR.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
COURT OF APPEALS
129Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, 136.
416
416

and (2) the alleged rejected offer or solicitation of bribe

disclosed respectively by Mr. Justice Jose Sabio and Mr.
Francis De Borja.
The Panel of Investigators held hearings from August 8
to 23, 2008. Affidavits were submitted to the Panel to serve
as the parties direct testimonies upon which they were
crossexamined by the Panel and the other parties.
On September 4, 2008, the Panel of Investigators
submitted its Report of even date to the Court en banc.
According to the Report, the investigation has revealed
irregularities and improprieties committed by the Court of
Appeals Justices in connection with the MERALCO case,
CAG.R. SP No. 103692, which are detrimental to the
proper administration of justice and damaging to the
institutional integrity, independence and public respect for
the Judiciary.130
Findings regarding the conduct of
Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas
Justice Roxas inexcusably failed to act on
a number of motions of the parties prior
to the promulgation of the Decision.
As found by the Panel of Investigators, several motions
were not resolved or acted upon by Justice Roxas. These
were enumerated in the Report as follows:
(a) The Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Defer Action on any
Incident of the Petition Pending Resolution of ReRaffle
filed by GSIS on May 29, 2008 soon after this case was filed
on that date (Rollo, pp. 185186).
(b) GSIS Urgent Ex Parte Motion to Inhibit Justice
Roxas, which was filed on May 30, 2008. As the motion
raised
_______________
130Report dated September 4, 2008, Panel of Investigators, p. 44.
417
417

G.R. SP No. 103692
a prejudicial question, Justice Roxas should have

resolved it before issuing the TRO sought by Meralco,
but he never did (Rollo, pp. 220223).
(c) GSIS Motion to Lift TRO which was filed on May
30, 2008 (Rollo, pp. 187210)
(d) GSIS Motion filed 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 SEC filed a similar motion.
Both motions were not acted upon by Justice Roxas (Rollo,
pp. 593621,)
(e) Meralcos Motion for Extension of Time to file their
Consolidated Memorandum of Authorities and Reply to
Respondent SECs Comment filed on June 25, 2008 (Rollo,
pp. 981 987).
(f) Meralcos Urgent Motion for Honorable Justice
Bienvenido L. Reyes to Assume Chairmanship of the
Division in the Instant Case, which was filed on July 10,
2008 (Rollo, pp. 12621274).131 (emphasis supplied)
We agree with the Panel of Investigators that by

ignoring or refusing to act on the motion for his inhibition,
Justice Roxas violated Rule V, Section 3, third paragraph
of the IRCA, which provides that he should resolve such
motion in writing with copies furnished the other members
of the Division, the Presiding Justice, the Raffle
Committee, and the Division Clerk of Court. The pertinent
portion of the said provision states:
Sec. 3. Motion to Inhibit a Division or a Justice.x x x
xxx
A motion for voluntary inhibition of a Justice shall be acted
upon by him alone in writing, copy furnished the other members
of the Division, the Presiding Justice, the Raffle Committee and
the Division Clerk of Court.
_______________
131Ibid., p. 54.
418
418

This Court cannot agree with Justice Roxas proposition

that the issuance of the TRO constitutes an implied denial
of the motion to inhibit since under IRCA the obligation of
the Justice to act on such a motion is mandatory.
Furthermore, the Court finds welltaken the Panels
finding that Justice Roxas failure to act on the other
motions of the parties violated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the
1989 Code of Judicial Conduct (which applies in a
suppletory manner to the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary) providing that:
Rule 3.05.A judge shall dispose of the courts business

promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
Even Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial

Conduct mandates that [j]udges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Thus, it
has become wellsettled in jurisprudence that even just
undue delay in the resolving pending motions or incidents
within the reglamentary period fixed by law is not
excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency.132 With more
reason, this Court finds suspicious and reprehensible the
failure of Justice Roxas to act at all on pending motions
and incidents in CAG.R. SP No. 103692.
This is in fact not the first time that Justice Roxas has
been cited administratively for failure to resolve pending
incidents in cases assigned to him. In Orocio v. Roxas, A.M.
Nos. 07115CAJ and CA0846J, this Court imposed a
P15,000 fine on Justice Roxas for unwarranted delay in
resolving two motions for reconsideration in another case
and sternly warned him that future commission any act of
impropriety will be dealt with more severely.
_______________
132 Sabatin v. Mallare, A.M. No. MTJ041537, March 25, 2004, 426
SCRA 253 Arcenas v. Avelino, A.M. No. MTJ061642, June 15, 2007, 524
SCRA 618.
419
419

Justice Roxas is guilty of gross dishonesty.

Apart from Justice Roxas inexcusable inaction on
pending incidents in the Meralco case, the Panel of
Investigators found that he had been dishonest and
untruthful in relation to the said case. The Court adopts
the following findings of the Panel:
2. Justice Roxas was dishonest and untruthful.
(a) Justice Roxas admitted that the Transcript of Final
Decision, which is supposed to be a transcript of the deliberation
on July 14, 2008 of the Eighth Division on the final decision in the
Meralco case was not a true transcript of the minutes of the
meeting, but purely a transcript from memory because no notes
were taken, no stenographer was present, and no tape recorder
was used. It was in fact a drama which he composed from my
recollection to comply with Sec. 9, Rule VI of the IRCA which
requires that minutes of the meeting, i.e., deliberation, shall be
kept. The socalled transcript is a fabrication designed to

deceive that there had been compliancewhen actually there was
nonewith the prerequisite of the IRCA that consultation and/or
deliberation among the members of the Division must precede the
drafting of a decision.
(b) The statement in the transcript that it was a recap from
our previous deliberations was another falsehood because there
had been no previous deliberations.
(c) The reference in the transcript to a Final Report of
Justice Roxas was also false for Justice Roxas admittedly did not
submit a report as ponente, as required by Sec. 9, Rule VI of the
IRCA, for deliberation by the Eighth Division on July 14, 2008.
The Final Report which he submitted was admittedly the
decision itself which he and Justice Bruselas, Jr. had already
signed. The Final Report was merely the title of the page that
served as the cover of the decision. Hence, Justice B.L. Reyes
supposed closing statement in the transcript thatWe have
covered every angle of the Final Report of Justice Roxas
extensively is also false. Justice B.L. Reyes testified at the
investigation that he had not seen the transcript until the copy
in the rollo was shown to him by Justice Callejo, Sr. during his
crossexamination of Justice B. L. Reyes on August 26, 2008.
420
420

G.R. SP No. 103692
xxx
xxx
xxx
(e) Justice Roxas testimony that when he brought the
Meralco decision to Justice DimarananVidal on July 8, 2008, it
was only a draft for her to read, because she asked if she may
read it, not for her to sign it, is completely false. This testimony
was labelled by Justice DimarananVidal as a lie, and she called
Justice Roxas a liar, because she did not ask to borrow the
decision for her reading pleasure, but Justice Roxas personally
brought it to her office for her to sign as a member of the Special
Ninth Division. After poring over 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 of the decision.133
xxx
xxx
xxx
Indeed, the fabrications and falsehoods that Justice

Roxas
blithely
proferred
to
the
Panel
in
explanation/justification of his questioned handling of the
Meralco case demonstrated that he lacks the qualification
of integrity and honesty expected of a magistrate and a
member of the appellate court.
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, dishonesty is
considered a serious offense that may warrant the penalty
of dismissal from the service. Under the Rule IV, Section 52
of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil

Service, dishonesty is likewise considered a grave offense
and warrants the penalty of dismissal even for the first
offense. In the past, the Court has had the occasion to rule
that:
. . . dishonesty and falsification are considered grave offenses
warranting the penalty of dismissal from service upon the
commission of the first offense. On numerous occasions, the Court
did not hesitate to impose such extreme punishment on employees
found guilty of these offenses.
Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the
extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of
retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual
_______________
133Ibid., pp. 5557.
421
421

G.R. SP No. 103692
disqualification for reemployment in the government service.

Dishonesty has no place in the judiciary.134
Justice Roxas showed a lack of courtesy

and respect for his colleagues in the Court of
Appeals.
The Panel of Investigators reported on this matter in
this wise:
x x x
xxx
x x x.
(f) Justice Roxas was thoughtlessly disrespectful to a
colleague and a lady at that, when he unceremoniously discarded,
shredded, and burned the decision that Justice DimarananVidal
had signed, because he allegedly forgot that Justice Dimaranan
Vidal and Justice Sabio, Jr. had already been reorganized out of
the Special Ninth Division as of July 4, 2008, hence, out of the
Meralco case. Out of courtesy, he should have explained to Justice
DimarananVidal the reason why he was not promulgating the
decision which she had signed.
The truth, it seems, is that Justice Roxas, who had consulted
Justice Villarama, Jr. on which Division should decide the
Meralco case, may have been convinced that it should be the
Special Ninth Division. That is why he brought his decision to
Justice DimarananVidal for her signature. However, somehow,
somewhere, during the night, while Justice DimarananVidal was
patiently poring over his decision, Justice Roxas was persuaded to
bring his decision to the Eighth Division (to which he and Justice
B.L. Reyes belong after the July 4, 2008 reorganization of the
Court), it may have dawned on him that if the case remained in

the Special Ninth Division, Justice Sabio, Jr. might dissent,
requiring the Presiding Justice to constitute a special division of
five. If he (Justice Roxas) should fail to obtain a majority of the
Division on his side, he would lose his ponencia someone else
would become the ponente (perhaps Justice Sabio, Jr.). That may
be the reason why he junked Justices Sabio, Jr. and Dimaranan
Vidal (even if the latter concurred with his decision) because he
was unsure of Justice Sabio, Jr. He chose to cast his lot with his
_______________
134Madrid v. Quebral, A.M. P031744 & 1745, October 7, 2003, 413 SCRA 1.
422
422

G.R. SP No. 103692
companions in the Eighth DivisionJustices B. L. Reyes and

Bruselas, Jr.with whom he and Meralco were comfortable.
(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 for Presiding
Justice Vasquez, Jr.s ruling which came out on July 24, 2008,
only three (3) days after the Interpleader Petition was filed by
him, and two (2) days after Justice B.L. Reyes also reiterated in
writing his request for Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. to resolve
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 for his
position as head of the Court.
xxx
xxx
x x x.
There is an old adage which says to gain respect one

must learn to give it. If judges and justices are expected to
treat litigants, counsels and subordinates with respect and
fairness, with more reason, that judges and justices should
give their fellow magistrates the courtesy and professional
regard due to them as their colleagues in the Judiciary.
Thus, in Canon 5, Section 3 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, judges are expected to carry out judicial
duties with appropriate consideration for all
persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court
staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on
any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties.
This Court cannot view 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 of Appeals. It behooves the Court to remind all

magistrates that their high office demands compliance with
the most exacting standards of propriety and decorum.
Justice Roxas questionable handling of
the Meralco case demonstrates his undue
interest therein.
423
423

In the Report, the Panel of Investigators observed that

Justice Roxas in fact began drafting his decision even prior
to the submission of the parties memoranda. As discussed
in the Report:
xxx
xxx
x x x.
(d) Although the parties were given 15 days after the hearing
on June 23, 2008, or up to July 8, 2008, to simultaneously submit
their memoranda and memoranda of authorities, and actually
submitted:
On July 7, 2008GSISs 39 pagememorandum
On July 9, 2008SECs 62 pagememorandum
On July 10, 2008MERALCOs 555 pagememorandum (by
messenger) with memorandum of authorities
Justice Roxas prepared the decision before the parties had filed
their memoranda in the case and submitted it to Justice
DimarananVidal for her signature on July 8, 2008. His rush to
judgment was indicative of undue interest and unseemly
haste, according to J. Romero.
He cheated the parties counsel of the time, effort, and energy
that they invested in the preparation of their ponderous
memoranda which, as it turned out, neither he nor the other
members of the Eighth Division bothered to read before signing
his decision. He made a mockery of his own order for the parties
to submit memoranda, and rendered their compliance a futile
exercise.
xxx
xxx
x x x.
(underscoring supplied)
We agree with Mme. Justice Romeros observation that the

rush to judgment (even before the filing of the parties
memoranda) was indicative of Justice Roxas undue
interest and unseemly haste, especially when taken
together with other circumstances. This inexplicable haste
in resolving the case on the merits is likewise apparent in
Justice Roxas failure to resolve the several pending
incidents and instead jumping ahead to deciding the case
on the merits his rushing of Justice DimarananVidal
into signing his draft Decision on July 8, 2008 when the

parties memoranda have not
424
424

yet all been filed with the CA his precipitate transfer of

the case to the Eighth Division for promulgation of
decision, without notice to Justice DimarananVidal of the
Special Ninth Division who had already signed his draft
Decision and despite the unresolved Chairmanship dispute
between Justice Reyes and Justice Sabio which he (Justice
Roxas) even submitted to the Presiding Justice for
appropriate action, just a few days before the
promulgation.
We reiterate here that as the visible representation of
the law and justice, judges are expected to conduct
themselves in a manner that would enhance respect and
confidence of the people in the judicial system. The New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
mandates that judges must not only maintain their
independence, integrity and impartiality but they must
also avoid any appearance of impropriety or partiality,
which may erode the peoples faith in the judiciary. This
standard applies not only to the decision itself, but also to
the process by which the decision is made.135 This Court
will not hesitate to sanction with the highest penalty
magistrates who exhibit manifest undue interest in their
assigned cases.136
In sum, this Court finds that Justice Roxas multiple
violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct
constitute grave misconduct, compounded by dishonesty,
undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service, which warrant his DISMISSAL from the
service.
Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
In the Report, the Panel found that Justice Sabio
likewise committed improprieties in relation to the Meralco
case.
_______________
135Edao v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ061974, July 26, 2007, 528 SCRA
212.
136Padilla v. Asuncion, A.M. No. 0644CAJ.
425
425

The 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 ex
pected of him as a magistrate of the appellate
court.
In his testimony before the Panel, Chairman Sabio
admits that he called up Justice Sabio on May 30, 2008
from Davao City, in response to a resquest for help from a
member of the Board of Trustees of Meralco.
Notwithstanding the fact that Chairman Sabio called to
relay to Justice Sabio the rightness of 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 violation of
Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for
lawyers, which provides 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 of the Bar, it is

incomprehensible to this Court how the brothers can justify
their improper conversation regarding the Meralco case. As
the Panel observed in its Report:
Ironically, both of them found nothing wrong with brother
Camilos effort to influence his younger brothers action in the
Meralco case, because both believe that our Filipino culture allows
brothertobrother conversation, even if the purpose of one is to
influence the other, provided the latter does not agree to do
something illegal.137
_______________
137Report dated September 4, 2008, Panel of Investigators, p. 45.
426
426

For the Panel, Justice Sabio violated Sections 1, 4, and

5, Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, which provide that
Sec. 1. 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.
xxx
xxx
x x x.
Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other
relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.
The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to
advance the private interests of others, nor convey or
permit others to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.
Sec. 5. 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 Investigators mind, although Justice Sabio

signed the TRO in favour of Meralco contrary to his
brothers advice, Justice Sabios unusual interest in
holding on to the Meralco case, seemed to indicate that he
may have been actually influenced by his brother to help
GSIS. In arriving at this conclusion, the Panel noted the
following circumstances: (1) Justice Sabio adamantly
refused to yield the chairmanship of the Special Ninth
Division although the regular chairman, Justice Reyes had
returned to duty on June 10, 2008 and, (2) Justice Sabio
officiously prepared and signed a resolution (a chore for the
ponente Justice V. Roxas to perform), requiring the GSIS
and the SEC to comment on Meralcos Motion for Justice
B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship of the 9th Division,
which he probably intended to delay the decision on the
preliminary injunction beyond the life of the TRO to the
prejudice of Meralco and the advantage of the GSIS.
Based on the facts on record, the Court is wary of declaring
that Justice Sabio had been influenced by his brother by
427
427

speculating that he would have favored GSIS had he been a

part of the division which rendered the decision in the
Meralco case. However, we do find that it was improper for
Justice Sabio to hold on to the chairmanship of the Ninth
Division despite the return of Justice Reyes, when Justice
Sabios designation as acting chairman was clearly only for
the duration of Justice Reyes leave of absence. We likewise
note with disfavor his stubborn insistence on his own
interpretation of the IRCA and hostile, dismissive attitude

towards equally wellreasoned positions of his colleagues
on the proper interpretation of their rules. Such conduct on
the part of Justice Sabio did nothing to aid in the swift and
amicable resolution of his dispute with Justice Reyes but
rather fanned the flames of resentment between them. We
deem this sort of behavior unbecoming for a magistrate of
his stature.
Justice Sabios conversations with Mr. De
Borja were improper and indiscreet.
On this matter, the Court accepts the following findings
in the Report:
Knowing the nature of De Borjas profession, Justice Sabio, Jr.
should have been wary of the former. He should have foreseen
that De Borja had the Meralco case on his mind when he called
Justice Sabio, Jr. True enough, De Borja mentioned the Meralco
case and congratulated Justice Sabio, Jr. for having signed the
TRO in favour of Meralco.
But that was not the last time Justice Sabio, Jr. would hear
from De Borja. A month later, after Justice Sabio, Jr. had
presided at the hearing of Meralcos prayer for preliminary
injunction on June 23, 2008, and the case was ripening for
decision or resolution, De Borja again called up Justice Sabio, Jr.
and asked to meet him over dinner to chit chat about the Meralco
case.
Instead of telling off De Borja that he could not, and would not,
talk about the Meralco case, Justice Sabio, Jr. agreed to meet De
Borja in the lobbylounge of the Ateneo Law School after his
evening class in Legal Ethics in said school.
428
428

G.R. SP No. 103692
Justice Sabio Jr.s action of discussing the Meralco case with

De Borja was highly inappropriate and indiscreet. First, in
talks with his brother the second time in conversation with De
Borja, Justice Sabio, Jr. broke the shield of confidentiality that
covers the disposition of cases in the Court in order to preserve
and protect the integrity and independence of the Court itself. He
ignored the injunction in Canon 1, Section 8 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary 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 lobbylounge
of the Ateneo Law School, that De Borja allegedly offered him P10
million, in behalf of Meralco, to step out of the case and allow
Justice Bienvenido Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the

Special Ninth Division because Meralco was not comfortable
with him (Justice Sabio, Jr.). He rejected the bribe offer 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. The Panel is, however, honestly perplexed why in spite of
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. The Panel is nonplussed because,
normally, a person who has been insulted would never want to see,
much less speak again, to the person who had disrespected him.
He could have just shut off his cell phone to De Borjas calls. De
Borja denied that he reiterated his offer of P10 million to Justice
Sabio, Jr. He denied saying that even if the case should go up to
the Supreme Court, GSIS would still lose, hence, saying lang
yung P10 million baka sisihin ka pa ng mga anak mo. He
testified that his reply to Justice Sabio, Jr.s call was deadma or
indifference. Justice Sabio, Jr. blamed that call of his to a lapse
in judgment on his part.
Be that as it may, the Investigating Panel finds more credible
Justice Sabio, Jr.s story about De Borjas P10 millionbribeoffer
on behalf of Meralco, than De Borjas denial that he made such an
offer. Why does the Panel believe him, and not De Borja?
First, because Justice Sabio, Jr. verbally reported the rejected
bribe offer to CA Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. the
next daya fact admitted by Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.
429
429

G.R. SP No. 103692
Second, even though Justice Sabio, Jr. did not mention the
bribeofferors name in both his verbal and written reports to
Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr., De Borja identified himself to the
media as the person alluded to.
Third, De Borjas allegation, that Justice Sabio, Jr. wanted P50
million, not P10 million, is not believable, for, if Justice Sabio, Jr.
quoted P50 million as his price, he would not have reported the
P10 million bribe offer to Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. He would
have waited for Meralcos reply to his counteroffer.138
xxx
xxx
x x x.
Indeed, the Court agrees with the Panel that the

allegation of solicitation on the part of Justice Sabio is not
credible. Nevertheless, the continued communications
between Justice Sabio and Mr. De Borja even after the
latters rejected bribery attempt is highly inappropriate
and shows poor judgment on the part of Justice Sabio who
should have acted in preservation of the dignity of his

judicial office and the institution to which he belongs.
Premises considered, this Court is of the view that
Justice Sabios indiscreet and imprudent conversations
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 of a justice of the Court of Appeals which
warrant the penalty of two (2) months suspension without
pay.
Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
As previously 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 Division of the Court of
Appealsthe Eighth Division with him as chairman, or the
Special Ninth
_______________
138 Id., pp. 4749.
430
430

Division chaired by Justice Sabio should resolve the

Meralco case. This was in conjunction with an Interpleader
filed by Justice Roxas on the same issue with the Presiding
Justice. Yet, despite the fact that the Presiding Justice
informed 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 for a ruling nor did either of
them advise the Presiding Justice beforehand of their
intention to proceed with the resolution of the Meralco
case. Thus, when the Presiding Justice issued his ruling on
the chairmanship dispute on July 24, 2008, he was
unaware of the promulgation of the Meralco decision on
July 23, 2008, under the aegis of Justice Reyes Eighth
Division. As found 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 functus oficio. He felt belittled and humiliated by
the discourtesy of the two justices to him.
It bears repeating here that under Canon 5, Section 3 of

the New Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are mandated to
show the appropriate consideration and respect for their
colleagues in the Judiciary.
Thus, we adopt the finding of the Panel on this point
and find Justice Reyes guilty of simple misconduct, which
is mitigated by the fact that he repeatedly asked Presiding
Justice Vasquez to act on his request to rule on the
conflicting interpretation of the IRCA. However, Justice
Reyes should be reprimanded for taking part in the
decision of the subject case without awaiting the ruling of
the Presiding Justice.
Justice Myrna DimarananVidal
The Court finds welltaken and adopts the findings of
the Panel of Investigators, to wit:
431
431

Justice DimarananVidal deviated from the IRCA when she
allowed herself 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 of the Division
required by the IRCA. She knew that the TRO would not expire
until July 30, 2008some three (3) weeks away from July 8, 2008
yet she allowed herself to believe Justice Roxas
misrepresentation that signing the decision was urgent. Her
compliance with certain dissembling practices of other justices of
the Court, in violation of the IRCA, showed weakness and lack of
independence on her part.139
The following sections of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial

Conduct are instructive in this regard:
SEC. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function
independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in
accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of
any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or
interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any
reason.
SEC. 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be
independent from judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which
the judge is obliged to make independently.
Allowing a fellow justice to induce her to deviate from
established procedure constitutes conduct unbecoming a justice
for which Justice DimarananVidal should be ADMONISHED to
be more circumspect in the performance of her judicial duties.

Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez
It is the view of the Panel of Investigators that Presiding
Justice Vasquez failed to provide the leadership expected of
him as head of the Court of Appeals. The following quote
from the Report summarizes the perceived lapses on the
part of the Presiding Justice:
_______________
139Id., p. 59.
432
432

Clearly, Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. had been indecisive
in dealing with the turmoil arising from the Meralco case. He
vacillated and temporized on resolving the impasse between
Justice Sabio, Jr. and Justice B. L. Reyes over the chairmanship
of the Division that should hear and decide the Meralco case. He
failed to take action on the reported bribeoffer by Meralco to J.
Sabio, Jr. He hesitated to assert his leadership of the Court even
when the parties repeatedly urged him to lay down the rule for
them to follow. Was he hampered by the fact that he has relatives
two daughtersemployed in the GSIS, and a sister who is a
consultant thereof? He pleaded lack of authority. Was he not
aware then, or did he discover too late, that under Section 11,
Rule VIII of the IRCA, he is in fact authorized to act on any
matter involving the Court and its members? That Rule
provides:
Sec. 11. x x x 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.
He should have convened the Court en banc as soon as the
alleged bribery attempt on Justice Sabio, Jr. was reported to him,
for it was an attempt to corrupt a member of the Court, calling for
the protection and preservation of the integrity of the judicial
processes of the Court, hence, an administrative matter
cognizable by the Court en banc. Section 5 (c), Rule I of the IRCA,
provides:
Sec. 5. Matters cognizable by the Court en banc.
The 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
judgment.140
Vasquez
admitted
his
lapses
in
In the light of the foregoing observations of the Panel, this

Court is of the view that much of the trouble now being
faced by the Court of Appeals could have been averted by
timely, judicious and decisive action on the part of the
Presiding
_______________
140Id., p. 52.
433
433

Justice. Certainly, this unpleasant and trying episode in

failure to act in the early part of his tenure as Presiding
Justice has indelibly impressed upon him what is required
of him as leader of the second highest court in the land.
Nevertheless, Presiding Justice Vasquez is hereby severely
reprimanded for his failure to act promptly and decisively
on the controversy as required of him by the IRCA.
Findings regarding other personalities
involved in the Meralco case
Although the Presiding Justice in his letter dated
August 1, 2008 only referred to this Court the propriety of
the actions of the Justices concerned in the Meralco case,
we cannot simply turn a blind eye to the facts brought to
light during the investigation that relate to potential
liabilities of other personalities in the Meralco case.
With respect to Chairman Sabio, this Court has the
power to discipline members of the Bar and his attempt to
influence a member of the Judiciary, his brother at that,
should be referred to the Bar Confidant for appropriate
action.
With respect to Mr. De Borja, the present investigation
has given this Court reason to believe that Mr. De Borja
may be criminally liable for his attempt to bribe a
magistrate of the Court of Appeals. This matter should be
referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate
action.
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution,
this per curiam decision was reached after deliberation of
the Court en banc. At the outset, the offer of three (3)
members of the Court to recuse themselves was denied by
the Court. Except for two members of the Court who were
allowed to inhibit themselves from the case, the Justices
voted as follows: Twelve Justices voted for the dismissal

from service of Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas and one
(1) voted for his suspension from the service for six (6)
months. Ten (10) Justices voted for two (2) month
suspension from service without pay of Associate Justice
Jose L. Sabio, one (1) voted for sixmonth
434
434

suspension, one (1) for reprimand only as he should be

credited for being a whistle blower and one (1) for his
dismissal from the service. Eight (8) Justices voted to
reprimand Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes and five
(5) for his suspension from the service for one (1) month. As
to the rest, the voting was unanimous.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES as follows:
(1) Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas is found guilty
of multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and is
DISMISSED from the service, with FORFEITURE of all
benefits, except accrued leave credits if any, with prejudice
to his reemployment in any branch or service of the
government including governmentowned and controlled
corporations
(2) Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. is found guilty
of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a justice
of the Court of Appeals and is SUSPENDED for two (2)
months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe
penalty
(3) Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. is
SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for his failure to act
promptly and decisively in order to avert the incidents that
damaged the image of the Court of Appeals, with a stern
warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
warrant a more severe penalty
(4) Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is found
guilty of simple misconduct with mitigating circumstance
and is REPRIMANDED, with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more
severe penalty
(5) Associate Justice Myrna DimarananVidal is found
guilty of conduct unbecoming a Justice of the Court of
Appeals and is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in
the discharge of her judicial duties.
435
435

(6) PCGG Chairman Camilo L. Sabios act to influence

the judgment of a member of the Judiciary in a pending
case is hereby referred to the Bar Confidant for appropriate
action
(7) Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.s charge against Mr.
Francis R. De Borja for attempted bribery of a member of
the Judiciary is hereby referred to the Department of
Justice for appropriate action.
This Decision shall take effect immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J.), Quisumbing, YnaresSantiago, Austria
Martinez, CarpioMorales, Azcuna, Tinga, ChicoNazario,
Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, LeonardoDe Castro and
Brion, JJ., concur.
Carpio, J., On Official Leave.
Corona, J., I certify that J. Corona participated in the
case (C.J. Puno).
Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas dismissed from service
for multiple violations of canons of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with
prejudice to reemployment in government service Associate
Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. suspended for two (2) months
without pay for simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming
a justice of Court of Appeals, with stern warning against
repetition of similar acts Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez severely reprimanded for failure to act promptly
and decisively to avert incidents, with stern warning
against repetition of similar acts Associate Justice
Bienvenido L. Reyes reprimanded for simple misconduct
with mitigating circumstance, with stern warning against
repetition of similar acts Associate Justice Myrna
DimarananVidal admonished for conduct unbecoming a
justice of Court of Appeals PCGG Chairman Camilo L.
Sabios act referred to Bar Confidant for action and Justice
436
436

Jose L. Sabio, Jr.s charge against Mr. Francis R. De Borja

for attempted bribery referred to Department of Justice for
action.
Notes.While conversations between the judge and
counsel are often necessary, the judge should be studious to
avoid controversies which are apt to obscure the merits of
the dispute between the litigants and lead to its unjust
disposition. (People vs. Tabao, 240 SCRA 758 [1995])
Public confidence in the judicial system is diminished
when a judge, instead of preserving the integrity and
independence of the Judiciary, uses his influence as a tool
to derail or interfere with the regular course of a judicial
proceeding for the benefit of one of the parties therein. (In
Re: Derogatory News Items Charging Court of Appeals
Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria with Interference on
Behalf of a Suspected Drug Queen, 372 SCRA 628 [2001])
In collegiate courts, concurrence must be based on the
justices conviction after mature deliberation, not deference
to the ponente. (Heirs of the Late Justice Jose B. L. Reyes
vs. Demetria, 374 SCRA 206 [2002])
A judicial office circumscribes a personal conduct and
imposes a number of inhibitions, whose faithful observance
is the price one has to pay for holding an exalted position.
(National Bureau of Investigation vs. Villanueva, 370
SCRA 1 [2001])
o0o
Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

In Re Conrado M Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re Conrado M Vasquez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

In Re Conrado M Vasquez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.M. No. 08811CA. September 9, 2008.

RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA

Order constitutes an implied denial of the motion to inhibit since

efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Thus, it has

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA

prudence that even just undue delay in the resolving pending

treat litigants, counsels and subordinates with respect and

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA

reason, that judges and justices should give their fellow

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA

dance with his conscience, the same still constituted a violation of

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA

even after the latters rejected bribery attempt is highly

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA

Same Same Same Much of the trouble now being faced by

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Estrella C. Elamparo for Government Service

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

Vitaliano N. Aguirre II for Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes.

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

Romero and Mr. Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. as Members.

solicitation of bribe disclosed respectively by Mr. Justice

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),

received by the CA at 10:49 a.m. on May 29, 2008 and

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

would be transmitted to the Court of Appeals Division,

replace Justice Reyes during the latters absence, informed

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

Meanwhile, Atty. Elamparo received a telephone call

Chairman Sabio then tried to convince Justice Sabio of the

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

controlling owners of MERALCO. MERALCO is not only a public

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

On the same day, May 30, 2008, GSIS filed an urgent ex

It turned out, however, that at that time, Justice Roxas

Justice Roxas brought to the office of Justice Sabio, for

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

Thus, at 2:08 p.m. on May 30, 2008,22 the Special Ninth

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on

had lost contact with for almost a year already.27 Mr. De

28Rollo of A.M. No. 08811CA, p. 513.

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 9, 2008