(UPDATE 2) CA justice’s ‘unethical conduct’ questioned
By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 10:57:00 08/08/2008
Filed Under: Graft & Corruption, Judiciary (system of justice)
MANILA, Philippines -- Two justices of the Court of Appeals have complained about the “questionable” and “unethical conduct” of a colleague concerning his decision on a case involving the Manila Electric Co.
Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal said she had written Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez about the “unethical conduct” of Vicente Roxas when he asked her to sign the ruling on Meralco without telling her that the same case had been presented to the eighth division.
"My only purpose is that justice be done in this case. I informed the Court of the unethical conduct of Justice Roxas, having me the case without telling me that it was also presented to the eighth division," Vidal said.
Earlier in the hearing Friday, Jose Sabio Jr. said Roxas’ habit of “carrying folders and rolls of cases” was “questionable” because it was something that justices did not do.
Vidal, Roxas, and Sabio Jr. all belonged to the ninth division to which Meralco’s petition to void an order by the Securities and Exchange Commission stopping the board of elections had been assigned. An enforcement of the SEC order would have paved the way for a takeover by the Government Service Insurance System.
Roxas was the “ponente” or writer of the ruling and following his transfer to the eighth division as a result of reorganization at the appellate court, he brought with him the “ponencia” or decision.
Other members of the eighth division at that time were Reyes and Bruselas while Sabio and Vidal were moved to the sixth division.
Vidal admitted that she signed the draft decision because Roxas told her about the urgency by which they should act on the case. She also admitted that Roxas did not resolve the motion for inhibition filed by the GSIS against him nor called for a conference before they were asked to sign the draft decision.
But former Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., a member of the three-man panel formed by the high tribunal to investigate the scandal, asked Vidal as to why she signed the decision based on a claim of urgency by Roxas and without waiting for the parties concerned -- Meralco, SEC, and the GSIS -- to submit their memoranda in response to oral arguments.
"What is the urgency?" Callejo said.
"I don't know about him [Roxas]," Vidal said, adding that when the draft decision was presented to her, Roxas was carrying an "expensive traveling bag" where the decisions had been placed.
Vidal argued that Roxas had made her believe that there was “urgency in the case” to which Callejo countered, “So you swallowed [Roxas’ statement] hook, line, and sinker?”
After Vidal answered in the affirmative and apologized for her lapse, Callejo berated her, asking whether “a justice should act this way?”
Callejo said that in his eight years as justice of the Court of Appeals, he did not do what Roxas had done.
Vidal also admitted that she did not wait for the memorandum of all the parties involved when she signed the draft decision.
"So you mean the memorandum of the parties is an exercise in futility? Imagine the Solicitor-General submitting a memorandum of so many pages, how many years have you been in the Court of Appeals," Callejo asked Vidal who said, “Three.”
Callejo also questioned why Vidal signed the decision when Roxas made a ruling recommending that GSIS lawyers be reprimanded even if it was not raised in the memorandum of the parties. Callejo said the decision should only focus on what was raised by the parties.
"Was that raised in the memorandum? Oh, you did not read the memorandum," Callejo said. Vidal said Roxas should answer that question.
"But you did sign the decision for goodness sake," Callejo said.
Callejo then asked Vidal if she had informed Sabio, who was then the acting chairman of the 9th division, whether Roxas had talked to him.
"Yes, I called his attention. I asked him if Justice Roxas already consulted him about the ponencia and he said ‘deadma [no reaction],’" Vidal said.
"Deadma? I was part of the Court of Appeals for 8 years and I never heard of the word deadma," Callejo said.
Callejo said he hoped that Vidal had “learned a lesson” in which she should just “not rely on the urgency” of something as told by a colleague. “Act on your own,” he said.
Sabio, who is at the center of the scandal, was the first to take the witness stand Friday and was questioned by Roxas over allegations by Sabio in his affidavit that Roxas had several pending administrative cases.
"In your affidavit, you said, ‘Justice Roxas flashed through your mind on several administrative cases pending against him,’ is that based on your mind or on fact?" Roxas asked Sabio.
Sabio told Roxas that he was basing his statement from several justices who said that Roxas was “questionable.”
"Your name has been mentioned by several justices as questionable because you have that habit of carrying folders and rollos of cases," Sabio said, pointing out that such action is prohibited because cases for decision, especially if a copy would be given to a colleague and a member of the same division, should be contained in a sealed envelope that only the justices should open.
Sabio added that there was even an instance that Roxas was in a rush, carrying with him the draft of the temporary restraining order on the Meralco case as well as minutes of their deliberations.
"I have never encountered anything like that in my nine years of stay in the court of appeals," said Sabio, who has been accused of seeking a multimillion peso bribe in exchange for inhibiting himself from the Meralco case.
“In my nine years in the CA, I have never encountered anything like that. Even without Justice Vidal, dala-dala ang records ng case [he had the records of the case],” said Sabio.
"I learned it. Even Justice [Myrna Dimaranan] Vidal's staff tells me you are carrying a folder. Laging bago attaché case mo dahil ang daming lamang folder [Your attaché case is always new because there are lots of folders]," Sabio said.
On Sabio’s claim that he had several pending administrative cases, Roxas asked, “Did you know that the Supreme Court en bank dismissed the administrative case against me?”
Sabio countered that there were two other pending cases. Roxas asked how Sabio learned about this and from whom. But Sabio refused to divulge his source of information.
It was at this time that Callejo reminded both justices to observe proper decorum.
Sabio and Vidal also argued about the procedures stated under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals.
Roxas pointed out that pursuant to the rules, "the case should follow the ponente" and the 9th division that originally issued the TRO against the SEC has been disbanded after Sabio and Vidal were assigned to the 6th division.
"Why would you insist to stay in the 9th division when it was already disbanded," Roxas asked Sabio.
"I did not insist, I only asserted the procedure," Sabio said and then noted that he made Vidal sign the draft decision but which was promulgated by a different division.
"So you mean Justice Roxas has the power to amend the IRCA?" Roxas asked.
"Your question is irrelevant," Sabio told Roxas.
Sabio said that while he was not contradicting the rules, what he was questioning was the manner by which the court had arrived at the decision on Meralco and how Vidal was “unceremoniously removed from the case.”
The arguments prompted the panel to suspend the cross examination of Sabio.
Only Vidal and Sabio took the stand. Justice Sabio will return to the witness stand on Monday for further cross examination.
Roxas, meanwhile, said he found the provision in the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals but that he lost it again when he got excited over the exchanges between Vidal and Callejo.
|
