MANILA, Philippines—Justices of the Court of Appeals are pictured as at each other’s throat by documents they submitted to Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. at a closed-door session called to hose down a P10-million bribe controversy involving a case that Manila Electric Co. had filed against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).

These submissions, which were obtained by this reporter, depicted the turmoil that has rocked the court.

The controversy followed a complaint filed by Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. asking for an “immediate thorough investigation” of the supposed attempt to bribe him so he would inhibit himself from the case that Meralco had filed to stop a takeover attempt by the GSIS.

The documents also showed the divisions in the court.

In its en banc session on July 31, the court decided to elevate the case to the Supreme Court for resolution of the following issues: (1) the “propriety” of the actions of certain justices in the case; (2) the alleged bribery attempt; and (3) which division of the court had the jurisdiction to decide the Meralco-GSIS case.

On July 23, the Court of Appeals voided an order of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking to stop the counting of proxy votes during the May 27 Meralco annual stockholders meeting to elect a new set of directors.

The court decision spawned a host of controversies that have now blown up into the alleged bribery attempt.

Away from the mob

Sabio’s report on the bribery attempt is at the center of the issues covered by the submissions to the en banc session.

Reacting to the complaint of Sabio, Justice Vicente Roxas, a senior member of the court’s 8th Division and author of the decision, was the first to take Justices Sabio and Myrna Vidal to task for giving media interviews and statements that they were “unceremoniously excluded” from the Meralco decision.

Roxas said that “instead of grandstanding before the media,” Sabio and Vidal should have filed administrative complaints with the court administrator or the Supreme Court.

Such complaints, he said, “are treated confidentially—away from the mob—to preserve the integrity of the innocent and that of the court.”

Reyes returns; Sabio stays

Roxas said the en banc meeting was, therefore, a “disguised investigation” of the 8th Division’s decision.

When Meralco filed a petition for a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of the SEC order, the petition was raffled off to Roxas, as “ponente.” With him in the division were Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Vidal.

Since Reyes was on a temporary leave of absence, Sabio, who was chair of the 7th Division, served concurrently as acting chair of the Special 9th Division.

Reyes returned to work on June 16. Under court rules, he was supposed to automatically reassume the position of chair. It was Sabio who presided over the hearing of June 23.

Out in the cold

In his submission, Roxas said:

“It is a fact that Justice Reyes returned to work on June 16, but Justice Sabio refused to relinquish the acting chairmanship of the 9th Division and he left the regular 9th Division Chairman Justice Reyes out in the cold when Justice Sabio presided over the June 23 hearing. Justice Reyes could get only as far as having his nameplate displayed on the table at the hearing while Justice Sabio insisted on presiding …

“Justice Reyes did not want to make a scene at the hearing. Justice Sabio embarrassed Justice Reyes by simply showing up, forcing Justice Reyes to retreat. That incident was the talk of the Court of Appeals for weeks.”

Disturbing phone call

On July 4, the court was reorganized. As a result Roxas moved to the 8th Division, where he joined Reyes and Justice Apolinario Bruselas. Sabio was assigned as chair of the 6th Division.

On July 20, the Rules Committee of the CA advised Sabio to relinquish the chairmanship of the division handling the case in favor of Reyes.

In a July 25 memorandum, Bruselas reported to the presiding justice he was disturbed by a telephone call from Sabio who told him that on June 23, “he was approached and offered P10 million by the Meralco side to either favor them or yield the chair to Justice Reyes.”

Bruselas wonders

Bruselas said he was “taken aback.” He said he informed Reyes of the “incident.” According to Bruselas, Sabio told him that he was not going to leave the matter “as it is” and that it would be brought out into the open, to the media.”

Bruselas said that Sabio rhetorically asked: “If the offer to me was P10 million, how much do you think was involved with the others?”

Bruselas wrote in his memo that he “silently wondered why it was only now that I was getting this information.”

He said Vidal reported to the presiding justice a similar call she got from Sabio that morning.

‘Obvious irregularities’

In a letter of July 24 to the presiding justice, Vidal called his attention to “the apparent and obvious irregularities” in the handling of the Meralco case.

She said that a week before, Roxas presented to her his “purported final decision” on the case.

Curiously enough, she said, Roxas did not forward the decision to Sabio, acting chair of the former Special 9th Division.

She said that “much to [her] surprise and consternation,” she learned that a decision was already promulgated on July 23 by the 8th Division composed of Reyes, Roxas and Bruselas.

Judicial courtesy

She said: “My deepest regret is that [I] who already signed the supposed final draft of the decision, was not even informed by the ponente (author) as a judicial courtesy at least.”

She said she was eased out from the case after spending time studying the case and signing the draft decision.