Justice grilled for ‘unusual interest’ in case
By Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:23:00 08/14/2008
MANILA, Philippines—The ponente of the case involving Manila Electric Co. and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) was questioned Wednesday on why he had insisted on holding on to the case records instead of putting these in the custody of the division clerk of court before the decision was issued.
Romeo Callejo Sr., one of three retired Supreme Court justices comprising the panel assigned to investigate the purported improprieties at the Court of Appeals (CA) in connection with the Meralco vs GSIS case, questioned CA Justice Vicente Roxas, the ponente or writer of the decision.
In response, Roxas said he had to study the records—called the “rollo”—in order to come up with the decision.
But Callejo also wondered how the transcript of the July 14 final deliberations of the CA 8th Division was produced, when one of the members, Justice Apolinario Bruselas, had testified that no stenographer was present and that he saw no recording device in the room.
Justice Jose Sabio Jr., who had claimed to being unceremoniously ousted from the case, accused Roxas of having “unusual interest” in the petition filed by Meralco against the GSIS and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The petition had sought the voiding of the SEC order stopping Meralco from including proxy votes in its board elections on May 27.
Sabio had earlier contended that he and Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal should have been among those who decided on the case because it was they who had heard the oral arguments.
The decision favoring Meralco was issued by the 8th Division chaired by Justice Bienvenido Reyes, with Roxas and Bruselas as members.
‘Isn’t that strange?’
But CA Justice Edgardo Cruz, who chairs the appellate court’s rules committee, said Sabio could not insist on being part of the division that should rule on the case because he was only appointed as Reyes’ temporary replacement.
Cruz’s stance was backed by the 8th Division’s clerk of court, Teresita Custodio, who believed that Reyes should have ruled on the case but nevertheless complied when Sabio said he would chair the division during the June 23 oral arguments.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Callejo noted Custodio’s testimony that the rollo was with Roxas while the case was pending and was given to her only when the decision was handed down.
“It appears to me the rollo had always been with Justice Roxas ... Isn’t that strange that Justice Roxas keeps the rollo?” Callejo said.
He wondered if Roxas would also keep all 300 rollos with him if he were handling 300 cases, and asked how many other justices were keeping rollos.
Custodio’s duty
The issue about the case records arose after Custodio testified that she was unable to prepare an agendum on the GSIS motion for Roxas to inhibit himself from the case, as required, because the rollo was with him.
Custodio also said it appeared that it was only Roxas who was keeping case records.
But Callejo said it was Custodio’s duty to retrieve the rollo from Roxas: “Diyos ko (My God), you should have asked for the rollo from him and stitched the motion [as the pleadings come].”
Later in an ambush interview with reporters, Sabio said Roxas’ action indicated the latter’s “unusual interest in this case.”
Asked to comment, Roxas countered that there was nothing unusual in his keeping the rollo because he was the designated ponente.
“That’s a regular procedure. Everything goes to the ponente. The ponente needs to read something,” he told reporters.
No stenographer
Callejo also wondered how the seven-page transcript of the 8th Division’s final deliberations was produced considering that only Roxas, Reyes and Bruselas were present, and that Bruselas had testified that he did not sign any transcript.
“How can there be a transcript if there was no stenographer?” Callejo said.
Bruselas replied that perhaps Roxas had taken down notes, and that the ponente had earlier said he wanted minutes of the meeting kept.
The panel chair, Carolina Grińo Aquino, asked whether the transcript was produced from memory, eliciting laughter from the gallery.
Callejo also noted that there was no apparent evidence to show that more than one deliberation was held before the decision was issued.
He said the transcript contained a reference to “previous deliberations,” yet no transcripts of other deliberations could be seen in the records. The transcript was attached to Reyes’ affidavit.
Custodio also said she could not find the records of other transcripts.
“So the claim of Justice Reyes is a falsification?” Callejo said.
Custodio said she could not speak for Reyes. She added that she only came to see the transcript of the final deliberations when the rollo was returned to her.
‘Grievous illness’
Reyes is confined at the Capitol Medical Center in Quezon City and, according to his lawyer Vitaliano Aguirre II, has been banned from reading or watching reports on the controversy hounding the appellate court.
Aguirre told the investigating panel that based on the latest medical bulletin, Reyes was in stable condition after suffering two seizures last week.
Reyes was able to attend only the Thursday hearing conducted by the panel.
“It’s a very grievous illness necessitating his stay at the ICU (intensive care unit). Only on Saturday was he transferred to a regular room. Per the latest bulletin, he’s now in stable condition but he’s prohibited from reading newspapers or watching TV in connection with the case,” Aguirre said.
Sabio questioned Reyes’ continued absence at the daily hearings, but apologized for possibly sounding insensitive.
“I think due process demands that we be able to cross-examine him (Reyes),” Sabio said.
Aguirre said Reyes’ medical certificate was available. He said he wanted Reyes to be present but that the latter was suffering a “life-threatening condition.”
“If he’s well enough, to his heart’s content Justice Sabio can cross-examine him,” Aguirre said. With a report from Edson C. Tandoc Jr.
|
