(The author served as associate justice of the Supreme Court from 2000 up to her retirement on Feb. 27, 2008. She was a justice of the Court of Appeals from 1991 to 2000. A law graduate of the University of Santo Tomas, Gutierrez was also an MTC and RTC judge in Manila.)
The fiasco involving several members of the Court of Appeals relative to the Meralco-GSIS case is one of the saddest chapters in the history of that court. The events that transpired before the panel of investigators composed of three retired Supreme Court justices brought deep murkiness on the entire judiciary.
The Supreme Court, in its decision, adopted the findings of fact by the panel of investigators, discussed the respective liabilities of those concerned, and resolved to penalize them. With due respect to my former colleagues, I would like to pose the following observations:
1. In its decision (par. 2, pp. 49-50), the Supreme Court held:
“[We] we do find that it was improper for Justice Sabio Jr. to hold on to the chairmanship of the Ninth Division despite the return of Justice Reyes, when Justice Sabio Jr.’s 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 (Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) and hostile, dismissive attitude toward equally well- reasoned positions of his colleagues on the proper interpretation of their rules.”
However, again with due respect to my former colleagues, the Supreme Court, instead of finding that Justice Sabio Jr. has an unusual interest in the case, merely said: “Such conduct on the part of Justice Sabio Jr. 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.”
Amazing
Justice Sabio Jr.’s conduct obviously manifests his desire to hold on the case firmly and eventually decide the same. It bears stressing that normally, a justice will gladly unload a case to lessen his or her burden. Indeed, I am amazed why Justice Sabio Jr. clung to the case although he was aware of the pertinent provision of the IRCA which, to my mind, is clear and needs no interpretation.
With no intention to hurt Justice Sabio Jr. or to demean the ratiocination of my former colleagues, I believe that having an undue interest in the case constitutes a more serious administrative offense which calls for a more severe penalty.
Moreover, the Supreme Court declared that Justice Sabio Jr.’s conversation with Mr. Francis de Borja were improper and indiscreet, quoting the following findings of the panel of investigators:
“Knowing the nature of De Borja’s 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 favor 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 Meralco’s 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 lobby-lounge of the Ateneo Law School after his evening class in Legal Ethics in said school.
Broke shield of confidentiality
“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 lobby-lounge 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.’
Perplexed
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 outrage and respectability, Justice Sabio Jr. called up 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 Borja’s 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. ‘Sayang 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 Borja’s P10-million bribe offer on behalf of Meralco, than De Borja’s denial that he made such an offer. x x x” (par. 1, pp. 50-51)
Impropriety at highest level
Justice Sabio Jr.’s acts of meeting Mr. De Borja at the lobby-lounge of the Ateneo Law School and his continued communication with the latter concerning the Meralco-GSIS case, to my mind, constitute impropriety at its highest level. Yet, the Supreme Court concluded that Justice Sabio Jr. committed a mere simple misconduct instead of gross misconduct which warrants a more drastic sanction.
During the proceedings before the panel of investigators, “Mr. Francis de Borja admitted having given P300,000 to Justice Sabio Jr., some 15 years ago, a balato because he came to value the friendship of Justice Sabio Jr. 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 balato (commission) of 10 percent of the P3 million to Justice Sabio Jr. in cash at the Roa-owned bank in Cagayan de Oro. Since the Roas had a lot of ‘legal problems,’ Justice Sabio Jr. rendered legal advice and consultation at the time that he was an RTC Judge in Cagayan de Oro City.” (par. 4, pp. 20-21)
Surprisingly, Justice Sabio Jr. did not deny Mr. De Borja’s admission.
It is basic that judges are not supposed to give legal advice and receive fees therefor. However, in its decision, the Supreme Court did not find Justice Sabio Jr. liable for an administrative offense.
Ground for disciplinary action
2. The Supreme Court resolved inter alia (among other things): “(6) PCGG Chairman Camilo L. Sabio’s 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;”
In his signed testimony read by Chairman Sabio before the panel of investigators, he narrated that Atty. Jesus I. Santos, a member of the Board of Trustees of the GSIS, requested him to ask his brother, Justice Sabio Jr., to help the GSIS.
Atty. Santos’ conduct of influencing Justice Sabio Jr., through his brother, in deciding the case in favor of the GSIS is a ground for disciplinary action. Should not Atty. Santos be likewise investigated by the Office of the Bar Confidant?
At any rate, on the whole, I am convinced that the Supreme Court decision, in penalizing the justices concerned, restored the people’s trust in our judicial system.
In closing, may I reiterate that in writing these observations, I am merely expressing my thoughts, in the interest of justice, and have no intention whatsoever to undermine the intelligence and integrity of my former colleagues.
