Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. – is the Philippine Angel of Death

Pope Pius XII (Apostolic Letter of July 7, 1952 Sacro Vergente) consecrated Russia to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Fatima. Pope John Paul II again consecrated the entire world to the Virgin in 1984, without mentioning countries like Russia. "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a Woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child … Then the dragon was angry with the Woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus." And when the dragon saw that he was cast down to the earth, he persecuted the woman. And the serpent cast out of his mouth …, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus ... (Rev. 12:1–2, 5, 17). Genesis 3:15 says, "I will put enmities between thee [the serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: She shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Curse upon Malabon and the Court of Appeals

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Br. 73, RTC, Malabon: Due to Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes’ (Br. 74, RTC, Malabon, beside Judge Floro, the

Angel of Death) promotion to the CA, Judge Rosa C. Reyes replaced him, and she forthwith suffered 2 years of breast cancer dire pains, and died on March 9, 2007, after Judge Floro’

front Judge Benjamin Antonio, Br. 170, RTC, Malabon suffered and retired due to Permanent Total Disability on S.C. Fire day of January 16, 2007.

After Floro's filed November 5-3, imprecation (under Psalm 109-73) Court "Motion," the Supreme Court of the Philippines's logo was halved on January 15, 2007, (the 2nd violet

light-fire), since the 1st January 22, 2000 Malabon City Halls of Justice fire.The 3rd mystic fire also halved the Commission on Elections (Philippines)'s seal on March 12, 2007, amid the resignation of Benjamin Abalos on October 1, 2007. The 4th mystic fire burned burned almost the entire 4th floor of the Philippine Court of Appeals on July 26, 2007. The 5th 8-4-2007 mystic 3-hour fire burned the Muntinlupa City halls and Metropolitan Trial Court.

2

After Floro's filed November 5-3, imprecation (under Psalm 109-73) Court "Motion," the Supreme Court of the Philippines's logo was halved on January 15, 2007, (the 2nd violet

light-fire), since the 1st January 22, 2000 Malabon City Halls of Justice fire.The 3rd mystic fire also halved the Commission on Elections (Philippines)'s seal on March 12,

2007, amid the resignation of Benjamin Abalos[156] on October 1, 2007. The 4th mystic fire burned burned almost the entire 4th floor of the Philippine Court of Appeals[158] on

July 26, 2007. The 5th mystic 3-hour fire burned the Muntinlupa City halls and Metropolitan Trial Court on August 4, 2007

3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator

SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., (123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan) Complainant,

- versus - A.M. OCA IPI No. ______________For: Gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest, violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct (Rule 2.04, inter alia) and Professional Responsibility, Disbarment, etc.

Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas,Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal,Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.,and “Jane Doe” & Sarah Doe” (Lawyers, daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.),(Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila) Respondents.X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--X

Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint – Letter-Affidavit[Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct

& Professional Responsibility, inter alia] – and –

Verified Motion To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.

Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With -  

Urgent Omnibus Motions

I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, andII. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.”

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, S.C. Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, Supreme Court, and The (Acting) Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila &

4

Mme. Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, Chairperson,59-D Tuason St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, M.M.,Mme. Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Member and 11 Champaca St., Tahanan Village, Paranaque City, 1700, M.M.,Mr. Justice Romeo Callejo, Jr., Member9 Ruego St., BF Homes, Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City, 1121, M.M.

Your Honors,

I, the undersigned petitioner / complainant, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / complainant in this case, as concerned citizen, and taxpayer, inter alia, AND WITH LEAVE OF COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that:

Prefatory

Jurisprudence applicable to this landmark case

The Darkest Hour in the Court of Appeals’ History

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20080803-152292/Salonga-CA-corruption-expos-good-for-reforms

Salonga: CA corruption exposé good for reforms

By Norman Bordadora Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 00:41:00 08/03/2008

FORMER SENATE PRESIDENT JOVITO Salonga on Saturday confirmed the purported corruption in the Court of Appeals and said reforms were urgently needed.

“It is true that there is bribery in the appellate court,” the 88-year-old founder of the judiciary watchdog group Bantay Katarungan told the Inquirer. “It should be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice.”

Preventive suspension

On Friday, a former Malabon City Judge asked the Supreme Court to order the preventive suspension of all appellate court justices involved in the Meralco vs GSIS case.

In a “verified complaint-letter affidavit,” RTC Judge Florentino Floro Jr. said these justices should be investigated for gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest and violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct and of Professional Responsibility, among others. Floro said the high court should once and for all “cleanse the entire Court of

5

Appeals.” “The undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this court, because of the shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial system: CA justices accusing each other, not in courts, but in the media. This is too much. This is the darkest hour of the CA since its creation,” he said.

Floro named as respondents in the case Sabio and Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Apolinario Bruselas, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente Roxas, as well as CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. He said the high court should appoint one of its retired associate justices as an independent investigator and a special prosecutor to look into the matter.

Headline maker

Floro himself made headlines when he was ordered dismissed from the judiciary in 2006 by the Supreme Court. The high court declared him mentally unfit after he admitted to having “psychic visions,” having dwarfs as friends and being an “angel of death” who could inflict pain on people, especially those he perceived to be corrupt. Undeterred, Floro filed cases against judiciary officials he claimed to have violated the law. In April 2007, he filed administrative charges against what he called the CA’s “Dirty Dozen,” whom he accused of corruption. He said those found guilty should be dismissed from government service and disbarred. With reports from Jerome Aning in Manila; Ma. Cecilia Rodriguez, Inquirer Mindanao

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2001/mar2001/am_00-7-09-ca_2001.html

“EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS CHARGING COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO DEMETRIA WITH INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF A SUSPECTED DRUG QUEEN: COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA. PER CURIAM:

"Men and women of the courts must conduct themselves with honor, probity, fairness, prudence and discretion. Magistrates of justice must always be fair and impartial. They should avoid not only acts of impropriety, but all appearances of impropriety. Their influence in society must be consciously and conscientiously exercised with utmost prudence and discretion. For, theirs is the assigned role of preserving the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary. (Rule 2.04, Code of Judicial Conduct).

The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates a judge to "refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency." The slightest form of interference cannot be countenanced. Once a judge uses his influence to derail or interfere in the regular course

6

of a legal or judicial proceeding for the benefit of one or any of the parties therein, public confidence in the judicial system is diminished, if not totally eroded.

Such is this administrative charge triggered by newspaper accounts which appeared on the 21 July 2000 issues of The Manila Standard, The Manila Times, Malaya, The Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today. The national dailies collectively reported that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk Lai, who went in and out of prison to play in a Manila casino. (21 July 2000 issue of The Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. 20). That same day, 21 July 2000, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., issued a Memorandum to Justice Demetria directing him to comment on the derogatory allegations in the news items.3 On 24 July 2000, Justice Demetria submitted his Compliance. Subsequently, Chief State Prosecutor (CSP) Jovencito R. Zuño, who disclosed to the media the name of Justice Demetria, and State Prosecutor (SP) Pablo C. Formaran III, a member of the Task Force on Anti-Narcotics Cases of the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuting the case of the suspected Chinese drug queen, filed their respective Comments on the Compliance of Justice Demetria.

On 8 August 2000, the Court En Banc ordered an investigation and designated Mme. Justice Carolina C. Griño- Aquino as Investigator and Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo as Prosecutor. An investigation then commenced on 22 August 2000 and continued until 16 November 2000.

The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy of responsibility. His at all times must be characterized with propriety and must be above suspicion. His must be free of even a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his judicial duties, but also his behavior outside the courtroom and as a private individual. Unfortunately, respondent failed failed to live up to this expectation. Through their indiscretions, they did not only make a mockery of their high offices, but also caused incalculable damage to the entire Judiciary.

The mere mention of their names in the national newspapers, allegedly lawyering for or against any of the parties of the case

7

pending before the Court of Appeals, seriously undermined the integrity of the entire Judiciary. Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness that a seat in the Judiciary. High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in the Judiciary so indispensable in orderly society cannot be preserved. There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.

(Jereos, Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., AM No. 141, 31 May 1976, 71 SCRA 126; Dia-A onuevo v. Bercacio, AM No. 177-MJ, 27 November 1975, 68 SCRA 81; Candia v. Tagabucba, AM No. 528, MJ, 12 September 1977, 79 SCRA 51; Barja Jr., v. Judge Bercacio, AM No. 561-MJ, 29 December 1976, 74 SCRA 355).

WHEREFORE, we sustain the findings of the Investigating Justice and hold Justice Demetrio G. Demetria GUILTY of violating Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency or instrumentality, including any government owned or controlled corporation or institution.”

Moral, Religious Basis: Rule of Law, the cause of sin, and sin, of death.

While this Court can motu proprio investigate, docket administrative or

disbarment cases, and cite in contempt, inter alia, the respondents, still, the

undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this Court, because of

the shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial

system:

CA Justices accusing each other, not in Courts, but in media. This is too

much. This is the darkest hour of the Court of Appeals, since its 1936

creation. Who else, should file this case, to stop this root cause of extra-

judicial killings, and Divine punishments, as Our Lady of Fatima direly

warned us, her children, and the world, in 1918. I am here, your Honors,

asking you to cleanse the entire Court of Appeals and judiciary. Hear my

pleas, your Honors, fail us not.

8

Critical and Undisputed Facts: Bill of Particulars:

Who are the justices squabbling over the Meralco case?

By PURPLE S. ROMERO abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreakhttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=126890

July 24, 2008 Letter of P.J. Conrado Vasquez, Jr. to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/CAdocs.pdf

July 26, 2008 Letter of Justice Jose L. Sabio to P.J. Conrado Vasquez, Jr. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/Court%20of%20Appeals.pdf

Justice Sabio appeared on TV being interviewed by GMA News reporter Carlo Lorenzo TV in his chambershttp://www.gmanews.tv/video/26500/QTV-CA-justice-says-decision-on-Meralco-GSIS-row-railroadedQTV: CA justice says decision on Meralco-GSIS row railroaded07/31/2008 | 12:07 PM

Instead of submitting their confidential letters/complaints to the

OCAD or Supreme Court, Sabio and Roxas both published their voices,

opinions, word wars, and confidential letters to Philippine broadcast and

print media: the Daily Inquirer and GMA News, internet, TV and internet

Video, inter alia.

“GSIS-Meralco bribery case”

REPRODUCED, hereunder, is “GSIS-Meralco bribery case” - the

Wikipedia online encyclopedia (the biggest in the whole world) article,

created by –

User:Florentino floro (Florentino Floro) -

Established Wikipedia editor and contributor.

9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Florentino_floro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSIS-Meralco_bribery_case

GSIS-Meralco bribery case

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The GSIS-Meralco bribery case, legally termed criminal obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office, is a political controversy and pending Supreme Court of the Philippines legal case, involving the P 10-million bribery attempt which allegedly involved a Manila Electric Company (Meralco) 'emissary' and Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio. [1]

The "case-switching" scandal originated from Meralco and Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) row, after Sabio - in a letter-complaint against Justices Vicente Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes - complained of the "fishy" circumstances that he was removed from the Meralc-GSIS case, and an alleged bribe attempt by Meralco in consideration for him giving way to Reyes' chairmanship of the CA's Special 9th Division.[2]

It has caught wide media coverage and has achieved political, international and judicial significance because of its very threat to the integrity and credibility of the Philippine judicial system. The corruption scandal forthwith caused the motu proprio assumption of jurisdiction over the issue, by the High Tribunal per its Chief Justice's rare agendum of an En Banc hearing and deliberation on August 6, 2008.[3] The Senate of the Philippines' legislators, inter alia, called for speedy resolution of the issues.[4][5] The scandal engulfs the Judiciary and has uncloaked a dark, transactional periphery of the justice system.

History

It started when, on May 11, 2008, the Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) accused Meralco of unlawful refusal to grant corporate access to documents despite the GSIS’ holding 4 seats in the 11-member Meralco board, amid GSIS' denial of plans to wrest control from the Lopez family.

Background

In 1962, Don Eugenio López, Sr. acquired MERALCO and it finally became Filipino-owned, but Ferdinand Marcos, by decree, placed it under a shell

10

company called the Meralco Foundation, Inc., controlled by crony under government controlled Napocor.[6]

In 1978, Meralco was fully controlled by the Marcos administration, but its ownership was finally returned to the Lopez family after the People Power Revolution by President Corazon Aquino. By executive order, she allowed Meralco to directly compete with NAPOCOR.[7]

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on May 2, 2008, announced plans to reduce Luzon high power rates, amid a “tough legal fight” with Meralco before state energy regulators. Accordingly, GSIS, thru its President Winston Garcia, on May 11, stated it "planned not only to buy out the Lopez family and other shareholders in Meralco but also to break up its concession to promote efficiency and transparency." But Meralco chair and CEO Manuel Lopez said he was not selling the utility.

The cases and facts

Oscar Lopez blamed the Arroyo administration's moves to take over Meralco in a “reverse privatization,” because of the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN's negative publicity against the government.[8]

May 27 stockholders’ meeting

During the May 27, 2008 stockholders’ meeting, GSIS' President Winston Garcia obtained a Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) “cease-and-desist order” to stop and defer the counting of proxy votes held by the Lopez group until questions on its validity were resolved. GSIS accused the Lopezes of “rigging” the process.[9] In the end, GSIS failed to gain control of Meralco, since, the SEC order was not honored. Meralco retained its 5 seats, the government its 4, while the 2 others are independent directors Artemio Panganiban and Vicente Panlilio. Aside from Manuel Lopez, the Meralco directors elected are Jesus Francisco, Felipe Alfonso, Christian Monsod and Cesar Virata, while the government board members elected aside from Garcia, are Bernardino Abes, Daisy Arce and Jeremy Parulan.

Lopez, however, obtained, on May 30, a temporary restraining order from the Philippine Court of Appeals, against the SEC order. The Court’s 8th Division chaired by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, rendered a 57-page judgment, on July 24, affirming Meralco’s stance that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the issue.[10][11]

11

Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Special 9th Division member, challenged the Reyes' decision, per letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr., thus: "How can the 8th Division issue an order when it is the 9th that has been hearing the complaint of alleged irregularities in the Meralco election?" It is also the 9th Division that issued the temporary restraining order on the SEC order to Meralco on May 30."

Assistant Clerk of Court, lawyer Manuel Cervantes, said no irregularity had been committed when the 8th division came out with the decision instead of the 9th, simply a result of the reorganization of the court. “Due to the retirement of some justices, Justice Vidal was reassigned to the 6th Division while Reyes became chair of the 8th,” Cervantes said. Roxas was moved to the 8th division, Vidal went to the 6th, and Sabio to the 9th. "The case goes with the ponente(justice assigned to pen the case),” Cervantes explained. “Justice Vicente Roxas is the ponente. Even with the change in division, the case stays with him." And since the rule is that the case goes with the ponente,the 57-page decision was issued by the division of which Justice Roxas was now a part, he said. [12] Permission is not required from the previous division or its justices.He said the RIRCA (Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended in 2205) does not require the justices who issued the TRO be the same justices to render the decision.

The Court of Appeals Reorganization Office Order No. 200-08-CMV was issued by Presiding Justice Vasquez on July 4, three weeks before the decision was released.

Justice Jose L. Sabio, with the encouragement of Justice Vidal (his colleague in the 9th Special Division) broke the bribery attempt news and wrote to P.J. Vasquez, Jr. on July 26.[13] He joined Justice Vidal, initiating further, a media expose of their squabbles, alleging something “stinks” in the Meralco court ruling. Presiding Justice Vasquez released his opinion, also, per his July 24, 2008 Letter to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas.[14][15][16]

Businessman Francis de Borja surfaces and reveals to the media a notarized and sworn affidavit that it was Justice Sabio who brought up a P50 million price for him to act in favor of Meralco in its dispute with the GSIS. Mr. de Borja asserts that Mr. Sabio had told him a Supreme Court seat was being offered in exchange for a ruling in favor of the GSIS, which is trying to wrest control of Meralco from the Lopezes. Expecting Sabio to answer that he would not be swayed by any offer and would rule according to his conscience, De Borja asked what it would take for him to resist the supposed

12

government offer of a seat on the Supreme Court and money. He was taken aback when Sabio replied "P50 million”, and then left.[17]

Manolo Lopez calls the accusations of Sabio a malicious and a pure fabrication. He vehemently denied the allegations, together with the claim that he (Lopez) was waiting in the car during the meeting. He said he was out of the country for a medical check-up when the incident supposedly happened, and returned only last July 13. As proof, he showed tickets showing his departure dated June 27 and his arrival dated July 13.[18]

The CA Justices in the case

ABS-CBN and Philippines Newsbreak Magazine reported on the CA Justices of the case.[19] ABS-CBN researched and published that:[20]

* Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.'s daughters Agnes Rosario and Ruth Almira are currently employed by the GSIS. Agnes Rosario is a dentist in the GSIS medical department while Ruth Almira is with the office of the Company secretary. Vasquez’ sister, Lenny Vasquez de Jesus, was a GSIS trustee from 1998-2004. She is also the ninang (godmother) of the youngest son of GSIS president Winston Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. * Associate Justice Sabio, Jr., chair of the CA ninth division, graduated from the Ateneo de Manila University College of Law. He is a pre-bar reviewer in Legal Ethics at the Ateneo School of Law where he also teaches, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law I. In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against him for ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with deliberately causing the delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, “People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert John Sobrepeña, Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr.” The case was dismissed by the SC, signed by 12 of the 14 incumbent Justices. [21] * Associate Justice Vidal was awarded a plaque of recognition as outstanding judge by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) in 2001, and in 2004, she was an outstanding judge who received Supreme Court Judicial Excellence awards. * Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is the chairman of the 8th division that promulgated the decision. He obtained his Ll.B Degree from San Beda College and passed the Bar examinations in the same year. Reyes was promoted CA associate justice on August 8, 2000, after serving as RTC Judge, in Br. 74, Malabon City, from 1990. He was was also a finalist in the 1997 Awards for Judicial Excellence.[22][23]

13

* Associate Justice Vicente Roxas is a top ten bar exam topnotcher from the University of the Philippines College of Law. He was En Banc Consultant for the SEC(Securities and Exchange Commission) for eleven years, and taught at the UP college of law. He was a RTC Judge in Quezon City for ten years before his appointment as associate justice of the CA. In 2007, the Manila Times reported that Erlinda Bilder-Ilusurio, president of Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. (Philcomsat) filed an administrative case against him for ‘gross ignorance of the law’ after he ruled on a petition that was withdrawn already by Emmanuel Nieto, a Philcomsat stockholder. The SC unanimously dismissed the case.[24] * Associate Justice Bruselas was a regional trial court judge in Quezon City before being appointed to the court of appeals. He served as a member of the technical working group of the judiciary's action program for judicial reform. He penned the decision in Steel Corp. and Subic rape case.[25]

Name - Position - Date of Appointment - Date of Birth - Date of Retirement

Hon. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. - Presiding Justice - March 22, 1994 January 6, 1940 January 6, 2010

Hon. JOSE L. SABIO, JR. - Associate Justice - May 28, 1999 May 25, 1941 May 25, 2011Hon. BIENVENIDO L. REYES - Associate Justice - August 22, 2000

July 6, 1947 - July 6, 2017Hon. VICENTE Q. ROXAS - Associate Justice - February 9, 2004

December 8, 1949 December 8, 2019Hon. MYRNA DIMARANAN-VIDAL - Associate Justice - January 24, 2005 December 20, 1939 - December 20, 2009Hon. APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR. - Associate Justice - August 1, 2005 May 6, 1956 - May 6, 2026

Attempted bribery and discipline of Philippine jurists and lawyers

Bribery attempt, in Philippine Jurisprudence, is considered a criminal offense or felony.

Philippine Court of Appeals Justices are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and may be disciplined by Disbarment or dismissal from service, under the Revised Rules of Court (1997 Code of Civil Procedure).

Also, the Philippine Court of Appeals' "Process of Adjudication" is governed by A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA 2005, the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of

14

Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to, 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, February 28, 2005.[26][27][28]

The laws

The Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) regarding the matter are as follows:

Rule I, SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions. - (a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of a Division. Assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in accordance with the order of seniority. (n)

PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION Rule VI, 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. (Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])

The Revised Penal Code of 1930 now defines the felony of attempted bribery as follows:

Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime,xxxx and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification. The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to xxx any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).[29] Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — xxx There

15

is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.[30]

The Revised Rules of Court, now also provides for the discipline of jurists and lawyers, as follows:

A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, Discipline of Judges and Justices: SECTION 1. How instituted. – Proceedings for the discipline of judges xxx Justices of the Court of Appeals xxx may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person xxx SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; xxx SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.[31] Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys: Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.[32]

Application to this case

Justice Sabio informed Philippine media that he was offered P 10 million (through a Makati businessman, which he rejected) to inhibit himself from the GSIS-Meralco case, which was decided by the 8th Division's Justice Vicente Roxas, the designated ponente, with the concurring opinions of Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Antonio Bruselas. Roxas was transferred from the 9th Division, when the case was pending. Sabio revealed to media that: “It turned out that he was brokering for Meralco.” Sabio appeared on a TV interview by GMA Network reporter Carlo Lorenzo in his chambers.[33]

16

Cagayan de Oro businessman Francis Roa de Borja, in his July 31, 2008 affidavit, swore that: "when he asked what it would take for him to resist the government offer, Sabio's reply was: “Fifty million (pesos)"; Sabio wanted to remain as acting chairman of the 9th Division because he was up to something; that Sabio consulted his other colleagues in the CA and they told him that he was in the right and should stick to his guns; that was then Sabio told Borja about the offer of unnamed government officials for a promotion at the SC and money for a favorable ruling for GSIS."[34][35]

De Borja accused Sabio of twisting the facts: "No, I never said that. If you know Manolo Lopez -- he is somewhat aristocratic -- he would be the last person to wait for somebody in the car, and they did not know that he was abroad at that time. I said in my affidavit that he told me his wife would be waiting for him in the car and he says now that Manolo was waiting in my car..."

De Borja stated that he was ready to face charge of perjury and to take a lie detector test with Sabio before competent foreign experts and together: "It’s a free county, let him file it and we’ll see. I’m prepared, the moment I signed my affidavit obviously I considered the consequences so I wouldn’t have made up a story. And my third comment is he is a lawyer and a justice. He knows that a lie detector test is not admissible as evidence so why is he asking for it?’’[36] De Borja was interviewed and appeared at ABS-CBN News Channel's (ANC) Dateline Philippines, and he repeated his media statements: "No definitely not...He [Sabio] says that Manolo was waiting for me in my car. I never said it. And if you know Manolo...Can you imagine somebody like Manolo being made to wait in a car? Di ba, yung pagka aristocratic ni Manolo, maghihintay sa kotse? The fact is, he was abroad."[37][38]

Meanwhile, a shadowy group, "Tanglaw ng Bayan," paid an advertisement on a Metro Manila newspaper, appealing "that the CA justices not be subjected to malicious imputations just to advance the agenda of powerful interests, and to allow the CA to "sort out its internal issues." In 2007, it also petitioned the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Senate to probe the Wowowee Willyonaryo controversy.[39]

On July 31, 2008, after a rare 3-hour, closed-door En Banc session attended by 64 CA Justices presided by P.J. Vasquez, Jr., the CA Clerk of Court Atty. Teresita Marigomen announced the appellate court's resolution:[40]

* "that they will refer the investigation of the propriety of action of concerned justices to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator";

17

* "they will leave the matter on the validity of the Meralco decision to the parties, to take whatever steps they may deem necessary after all the allegations"; and, * "they will refer the issue of the conflict on rules to an internal committee within the appellate court."[41][42]

Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered all records of case be delivered forthwith to the high court, and the Supreme Court Public Information Office OIC said all magistrates of the high court would deliberate on the case on August 5.[43]Justice Roxas challenged the En Banc meeting as a “disguised investigation” of the 8th Division’s judgment on the Meralco case, further alleging that under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a case followed the ponente to whatever division the ponente went: “Besides, all hearings in the Court of Appeals are recorded and the members of the 8th Division only need the transcripts of the hearing or the memoranda, briefs, comments and replies of the parties—which are all written.”[44]

Sabio, however, told media that he has text messages plus phone call records evidence to prove that Francis Roa de Borja bribed him.[45][46][47]

Sabio's former client (1978), Evelyn Clavano, a Cagayan de Oro City resident, gave media, on August 1, an affidavit saying that: "Francis de Borja requested me if I have the cell phone number of Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. He related that because he is very close to the Lopezes of Meralco, he wanted to call him (Sabio) 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."[48][49]

Meralco chair Manolo lopez, in a press conference on August 2, denied any involvement in the alleged bribery attempt: “I categorically and vehemently deny the allegations of Justice Jose Sabio. Mind you, I do not have the habit of waiting in the car for anybody except my wife. The [allegations are] malicious and pure fabrication. I am a resident of Rockwell. I know Francis but I have not authorized him or anybody to make representations for [me on] any matter that involves cases of Meralco and the Lopez family. We have retainers and lawyers to handle legal matters. I was out of the country when the alleged meeting between Francis and Justice Sabio took place. I was in the United States for a medical checkup and returned on July 13."

18

Lopez’s officials showed media, tickets of his departure, June 27, and his arrival, July 13.[50]

The Lopez group led by First Philippine Holdings Corp. has a 33.47% share interest in Meralco, while the Philippine government financial institutions own 33.32%. Other shareholders hold 34.21%. Meralco said, the government share is, to wit: GSIS, 22.05%; Social Security System, 5.52%; Land Bank of the Philippines, 4.41%; Philippine Health Insurance Corp., 0.17%; and the Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG, 0.17%.[51]

CA chambers press conference

Sabio, on August 1, First Friday, held a press conference in his CA chambers, and stated to media:“ ...I expect matters to get worse because I am up against the billions of the Lopezes. But that Mr. de Borja would have the nerve to make these lies, under oath, is utterly disgusting when it was he who came to me with the offer of the bribe. He [de Borja] further said that the Lopezes desire that the same justice, with whom the Lopezes are more comfortable, sit in the division. Mr. de Borja called me, so suddenly, and after having had no contact [with him] for almost a year. At that point, he [de Borja] mentioned the impasse between Justice Bienvenido Reyes and myself. Then he [de Borja] explained that he was there to offer me a win-win situation. He said, Justice, we have P10 million. 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. I cannot in conscience agree to that [offer to bribe me]. The Lopezes will do everything possible using their money and power to discredit me. This is just the beginning. I know that they will not stop at doing everything to discredit my integrity.” ”

[52][53]Jurisdictional issue

The internal strife and open quarrel over signature space on a judgment pushed the appellate court to the edge and is now at the center of a maelstrom.[54] The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), raised a legal point, challenging the 8th CA Division's judgment dismissing GSIS's petition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) against Meralco. The certiorari and injunction CA lawsuit was raffled off to the CA’s 9th Division chaired by Justice Bienvenido Reyes (on leave at the time). A special raffle designated Reyes’ replacement, Justice Jose Sabio (as chair). With Justices Vicente Roxas and Myrna Vidal as members, the 9th Division heard the case. (The GSIS moved to inhibit Roxas on account of

19

reports that "he met with Meralco lawyers on the day a temporary restraining order [TRO] was issued by the CA, barring the SEC from taking jurisdiction over the GSIS complaint against Meralco.")

Sabio’s chairmanship issue with Reyes over the Special Ninth Division was overtaken by a July 4, 2008, reorganization at the Court of Appeals. Reyes and Roxas ended up in the 8th Division, which finally resolved the case in favor of the Lopez group on July 23. Sabio was reassigned as chairman of the 6th Division. Sabio later complained that Roxas penned the decision even before either side had submitted their arguments.[55]

Justice Reyes failed to assume the chairmanship of the 9th Division in place of Sabio, and the CA’s 8th Division, chaired by Reyes and with ponente, Justices Roxas and Apolinario Bruselas as members, forthwith promulgated the challenged judgment in favor of Meralco. GSIS called the ruling, a “patent nullity for such dismissal [of the GSIS case before the SEC] was not even prayed for by Meralco in its petition with the Court of Appeals.”[56]

P.J. Vasquez wrote Justices Sabio and Vidal that as members of their newly reconstituted 8th division, they are not very familiar with the case. Vasquez earlier granted Sabio a verbal go-signal to proceed in hearing the June 23 oral argument. Vasquez reiterated that "Sabio’s 9th division, since it issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), and its members heard and participated in the June 23 hearing, should “sign and resolve” the case. To allow the new division of Justice B.L. Reyes as Chairman, Justice Roxas, as ponente, and Justice Bruselas, Jr. as the third member, the resolution of the pending incidents in the case will be participated by two (2) members who were not present and did not hear the arguments during the hearing on the injunctive relief…”[57][58]

Investigation

A.M. No. 08-8-11-C

The Supreme Court, on August 4 created a panel composed of 3 retired Supreme Court justices, to investigate the scandal.[59][60] The High Court's resolution "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" directed chair Associate Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, and Members Justices Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Jr. to conduct daily hearings from August 7, and submit the final report before August 21.[61] In the docketed adminstrative matter, Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Antonio Carpio inhibited for legal

20

reasons.[62] The SC PIO officer announced that: "The hearing will be opened to the public and to the media. It's going to be a regular hearing, like the oral argument, except that there will be no cameras inside the hearing room.”[63]

Joker Arroyo criticized the High Court's ruling, saying it should be, as sitting Justices investigate the case instead, since: "Delegating the investigation to a panel of retired justices who in turn will submit their findings to the high court for review and determination [is] akin to a trial by commissioners."[64]

House Resolution 705

Meanwhile, 2 pro-administration congressmen, Masbate Rep. Antonio Kho and Nueva Ecija Rep. Joseph Gilbert Violago, on August 4 called for a House of Representatives probe on the bribery case.[65] Accordingly, House Resolution 705 was filed by Manila Representative Bienvenido Abante Jr., petitioning Congress, through the committees on energy and justice, to probe the bribery case.

Judicial corruption

On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].[59][60]CA controversies

Created on February 1, 1936, the Philippine Court of Appeals was initially composed of Justice Pedro Concepcion as the first Presiding Judge and 10 Appellate Judges appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly. In March 1938, the appellate Judges were named Justices and their number increased from 11 to 15, with 3 divisions of 5 under Commonwealth Act No. 259. On December 24, 1941, there were 19 Justices under Executive Order No. 395. On February 23, 1995, R.A. No. 7902 expanding the jurisdiction of the Court effective March 18, 1995. On December 30, 1996, R.A. No. 8246 created six

21

(6) more divisions in the Court, thereby increasing its membership from 51 to 69 Justices (additional divisions - 3 for Visayas and 3 for Mindanao, the court's regionalization).

The Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 21, 2008, upon recommendation of the investigator, Bernardo P. Pardo, dismissed Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of considerations.[61] He was only the 2nd Court of Appeals jurist to be dismissed, since the first firing in Philippine judicial history of CA Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, for interceding in theDOJ drug case of Yu Yuk Lai.[62]

The CA, thereafter became the center of controversy after Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered an investigation of the so-called "Dirty Dozen," particularly on the alleged “sale” of "Temporary Restraining Orders" (Injunction, Restraining order abuse).[63] On August 18, 2007, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, president of IBP — Cebu City Chapter, opposed the abolition of the CA in Cebu City, for it will cause inconvenience for both litigants and lawyers. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes was tasked to investigate and submit recommendation to the High Tribunal because of the alleged massive graft and corruption of justices, especially in the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TRO’s).[64]

On April 03, 2007, Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes (now S.C. Justice) ordered an investigation and a regular auditing and inventory of temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by the 69 CA Justices. Reyes stated: “I will order a monthly or quarterly inventory of TROs, for transparency and to watch the movements of the so-called Dirty Dozen [the 12 most corrupt CA justices].” Reynato Puno said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had not yet submitted the list and the Supreme Court was waiting for its delivery amid her formal investigation against the “Dirty Dozen.”[65]

On February 1, 2008, the Court celebrated its 72nd Anniversary.[66]

Reactions

* Government Service Insurance System chief Garcia, on July 31,2008, asked Justices Vicente Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes to resign and save the CA institution amid plans to file criminal and administrative lawsuits. Garcia accused both Justices as “Meralco switcheroo" in the case against GSIS: “The sordid details of Meralco’s behind-the-scene maneuverings as narrated by Justice Sabio merely put in public display the contempt the Lopezes have

22

for the law. Lady Justice lies bleeding on the ground, and those who have bloods in their hands must be made to answer for this dastardly crime! I call on all Filipinos, especially my colleagues in the noble practice of law, to rise up in unison to condemn these moves by Meralco to protect its interest at the expense of what is right and just."[67] * Senator Francis Pangilinan, in a statement, asked the High Court to "act swiftly to get to the bottom of the scandal and immediately punish the guilty. The SC must show no hesitation whatsoever in pursuing this controversy. The entire judiciary's reputation is tarnished by this scandal, and the swiftness within which the SC responds will determine whether the damage is temporary and minimal or if it will be massive and irreparable. The SC must respond with clear and convincing resoluteness by dismissing from the service the CA justices involved in the irregularities, if the evidence warrants it." * Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Sabio's distant relative, said "whoever tried to bribe the CA should be made to account for the crime (Kung sino ang nag-offer ng bribe kay Justice Sabio, dapat ihabla kasi krimen yon e. Of course yung sinsabi ng abogado, dapat pakinggan din. Ang sama ng dating sa taongbayan because kumbaga, right at the doorstep na ng Supreme Court ito e. It's not only the national, but also the international reputation of the judiciary could be compromised). No formal investigations have been conducted regarding alleged irregularities in the judiciary, particularly in the Court of Appeals, because witnesses are afraid to testify against the so-called “hoodlums in robes". * Senator Edgardo Angara said: "Of course, my God when you say that the second-highest level of the judiciary in the Philippines is corrupt and bribable, who's going to be safe investing here or even travelling here?" * Senator Francis Escudero said: "there were enough laws to deal with the controversy. Besides, inter-branch courtesy dictates that the Senate would not meddle with the internal affairs of the judiciary. Supreme Court ang may jurisdiction to discipline erring judges and justices." * Senator Loren Legarda, a former broadcaster of Lopez-owned ABS-CBN, said: "the gravity of the accusation raised by Sabio were so damaging to the justice system and that they cannot be left unresolved. Sabio's revelation calls for everyone to have an open mind, and to come to conclusion only after a dispassionate and objective appreciation of evidencer. The appropriate criminal, civil or administrative cases must be filed against whoever will be found to have transgressed the law. The judiciary should be above suspicion if it will be effective in dispensing justice. We cannot have one branch of government being diminished by scandals like this."[68] * The Senators jointly stated that: "Regardless of the outcome of Meralco-GSIS case at the CA, the senators also said it is clear the case can no longer

23

be heard by Sabio since his fairness has already been tarnished by the various allegations."[69] * Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, dean emeritus of the Ateneo School of Law, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer, that:“The allegations will not do the judiciary any good but the investigation of the Supreme Court will. I don't know the facts. I consider (Sabio) to be an honest man.” * Ateneo Law Dean Cesar L. Villanueva vouched for Sabio, saying "the CA justice is one of the well-respected faculty members of the Ateneo Law School."[70] * The Ateneo Law School student body, per by student council president Jess Lopez, stated: "We, his current students, stand as witnesses to his fairness and impartiality, which are beyond reproach, and the genuine manner in which he implores us to stand against all forms of corruption in all aspects of law and governance. The respect we have for Sabio is derived not only from his remarkable skill in teaching, but likewise from his indubitable sense of justice, moral conduct, and service to society. Sabio’s reputation of being a “professor of utmost integrity who will not and cannot be fazed by unjust and wrongful considerations.”[71] * Alberto Lim, executive director of the Makati Business Club (MBC) MBC, said: "if Sabio is telling the truth, the MBC would be dismayed at Meralco's moves to bribe a CA justice. On the other hand, if De Borja is telling the truth about Sabio's P50 million bribe demand, it would be a big setback to the judiciary." Sabio said that De Borja told him "the MBC was happy with his earlier decision to sign a temporary restraining order (TRO) favoring Meralco." Lim, however, clarified that De Borja is not its member.[72] * Jovito Salonga, 88, Bantay Katarungan or Sentinel of Justice chair, said: “It is true that there is bribery in the CA. It should already be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice. The lawyer-members and even the “student monitors” of Bantay Katarungan know who these personalities are and how the corruption works in the appellate court. They know who these people are. We, in Bantay Katarungan... have been exposing and underscoring the need for reforms in our system of justice. We have written to the Judicial and Bar Council and from time to time the appointing power on the need for reforms in specific instances not only in the CA but in the other courts.” * Rufus Rodriguez , Cagayan De Oro Opposition congressman and former law school dean, said: “This may be an initial black eye for the Court of Appeals...but if (Sabio) just remained silent nothing will happen.”[73] * Joker Arroyo said: “This is a very good opportunity to clean the CA because like cancer, this is now a severe case that must not be allowed to worsen. The bribery issue involving CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio and the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) was a blessing in disguise because people

24

would finally be made aware of what had been going on in the judiciary. We cannot just have remedial measures, we need to cleanse the CA because (corruption) has been vulgar. This is corruption right in their front door. Lawyers know all of these but the people don’t. With this scandal, it’s like a case that only lawyers talked about before had been opened. But nobody wanted to come forward because they were afraid of the justices and if nothing happened to their complaint, they would only suffer along with their cases and their clients. Now that this has been opened, it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide (what to do). Why? Because it has been criticizing corruption in the executive department, it complains against delay in the decisions of lower courts, now we have an actual case, there was an (alleged) offer to a justice. Why does (De Borja) have an unusual interest in this case? There are many who are involved. What happens now is that the SC should decide on it firmly. Once it is within the judiciary, nobody can interfere except the SC, only the SC can discipline them. We (in the Senate) cannot intervene and so (they) must resolve this.” * Camilo Sabio, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman, and elder brother of Justice Jose Sabio said: "The CA justice will have a “good fight. I believe he’s in the right side and I have trust in him. I’ve known him for a long time. He’s my brother. He’s a man of integrity.” * CBCPNews, of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said "the Ateneo de Manila Law School found the bribery allegations against Sabio as “incredible.” * Consumer group National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reform (Nasecore), meanwhile, said "Sabio’s revelations affirmed that Meralco does not play by the books on court and regulatory cases it is involved in. There were times in the past that we felt that Meralco had control of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) because of so many ERC rules that were patently biased in favor of the power company,. So the damning recounting made by no less than a respected justice of the Court of Appeals on how the minions of Meralco operate should give the public a very clear picture of what kind of adversary Nasecore has been facing in our lonesome in the past.” Nasecore won a S.C. case against Meralco for a refund of P827 million, on Aug. 16, 2006.[74]

The ACCUSATION / CHARGES

With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / AuthoritiesWith due respect -

Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondents, with ---

25

a. GraveViolations of - - -

i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES

OF COURT -

“SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include:

1. Bribery, direct or indirect;

2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No.

3019);

3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;

4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court

in an appropriate proceeding;

9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;

SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:

1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order,

4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;

6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and

SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the

following sanctions may be imposed:

1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may

determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,

including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the

forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.”

ii.) CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT -

“CANON 1 A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE

OF THE JUDICIARY RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence,

integrity and independence. RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially

and without delay. RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert

the independence of the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever

source intended to influence the performance of official functions.

CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF

IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES

RULE 2.0, 2.04 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence

in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

26

CANON 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND

WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE

ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.

RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the

applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the

inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge

should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for

the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.

RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases

within the required periods.”

iii.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, the Canons, to wit:

Respondents, like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to the

standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly

the following Canons, viz:

“CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in

Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and

promote respect for law and for legal processes.

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful

conduct.

Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or

at lessening confidence in the legal system.

CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal

profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.

Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to

practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous

manner to the discredit of the legal profession.”

CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988)

27

“CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY - CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.

CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSIONCANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.

Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to

practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous

manner to the discredit of the legal profession.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or

proceeding or delay any man's cause.

Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to

defeat the ends of justice.

CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment

or misuse Court processes.”

– in that respondents miserably failed to be the embodiment of competence,

integrity, and independence; (due to their ardent desire and lust for money

and financial gain); they did not behave to promote public confidence in the

integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; they failed to follow the strict

mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF

LAW, and due process.

b. conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, gross

misconduct, as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal

profession;

28

c. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and their duty as

attorney or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds

enumerated under Sec. 27 of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (Arrieta vs.

Llosa, 282 SCRA 248), including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad

faith in rendering unjust orders and decision

d. The following civil and criminal laws, inter alia, were also violated by

respondents’ promulgation and rendering of the Partial Judgment of April

15, 2008, causing damages, loss, and utter INJUSTICE to Judge Floro, to

wit:

“CHAPTER 2 - HUMAN RELATIONS (n)

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his

duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to

another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is

contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the

damage.

Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or

employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an

action for damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any

disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or

indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the

following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law ;

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;

(19) Freedom of access to the courts.

In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or

omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an

entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil

29

action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be

instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall

include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.

The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or

omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.

Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and xxx a civil action for damages, entirely

separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such

civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require

only a preponderance of evidence.

CHAPTER 2 - QUASI-DELICTS

Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or

negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no

pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is

governed by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)

Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely

separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal

Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the

defendant.

Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own

acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.”

Revised Penal Code: Chapter Two - MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE

Section One. — Dereliction of duty

Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly

render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished

by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.

Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an

unjust interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its

minimum period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable

negligence or ignorance and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty

shall be suspension.

30

Burning issue – Urgent and compelling - chilling effect on litigants' and lawyers' recourse to the Courts – first and foremost cause of extra-judicial killings

Respondents’ acts and omissions have far-reaching consequences,

because every litigant especially the pauper and less privileged have to

worry that he or she may be forced to pay huge sums or bribes to magistrates

in the Court of Appeals’ Dirty Dozen and these fighting in media

magistrates. Petitioner believes in the Supreme Court’s long history of

vigilance on this matter of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:

Argument

Unethical conduct – Sabio:

Moreover, in his affidavit, Borja said that he paid Sabio P 300,000 for

giving legal advice on a land deal he was brokering. At that time, Sabio was

RTC judge in Cagayan de Oro. According to Sec. 11 of Canon Code of

Judicial Conduct, “Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of

judicial office.” In addition, Section 13, Canon 4 of the New Code of

Judicial Conduct, “Judges and members of their families shall neither ask

for, nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done

or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the

performance of judicial duties.” Another count of ethical breach, on Sabio’s

part, is his meeting with Borja, who was interested in a case. The New Code

on Judicial Conduct is clear on safeguarding the integrity of the court:

“Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that

it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.”

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=business5_aug4_2008 Justices on cross-

hairs

2 Mystery man identified

31

Justice Jose Sabio Jr. held an illegal and unethical press conference in

his chambers when the latter was fulminating Friday on national TV against

the Lopezes and Meralco “broker” Francis de Borja. 2 non-Court of Appeals

personnel, stood by his side as seen in TV and news photos. The mystery

men—the balding Chinoy chap clad in short-sleeved barong, happened to be

lawyer Vicente Chuidian, and, the other, mustachioed companion,

Chuidian associate, Romeo Gutierrez—apparently came not only to

succor Sabio but also give counsel to the justice in his trying times.

A corporate lawyer with a checkered and colorful past, Chuidian in his

own right has joined Sabio in his crusade against Vicente Roxas, one of the

Court of Appeals justices implicated by Sabio in the “fishy” transfer of the

Meralco case. Chuidian, according to the grapevine, has a pending

administrative complaint against Roxas, who, despite his Masters of Law

degree from Georgetown University, is being accused by Chuidian for gross

ignorance of the law. Chuidian is steaming from the Roxas order removing

the former from making any claims on the multi-billion inheritance of the

late Miss Philippines and corporate lawyer Pacita de los Reyes-Phillips.

Chuidian, who represents the late estranged American husband of the

billionairess, was also prevented by virtue of the Roxas judgment from even

making an entry of appearance into the testate intestate case now being heard

by Makati Regional Trial Court Judge Ma. Cristina Cornejo. Because of the

Chuidian complaint, Chief Justice Reynato Puno has decided to review the

Roxas decision, assigning the Supreme Court’s Second Division to the task.

Meanwhile, guess who Francis de Borja was seen with after the

Manolo Lopez friend and schoolmate appeared Friday at the ANC cable

channel? Why, none other than De Borja’s good friend, Wilfrido Villarama,

the former Gloria Macapagal Arroyo aide and lightning rod who is now with

El Shaddai’s Bro. Mike Velarde. De Borja and Villarama were seen in a

32

huddle with a third man at the Manila Polo Club, in one of the nipa huts past

by the olympic-sized pool for maximum privacy. What could the three men

be discussing over sheafs of legal-looking documents?

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=127272

Analysis: Appellate justices displayed undue interest in the Meralco-

GSIS row

By LALA RIMANDO abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak (First of two parts)

2 major reasons caused the current brouhaha at the Court of Appeals.

The first is the undue interest displayed by several magistrates during

the almost two months that the appellate court was handling the corporate

case involving two warring shareholders of the Manila Electric Co.

(Meralco)—the Lopez family and their allies, and the Government Service

Insurance System (GSIS). Some appellate justices displayed eagerness, and

in some instance, aggressiveness, in ensuring that they are included in the

team that determined the fate of the two camps.

The second is the weak leadership displayed by the court's Presiding

Justice Conrado Vasquez over the Meralco-related issues that were brought

to his attention by the various magistrates. The referral of these issues to the

court's Rules Committee and his firm support for whatever that committee

decides on could have doused the brewing rift among his subordinates early

on. At the end of the day, however, the biggest loser is the integrity of the

appellate court.

When elephants fight

33

The Meralco case, which was triggered by the contentious May 27

annual stockholders meeting is basically a jurisdictional issue: should the

Securities and Exchange Commission be followed since it was out to protect

the investors' interest, or should the stakeholders' dispute be heard by the

regular courts, which has long been in-charge of intra-corporate cases? That

question pitted two formidable players: the wealthy Lopez family and the

government through Winston Garcia, GSIS's general manager. Each has

about one-third stake in Meralco. What started as a boardroom row in March

that evolved into a proxy fight during the annual stockholders meeting in

May, has caused an almost similar, and troubling, discord among the Court

of Appeals justices.

Roxas's questionable interest

Among all the 5 appellate justices who handled the case—whether they

heard the oral arguments of the parties' lawyers, or read the written

explanations of the contending parties, or issued either the temporary

restraining order (TRO) or the decision on the case—the justice that

displayed the most undue interest was Justice Vicente Roxas. Roxas, being

the ponente, or the assigned writer of the case, clearly has an upper hand as

far as the CA's internal rules are concerned. When the CA underwent a

reorganization where justices were shuffled and assigned to other divisions

because of retirement of some justices, the Meralco case was transferred to

the new division where Roxas was assigned.

In this case, since he came from the 9th division—with Justices Jose

Sabio, Jr. and Myrna Vidal completing the three-person division—and was

transferred to the 8th division—with Justices Bienvenido Reyes and

Apolinario Bruselas—the CA's internal rules say that the Meralco case

should be handled by the new 8th division because the ponente, Roxas, was

34

there. So far, the two positions that the CA has taken, namely the 60-day

TRO in May issued by the original 9th division, and the decision

promulgated in July 23 issued by the new 8th division, favored the Lopezes

and their allies. In both instances, which were separately handled by the two

different divisions, Roxas displayed dubious behavior.

Sabio, in his July 26 letter to the presiding justice, noted that when

Roxas completed the draft of the TRO in May, Roxas personally delivered

the document to his office. We learned that in the courts, decisions are

routed to ensure that the magistrates do not display their personal interest

toward any of the litigants. Sabio described Roxas's personal delivery of the draft TRO

as "surprising."

In July, Roxas again did this with Vidal when he personally brought the

draft decision to the latter's office. Vidal, in her July 24 letter to the presiding

justice, said she agreed with the decision favoring Meralco but was

concerned about the "apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of

CA GR SP No. 103692 (Meralco case)." Vidal, who was with Sabio and

Roxas in the old 9th division, would later express her disappointment that

"judicial courtesy was not observed." She noted how she was "hurried[ly]

eased out of the case," thus the time she spent time studying the case went to

waste since it was eventually the new 8th division that promulgated it.

One-day 50-page decision

Roxas seemed to have also hurried in another task related to the

Meralco case: the time it took him to write the decision that favored

Meralco. The parties—Meralco and GSIS—submitted their memoranda, or

the summary of all their arguments, including those not included during the

oral argument, on July 11, a Friday. The next working day, July 14, Monday,

the new 8th division conducted its final deliberation and on that same day,

35

Roxas already finished writing the decision—a whole set that added up to

more than 50 pages.

Sabio, in one of his media interviews, showed that the memoranda

from the two parties piled up to almost a foot high and that it took him a

good number of days to go through all of them. Roxas then forwarded the

document to Bruselas, who in turn also affixed his signature that same day.

With one more signature to go—Reyes's—Roxas relentlessly urged the new

8th division chairman through various memoranda between July 14 and 22

to make up his mind. In Reyes's letter to the presiding justice, he recalled

that Roxas was urging him to dissent so that a division of five could be

convened in time to decide before the 60-day TRO expired on July 30. It was

around that time that Roxas personally delivered the draft decision to Vidal

for her signature. Reyes finally signed the decision on July 23. In the end, it

was still the three members of the new 8th division that signed the decision

that supports the Lopez family's continuing control of the utility firm.

Sabio, too

Justice Jose Sabio, Jr., who first questioned the procedure surrounding the

decision favoring Meralco, himself demonstrated his own undue interest toward

the case. During the June 23 oral argument, Sabio was just a substitute to Reyes at

the 9th division. Reyes was on leave when the case was raffled to the 9th division,

which Reyes chaired. When Reyes reported back to work in June 16, he wanted to

assume the Meralco case already, but Sabio appeared to want to keep the post as

chairman of the 9th division. In a statement submitted to the CA en banc meeting

called by Vasquez, Roxas relates that 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 did not want to make a scene at the hearing. Justice Sabio

embarrassed Justice Reyes by simply showing up, forcing Justice Reyes to

36

retreat.” Sabio, we learned, did not disclose to the parties to the case that Reyes

had already returned to work.

Rules committee chair snubbed

Reyes then went to the rules committee chaired by Justice Edgardo Cruz,

who then issued a written reply that based on the rules, Reyes should already

assume the case since he's the designated chair of the 9th division. Sabio,

however, was slighted that Reyes, who is "junior to him in the court," was

telling him to disengage. Sabio even said Cruz was just issuing a personal

opinion. Instead, Sabio consulted Justice Martin Villarama, whom he

described in his letter as "more senior, experienced, and respected member

of this court for consultation and guidance." Villarama, according to Sabio,

advised him to chair the 9th division during the oral argument.

In July, as the rift among the justices grew, Sabio would tell his

colleagues, Bruselas and Vidal to also seek the opinion of Villarama.

Villarama, however, is not with the rules committee. GSIS, defending Sabio,

said in a press release that Sabio was "unceremoniously excluded" from the

case. A week after the oral argument, the alleged bribe offer took place. It is

surprising, though, that Sabio did not immediately report the attempted

bribery, which happened on July 1. It was only on July 26, or weeks later,

when he wrote Vasquez and narrated the incident. The behavior of the

appellate justices, particularly that of Roxas's and Sabio's, casts doubt on the

integrity of the court. The CA presiding justice, however, was slow to act on

the all this.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=jojoRobles_aug5_2008

Why not our court? Let everything be done by the rule book. But let it

all be done in the open.

37

For a day last week, the Manila offices of the Court of Appeals—

never a tightly guarded bulding—were shut down like those in a high-

security facility. During the four-hour en banc session of the entire court last

Thursday, uppity security guards screened everyone who attempted to enter,

taking special care not to let in anyone who even resembled a journalist.

When the court spokesman finally called a press conference after the

marathon session, the assembled reporters learned that the justices of the

country’s second-highest court had tossed the matter of the recent allegations

of bribery to the Supreme Court. In a none-too-subtle attempt at

stonewalling, the spokesman could not answer any questions—not being a

justice, the court’s mouthpiece was not present at the session and thus could

not deviate from a prepared statement. Not one of the usually gregarious

justices could be gotten to go on record about probably the biggest

controversy to grip the appellate court in a long time.

The lockdown and gagging of the Court of Appeals betrays a distrust

of what the members of the judiciary often derisively call “the court of

public opinion,” represented by the media, whose members the judges and

justices often accuse of playing fast and loose with the laws, rules,

procedures and protocols that they are the sole sworn guardians of. This

alternate court is now also on an extended session, feasting on report after

lurid report that one justice is either accusing his own colleagues or is

himself being accused of impropriety. But why not try this case in front of

everyone, using the free-wheeling rules of media and public opinion, instead

of the usual legal and administrative methods, we want to know? Why

shouldn’t the Court of Appeals be subjected to the intense (if often attention-

challenged) investigation by the public and the media, just like any office of

the executive or Congress?

38

Make no mistake: Regardless of the outcome of the official

investigation that the Supreme Court will conduct on the charges leveled by

Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr., the verdict is already being decided right

now in the hearts and minds of the public, through their often ill-informed,

deadline-plagued, self-appointed advocates in media. And the final decision

in that case could spell the difference between the redemption of the Court of

Appeals as an institution or irreparable damage to it in the eyes of all

Filipinos—in whose name and by whose sufferance, after all, the courts

exist.

In handling the controversy, the last thing the court needs to do is to

start lockdown procedures. The court (or at least some of its members,

anyway), is being inundated with accusations and counter-accusations of

large-scale bribery, selling its decisions and dealing with characters with no

visible connection to it except for knowing the right people and having a

knack for “packaging” multi-million deals. These are not charges that can be

dismissed peremptorily like a nuisance suit filed by a litigious ambulance-

chaser. They deserve to be aired, just like similar charges regularly hurled—

and ventilated openly—against any other government office. And if our

fragile, much-criticized legal system depends on a social contract that cedes

rulings in legal matters to an elite corps of jurists, the people who agreed to

this bargain have a right to know what is really going on behind the court’s

musty—and recently shut—doors. No less than a public hearing by the

Supreme Court will blow away the nascent impression of the appeals court

as an unaccountable and corrupt organization where money is the sole

currency of justice.

To a man, the members of the judiciary find fault in Justice Sabio’s

accusations against some of his own colleagues on the bench. But they will

always qualify that their problem is not in his charges themselves, but in the

39

manner by which he ventilated them—to the media, no less! But Sabio is a

long-standing member of the judiciary, first as a provincial trial court judge

and for the last decade as an associate justice of the Court of Appeals. He

must have known that by going public with his charges, he was putting his

entire career on the line—if he was indeed angling to become a member of

the Supreme Court, he must also have decided that his “outing” in the press,

so to speak, could put that ambition forever out of his reach. Already, the

reputation of Sabio is being undermined. This is the same person, said

businessman and deal-maker Francis de Borja (whom the justice accused of

offering him a P10 million bribe) who as a trial court judge readily accepted

P300,000 from him for his help in “advising” in a real estate development

scheme in Cagayan de Oro City.

(Still, while De Borja seems intent on discrediting Sabio, a careful reading of

his affidavit will show that he stops short of accusing the justice of actually

demanding the P50 million bribe that he says Sabio wanted to let go of the

Meralco case. According to De Borja, he was shocked by Sabio’s reply that

it would take that much for him to sway him—without saying that the

amount was what Sabio actually wanted from the businessman and the

people who allegedly sent him.)

Given Sabio’s current all-or-nothing frame of mind, it is doubtful if he

can still be convinced to play along with his colleagues and keep his mouth

shut. And now that the man he accused of offering him a bribe has also come

out swinging, as well, it is likely that Sabio will react by further escalating

his attacks, instead of backing down. De Borja’s insinuation of long-time

official impropriety by the man he calls his “friend,” more than being just the

proverbial shot across the bow, seems to have sealed the deal for Sabio—

who cannot be expected to back away without giving credence to all of the

businessman’s charges. As for his career in the judiciary, Sabio seems to

40

have sealed his fate there, as well, making him the sort of dangerous man

without fear of anything further to lose.

As for the judiciary itself, it should undergo a cleansing process at

the very least as a result of the Sabio incident— which makes it all the more

imperative for the Supreme Court to be absolutely transparent about its

entire investigation of the matter. Stonewalling now will only reinforce the

belief held by many that the Court of Appeals (or any other part of the

judiciary) is as graft-prone as any other branch of government. As for Sabio

himself, is he the savior of the judiciary or its destroyer? Only time will tell.

As the saying goes, heroes have very short lives—especially in our amnesiac

society. Or, as the current Batman movie paraphrases it, you either die a hero

or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=connieVeneracion_aug5_2008

Perception of character

One night last week, my husband and I were watching the evening news

over GMA-7 (because we are able to tolerate Saksi by a hair’s breadth better

than ABS-CBN’s TV Patrol). There was a long segment on Sabio. His

students, former students and fellow faculty members at the Ateneo Law

School were interviewed and everyone was saying the same thing —that

Sabio’s character was unsullied, he was incorruptible and he would never

accept bribes. I paused, not quite believing what I was hearing. When was

Sabio’s character ever the issue? Were the perceptions of people who know

him determinative of whether or not he did intimate to De Borja that he was

willing to sell his integrity for P50 million?

As if the lack of objectivity in news reporting wasn’t enough, the

segment went on to air interviews with people from De Borja’s

41

neighborhood—people who hardly knew him. People who only knew that

De Borja owned property in the neighborhood and that De Borja spent time

in the cockpit. Beyond that, those people knew nothing of him. Taken all

together, the entire segment built up Sabio as a man of good character and

De Borja as a shady character. What was GMA-7 trying to achieve? Strike a

blow indirectly at its competitor, ABS-CBN, by painting De Borja as an

unsavory character and all but deciding that, between Sabio and De Borja, it

is Sabio who is telling the truth? Is that fair news reporting? Is it part of the

role of media to play judge and jury, and to decide for the public what it

ought to believe?

Is it responsible reporting considering the implications and the bias it

builds on the minds of the people? Everything about the SEC-GSIS-Meralco

case, including the allegations and counter-allegations of Sabio and De

Borja, is about whether certain events did or did not happen, and whether

certain people did or did not commit particular acts. Everything else is

irrelevant. Character is irrelevant; perception of character is a thousand times

more irrelevant. No one knows another entirely. No one knows if the person

he sees is an image intentionally projected to hide an ugly truth. No one can

judge the truth about another’s character based on a few hours of interaction

every day. Gee, his neighbors considered Josef Fritzl to be an intelligent and

respectable citizen until his secret basement was uncovered and, with it, the

story of how he kept his own daughter a prisoner for 24 years, raping her

repeatedly and fathering her seven children. Even husbands and wives who

have lived together for half a century still manage to spring surprises on one

another every now and then.

While opinions are welcome, there is a line between an opinion and a

straight news report. The problem with most TV news programs is that

producers, writers, directors and news readers do not seem to know where the

42

news reports end and the opinion begins. And I’m not just talking about GMA-

7. ABS-CBN news programs resort to the same pretend-profiling gimmick just

as often. Truth be told, they don’t seem to know where news reports end and

entertainment begins.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=news3_aug4_2008

Frat, family ties in Meralco case under scrutiny

Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was very clearly favoring the

GSIS because he had close relatives working for it. “Instead of calming

down the situation and protecting the image of the court by dealing with the

affair as an internal matter to be resolved in accordance with the rules, CA

Presiding Justice Vasquez adds fuel to the fire. He creates a media spectacle

by calling a rare en banc meeting of the CA when all that the [rules of the

court] provides is for him to report his actions to the CA en banc. Something

that he could have easily done in writing.” Vasquez ‘ bad faith consists in

not disclosing that his daughter, Ma. Ruth Almira Vasquez, was connected

with the GSIS corporate secretary, another daughter, Ma. Agnes Tosario

Vasquez, was a dentist at the medical department, that his sister, Leonora de

Jesus, was a former GSIS trustee, and that De Jesus’ daughter, Luisa

Hernandez, was connected with the vice president for treasury. She is also

the ''ninang'' (godmother) of the youngest son of GSIS president Winston

Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court of

Pasay City.

In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against Sabio for

ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with

deliberately causing the delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, “People

of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert John Sobrepeña,

43

Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr.” The SC

dismissed the case with 12 votes.

http://ca.supremecourt.gov.ph/index.php?action=resume_of_justices&x=25

CA Profile of J. Sabio

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2008/aug/04/yehey/opinion/20080804opi2.html

Inconsistencies - BIG DEAL By Dan Mariano CA justice’s woes

For one thing, even the casual observer should be able to detect some

inconsistencies in Justice Sabio’s version of events. The first inconsistency

concerns dates. Sabio said the alleged bribery try took place on July 1. The

CA Eighth Division’s decision favoring Meralco over the SEC and GSIS,

which Sabio is contesting, was released July 23. He disclosed the alleged

bribery attempt on July 26. Observers ask: Why did it take Sabio so long to

publicly reveal such a blatant offense? Would it not have been better if Sabio

had reported the purported bribery attempt to his CA colleagues and the

public soon after it was made, say, July 2—and not July 26?

If Sabio had exposed the alleged bribery attempt soon after it was

made, the current scandal would not have erupted. Moreover, the court

would have probably issued a ruling radically different from the one

favoring Meralco. That Sabio withheld information on the alleged bribery try

from his CA colleagues for three weeks or so significantly diminished the

believability of his story. Had he been “shocked” and “angered” by the

alleged bribery attempt, shouldn’t he have immediately taken certain legal

steps—such as ordering the arrest of the alleged bribe-givers and working

toward to their speedy prosecution, trial and imprisonment? Moreover, why

did he allow the Eighth Division to continue deliberating on the motion

44

Meralco filed against the SEC and GSIS even after he was offered P10

million?

Had Sabio told his colleagues that the bribe offer was made right after

his purported meeting with de Borja, wouldn’t that have given the CA a

chance to avoid the mess it now finds itself in? Wouldn’t that have given the

presiding justice time to make his move without exposing the entire court to

public embarrassment?

Another hole

Here is another hole in the magistrate’s story. Where he and de Borja

were talking, Sabio said, the Meralco chairman was close by inside a car.

However, on the date of the supposed bribe offer, it turns out that Lopez was

out of the country. If true, the bribery attempt should be countenanced by no

one. The problem is that in the heated exchange of accusations and counter-

accusations, little convincing proof has been presented. During a rare en

banc session last week, the CA justices decided to elevate the matter to the

Supreme Court, where hopefully the facts can be sorted out and where all

those involved would have their day.

Despite the seeming inconsistencies in his narration, Sabio should be

given the benefit of the doubt. He is certainly entitled to a chance to explain

the questionable timing of his revelation and to demolish the accusation that

he tried to extort P50 million from the Lopezes. A Supreme Court inquiry

should help Sabio do that—although his son, who reportedly works for Chief

Justice Reynato Puno, needs to keep a respectable distance from the case.

This controversy should be resolved and put to rest soon—before more

reputations are damaged.

45

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20080803-152291/Slash-and-

burn

Against Justice Sabio are the troubling questions of his “casual

friendship” with De Borja -- a friendship that seems to have been based on a

prior business relationship dating back to the days when Sabio was a

Regional Trial Court judge in Cagayan de Oro City. This was a lucrative

friendship, according to De Borja. It was certainly a friendship that enabled

De Borja to meet with Sabio last July 1—a meeting that ought never to have

taken place at all. The Judicial Code of Ethics is quite clear: “Judges shall

ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived

to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.”

There was no reason for Sabio to be entertaining people in the lobby of

the Ateneo de Manila’s college of law; no justification for him to even

entertain questions on cases, past, pending, or future; and no way he could

have been viewed to have been acting in any manner except with

imprudence, and to the prejudice not only of his reputation but also of the

Court of Appeals. The legal profession is rife with stories of cases up for sale

to the highest bidder; and of decisions being determined less by the law and

more by interventions made by powerful parties on susceptible judges. Both

the private and public sectors are widely perceived to be engaged in

influence-peddling on a particularly lucrative scale when it comes to the

higher courts. The only thing unusual about the allegations being made now

is that they are being made in public, by means of affidavits, and not merely

being whispered about in legal circles.

And yet it is Sabio’s decision to go public with the bribe allegedly

offered to him by De Borja that, for now, gives weight to the justice’s claim.

His having gone public, while embarrassing to the Court of Appeals, is the

46

proper action of a man who has nothing to hide, and who fulfilled his duty

by informing his superior of an attempt at bribery, and of the possibility that

his colleagues may have succumbed to similar blandishments.

For its part, Meralco, if shown to be indeed behind De Borja, cannot

justify the alleged bribe offer in the context of self-preservation and self-

defense, just because the GSIS, its current institutional nemesis, has proven

adept at using institutions like the SEC to further its own ends. The only

thing going for Meralco is that the link between De Borja and his alleged

client (Meralco) is slightly more tenuous than the damaging link between De

Borja and Sabio himself.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=127392

CA weak leadership allowed justices' rift to prosper.

The alleged bribe offer to an appellate justice handling a high-profile

corporate case, which has triggered an investigation by the Supreme Court,

has brought to the public consciousness a more important issue—the

deepening rift among the magistrates at the Court of Appeals (CA). Based on

a review of the circumstances and events, including the alleged bribery,

which led to a rare en banc meeting of the majority of the 65 CA justices all

over the country, abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak found that weak leadership

allowed the rift to prosper. CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. was

aware of the issues related to the Meralco case from the start. Two justices—

Jose Sabio Jr. and Vicente Roxas—were squabbling over who would handle

the case in the light of a reorganization that transferred the ponente, Roxas,

to another division. CA internal rules say that a ponente, the justice to whom

the case is raffled off, should study and decide on the case. Yet Vasquez

allowed these issues to drag because he apparently could not enforce his own

47

opinion—which favored Sabio. Sabio was one of the three justices of the CA

9th Division who signed the TRO in favor of Meralco.

Later, on June 23, Sabio presided over the oral argument although he

was not the chairman of the 9th Division. He was just a substitute of Justice

Bienvenido Reyes, the chairman of the 9th Division, who took a leave—but

returned before the oral argument. Accounts show that Sabio did not inform

the parties of the return of Reyes. When the issues became too hot to handle

and the bribery attempt on Sabio was reported in the media, Vasquez then

called for an en banc meeting last July 31 to settle the discord. n the end, the

appellate justices decided to toss these issues to the High Court.

Rules committee chair disregarded

Sabio, the substitute chairman of the 9th division, which was then

handling the case, called on Vasquez three days before the oral argument

because Reyes, the resident 9th division chairman, was back from his leave

and was claiming back his post. How Sabio, Reyes, and the case's ponente,

Roxas, behaved thereafter, fueled what was already a constant topic in the

justices' rift among those in the CA. Vasquez sided with Sabio, while Reyes

was banking on the opinion of the CA Rules Committee chairman, Justice

Edgardo Cruz. To Vasquez, the issue revolved around the fact that the 9th

division then chaired by Sabio issued the Temporary Restraining Order

(TRO) in May favoring the Lopezes and their allies. GSIS had a standing

motion to reconsider the TRO, so Vasquez said the 9th division should

continue handling it, even when Reyes was already back. The issue should

have been moot when Vasquez himself enforced a reorganization effective

July 4 when all the justices had to be shuffled and assigned to different

divisions. According to the CA's internal rules, the Meralco case should

follow whichever division Roxas would be assigned because Roxas is the

48

case's ponente. With the reorganization, Roxas was transferred to the new

8th division, which also had Reyes as the chairman.

Then in July 1, the alleged P10 million bribery offer to Sabio

happened. Sabio made this known verbally to Vasquez the day after, on July

2, but Sabio interpreted the bribe offer as a way to "take him out of the case."

(Sabio formalized the bribery attempt in his July 26 letter to Vasquez)

Vasquez then stuck to his original position, even when Reyes and Roxas

kept on hammering the fact that based on the CA's internal rules, the TRO is

not one of the allowed reasons for the Meralco case to stay with the old 9th

division. Meralco's lawyers even filed an urgent motion in July 10 pushing

for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the division handling the case.

Injunction

The TRO, which was issued in May 30, was only good for 60 days, or up to

July 30. The Lopezes and their allies, who were favored by the TRO, has a

pending request to replace the TRO with a preliminary injunction since the

latter has a longer life span. The preliminary injunction would have assured

the Lopezes that they would continue their current control of the Meralco

board. If the TRO was allowed to expire in July 30, GSIS would have the

chance to contest the Lopezes' grip of the board. The CA rules only allowed

the preliminary injunction, not the TRO, as one of the reasons for the

Meralco case to stay with the old 9th division. The new 8th division,

however, issued a decision on the case, not a preliminary injunction, last July

23. The new 8th division's decision, facilitated by Roxas and had the

blessings of Reyes, held their final deliberation last July 14—after Vasquez

learned of the bribery attempt on Sabio—because Vasquez did not make a

firm move on whether it should be the new 8th or old 9th division which

should continue handling the Meralco case.

49

Was Vasquez torn?

During that time, Vasquez was torn whether the Meralco-related issues

at the CA was under his purview. In his two July letters—one addressed to

Reyes and Roxas and the other addressed to all the justices—he

acknowledged that "the presiding justice is simply given control and

supervision over administrative affairs of the Court." In separate occasions,

Justice Bruselas of the new 8th division and Justice Myrna Vidal of the old

9th division even approached Vasquez to express that they were disturbed by

the bribery attempt after Sabio told them about it. Bruselas even said he has

already signed the decision on the case and did not know about this

disturbing "background", referring to the alleged bribery attempt. As the

bribery allegations made their way to various media organizations, only then

did Vasquez call for the en banc meeting. Vasquez could have spared the

Court this trouble and the on the court's integrity had he tapped on the rules

committee early on. But the rules committee chair Justice Cruz was

downplayed by Sabio way back in June because Cruz was only a "junior

justice." Cruz's opinion then was that Reyes should take over Sabio as the

chairman when the old 9th division was still handling it. Had the rules been

followed after the reorganization, Reyes would still have handled it since he

chaired the new 8th division that was supposed to take over the Meralco

case.

Daughters with GSIS

With Vasquez's opinion favoring Sabio even after the reorganization,

and the lack of a preliminary injunction that would exempt Meralco from

being transferred to Reyes’s and Roxas's division, inevitably casts doubt on

Vasquez's motivations. Vasquez could have doused cold water over these

doubts if he inhibited himself from any issues related to the Meralco-GSIS

50

row. Based on abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak's research, his two daughters,

Maria Ruth Almira and Ma. Agnes Rosario, are currently employed by

GSIS. Abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak called the GSIS office and confirmed

that Almira currently works at the GSIS corporate secretary's office but is on

leave. Agnes, on the other hand, is with the dental office of the medical

department.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryID=127270

Timeline: The Meralco-GSIS clash - Tug of war

By PUPPLE S. ROMERO - abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak

May 29, 2008 – Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) files a petition with the Court

of Appeals which questions the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) to intervene in the power utility’s contentious proxy

validation held on May 27, 2008. Meralo argues that it is the regional trial

court which has jurisdiction over the dispute. The Lopez-owned power

distributor also seeks for the nullification of an SEC cease-and-desist order

and the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining SEC to

implement a show cause order against Anthony Rosete, corporate secretary

of Meralco. Following the temporary leave of Justice Bienvenido Reyes,

chair of the 9th Division where Meralco’s petition is initially raffled off,

Meralco files an urgent motion for a re-raffle. Aside from Reyes, other

members of the 9th Division include Justice Vicente Roxas, the ponente, and

Justice Myrna Vidal.

A raffle is conducted for the division’s acting third member, who eventually

became Justice Jose Mendoza. However, Mendoza inhibits himself from the case

because he is a former legal counsel of the power utility. Another raffle is held and

Justice Jose Sabio is designated acting chairman of the Ninth Division. The

51

Government Insurance Service System (GSIS) files an urgent ex parte motion

which asks for a re-raffle of the case on the ground that the petition was raffled in

the absence of a legal representative from the state pension fund.

May 30, 2008 - The 9th Division rules in favor of Meralco and issues the

TRO, which would lapse in 60 days, against SEC. Hearings on oral

arguments are scheduled on July 23 and 24. GSIS files an urgent motion to

lift the TRO. Sabio says Roxas, the ponente, personally brought the TRO he

prepared to Sabio’s office.

June 16 – Reyes returns from leave.

June 19 – Reyes consults CA Rules Committee chairman Justice Edgardo

Cruz on who should hear the oral argument scheduled for June 23.

June 20 – In a letter to Reyes, which Sabio got a copy of, Cruz says Reyes

should decide the Meralco case as the designated chair of the 9th Division.

Sabio calls PJ Vasquez, saying Cruz was acting in his personal capacity, and

says the letter offends him since Cruz is junior to him in the court. Sabio also

wonders why Reyes bypassed and did not openly deliberate and discuss the

issue with PJ Vasquez.

June 23 – Oral argument. Sabio, in his letter to CA Presiding Justice

Conrado Vasquez, says he consulted a more senior colleague, Justice Martin

Villarama Jr. before the hearing and asked him if he (Sabio) should stay on the

case. Villarama advised him to remain with the case. Sabio described Villarama as

“a more senior, experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation

and guidance.” The oral argument is held by the 9th Divison, with Sabio still at the

helm. The parties are ordered to submit their respective memoranda 15 days after.

According to a motion filed by Meralco, however, they got the impression that

Reyes would preside over the hearing after they were initially led to a room where

a name plate of Reyes was placed at the table. But they were eventually re-directed

52

to another room where the name plates contained ‘Sabio, Roxas and Vidal.’ Roxas,

in his statement to the CA en banc, said that such incident “caused by Sabio was

the talk of the Court of Appeals for weeks.”

June 25 – PJ Vasquez issues an order, previously approved by SC, to

reorganize the court effective July 4 since three justices retired/were about to

retire, while two new justices are about to be appointed.

July 1 – Sabio meets with a businessman allegedly brokering for Meralco

and wangles a P10 million-bribe for him to hand over the case to Reyes. In

the account of Sabio, he says the emissary mentioned that other means will

be resorted to have Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship.

July 4 – The CA Division is reorganized following the retirement of

Associate Justices Lucenito Tagle, Agustin Dizon and Rodrigo Cosico last

June. Reyes and Roxas are transferred to the 8th Division, with Justice

Apolinario Bruselas as the third member. Sabio and Vidal move to the 6th

Division.

July 8 –Reyes goes to Sabio’s office to discusss, among others, the

chairmanship of the 9th division handling the Meralco case. Sabio informs

Reyes of the P10 million-bribe.

July 10 – Meralco files an urgent motion for Reyes to assume the

chairmanship of the hearing division. The company argues that according to

the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), a case can remain with

the justices only when giving due course, granting a writ of preliminary

injunction, a new trial, or of execution pending appeal.

July 11 – Meralco and GSIS file their respective memoranda. Meralco

assails the government for its purported moves to seize the power utility,

53

while GSIS insists Meralco should have taken heed of the SEC order. Sabio

makes a resolution referring the “Urgent Motion for Justice B. Reyes to

Assume the Chairmanship” to the respondents for comment and forwards it

to the office of Roxas, but is allegedly not released. Vidal says she signed the

ponencia of Roxas (50 pages) on the same day, but Roxas took the decision

from her because he reportedly has to incorporate 10 additional pages.

July 14 – The 8th Division holds final deliberations. In the transcript of the

deliberations, Roxas says that he “deliberately” chooses not to inform

Justices Sabio and Vidal that the 8th division would take over the case

because he wants to look for “other opportunities” to explain the situation so

as not to hurt his colleagues’ feelings. Sabio and Roxas are in a flag raising

ceremony together. Sabio tells Roxas he and Vidal want to discuss the

memoranda since Sabio already read them. The rollo of the case and

finalized decision are officially transmitted by Roxas to Bruselas, then by

Bruselas to Reyes.

July 17 – Bruselas reportedly signs “corrected” decision.

July 21 – Roxas files an interpleader petition where he asks Vasquez to stop

Sabio and Vidal from “clinging” to the case, adding that the two could not

argue that they were exempted from the case following the reorganization of

the division.

July 22 – Reyes writes PJ Vasquez, referring to conversations during July 17

meeting, and asks the latter to rule on the impasse. Between July 14 and 22,

Roxas, through various memoranda, urges Reyes to just dissent so that a

division of five could be convened in time to decide before the TRO expires

on July 30. Reyes tells Vasquez that Meralco’s motion for his assumption

of the hearing division should be internally resolved (based on the IRCA),

54

and not by private litigants. Reyes also states that the issuance of a TRO is

not among one of the instances where the case should stay with the justices

in the face of division movements. Reyes stresses that the chairman of the

committee on rules and ponente (Roxas) echo his position. “Again, the PJ

has to urgently decide on the matter… Otherwise, deadlock of opinions…”

July 24 – Reyes transmits the rollo of the case and the finalized decision to

Roxas. The 8th Division promulgates its decision, which junks the SEC

cease-and-desist order. They also rule that the SEC has no jurisdiction over

the questioned proxy validation.

July 25 – Vasquez issues his reply to the Interpleader-Petition filed by

Roxas and the letter sent by Reyes, where he says that the division that

issued the TRO should continue hearing the case because of their familiarity

with the petition – they were present and participated in the hearing on oral

arguments. Vidal writes Vasquez on the “apparent and obvious irregularities

in the handling of CA GR SP No. 103692,” adding that she agrees with the

decision favoring Meralco and that she already signed a draft decision signed

by Roxas (Note: Vidal says Roxas personally presented to her the final

decision, which she studied, then signed. But Roxas did not forward to Sabio

because he will still add 10 pages). Vidal questions why she is not informed

that it was the 8th division that will decide on it, is disappointed that judicial

courtesy is not observed—she is taken out of the case after she spent time

studying it and signed the draft decision. GSIS, in a press release, says that

Sabio was “unceremoniously excluded” from the case. Sabio calls Bruselas

and Vidal and relays to them the alleged bribery attempt of a Meralco

emissary.

Bruselas personally meets with Vasquez to discuss phone call of Sabio. He

says this is the first time to hear that “background.” Troubled, Bruselas says

55

he called Reyes that day and asked if he knows of this “background.” Reyes

says yes, and when Bruselas asked why missed telling him, Reyes “leaned

back and said that he thought he mentioned it to me; that it may have

escaped his mind, and that nevertheless, it had no place in the deliberation on

the case.”

July 25 – Bruselas files a memorandum for Vasquez where he relays Sabio’s

call. He earlier relays this personally to Vasquez July 24. Bruselas mentions

the P10 million bribe to Sabio. Bruselas wonders why the information came

very late, though joins Sabio in calling for a probe into the matter. Bruselas

also recounts that during meeting with PJ Vasquez, Vidal walked in and said

she received same phone call from Sabio. Media starts reports on rift among

the justices handling the case.

July 26 – Sabio writes Vasquez and informs him about the bribery attempt.

He also pushes for an investigation following the hasty promulgation of the

decision and his and Vidal’s ‘unceremonial ouster’ from the case. He

questions the timing of the decision, which was handed down days before

the TRO lapsed.

July 28 –Bruselas delivers his July 25 letter to Vasquez. He says he just got

a copy of Sabio’s letter that day, so he called Sabio and supported him in the

call to investigate the bribery. Vasquez gives all of the CA justices copies of

the correspondences he received from the justices, and calls for an en banc

session.

July 30 – The 60-day TRO ends.

July 31 – CA en banc meeting. The 65-member en banc tosses the

investigation on the alleged bribery to the Supreme Court through the Office

56

of the Court Administrator. They also ask the CA rules committee to settle

the different interpretations of the IRCA.

Meanwhile, a businessman named Francis Roa de Borja alleges in his

affidavit that Sabio informed him that the government offered the CA justice

a Supreme Court seat in return for a pro-GSIS decision. When asked

however what would take him to decline such offer, Sabio reportedly

answered “P50 million.” Sabio denies Borja’s allegations.

August 1 – Sabio says he will file bribery, perjury and libel charges against

de Borja. He also says that Meralco chairman Manuel ‘Manolo’ Lopez was

with de Borja, “waiting at the car,” when the businessman offered him the

P10 million bribe. Lopez, in a press conference, denies Sabio’s claim and

shows his boarding pass to the media to prove that he was abroad when the

alleged bribe attempt was made. Several senators urge for a swift

investigation into the matter.

RELIEF  

            IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully prayed that

the instant –

Amended / Supplemental Verified Complaint – Letter-Affidavit[Under Rules 140, 138 & 139-B, Revised Rules of Court, Codes of Judicial Conduct

& Professional Responsibility, inter alia] – and –

Verified Motion To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.

Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With -  

Urgent Omnibus Motions

I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, andII. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.”

57

- be duly NOTED, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED. 

            Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents

COMMENTS / ANSWERS, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the

Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring them

GUILTY of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT

be imposed upon them, ordering that their names be stricken from the Roll

of Attorneys, and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, and Rule 140,

Revised Rules of Court, inter alia.

 Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavit-complaint, this 5th day of August, 2008, at Malolos City , BULACAN.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner/Complainant, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,

123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;

ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].

NOTICE

TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama,The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila,

Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING

& AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE  

58

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

Malolos City, BULACAN                  ) S.S.

      I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that:

            I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\

           I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any disbarment action or filed any administrative or other claim against respondents, involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.

          I certify that on August 6 th , 2008 , I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus – Justice B. Reyes et al ”, A.M. OCA IPI No. _______, upon respondents, thru the Court of Appeals’ Clerk of Court, Atty. Teresita Marigomen, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila, by registered mail with return card and explanation, as evidenced by the attached hereunder registry receipt after it, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 6th day of August, 2008, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.

DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. _____, BOOK NO. 76, SERIES OF 2008. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.

Reservation:

Because of time constraints, undersigned reserves his right to file amended or supplemental pleadings, in due course, if needed, to conform to truth, or justice, and to add respondents if needed.

59

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

COPY FURNISHED:(By Personal Service):

Office of the Court Administrator, (Personal Service)OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila, By registered   mail with receipt and return card. Explanation: Due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, I served copies of this complaint and annexes to respondents by registered mail with return card as evidenced by the attached receipt, hereunder. Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas,Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal,Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.,and “Jane Doe” & Sahah Doe” (Lawyers, daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.),Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila,c/o Atty. Teresita Marigomen, Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila,Respondents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60

61