EN BANC DECISION ON JUDICIAL ETHICS AND THE MERALCO CASE

EN BANC

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

The Judiciary, which is acclaimed as the firmest pillar of our democratic institutions, is vested by the Constitution with the power to settle disputes between parties and to determine their rights and obligations under the law. For judicial decisions, which form part of the law of the land, to be credible instruments in the peaceful and democratic resolution of conflicts, our courts must be perceived to be and, in fact be, impartial, independent, competent and just. To accomplish this end, it is imperative that members of the Judiciary from its highest magistrates to its humblest employees adhere to the strictest code of ethics and the highest standards of propriety and decorum. Indeed, it is unfortunate that one of the country's second highest courts, the Court of Appeals, should be presently embroiled in scandal and controversy. It is this Court's bounden duty to determine the culpability or innocence of the members of the Judiciary involved in the said controversy and to discipline any one whose conduct has failed to conform to the canons of judicial ethics, which uphold integrity, independence, impartiality, competence and propriety in the performance of official functions.

The present administrative matter arose from the Letter dated August first, two thousand eight of Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (Presiding Justice Vasquez), referring to this Court for appropriate action the much publicized dispute and charges of impropriety among the justices of the Court of Appeals involved in CA-G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two entitled "Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al."

To assist in its investigation of this sensitive matter, the Court in its Resolution dated August fourth, two thousand eight constituted a three-person panel (the "Panel of Investigators") composed of retired Justices of the Court; namely, Mme. Justice Carolina Grino-Aquino as Chairperson, Mme. Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero and Mr. Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. as Members. The Panel of Investigators was tasked to investigate the (a) alleged improprieties of the actions of the Justices of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two (Antonio V. Rosete, et al. v. SEC, et al.); and (b) alleged rejected offer or solicitation of bribe disclosed respectively by Mr. Justice Jose Sabio and Mr. Francis de Borja.

A narration of relevant events and facts, as found by the Investigating Panel, follows:

On April fifteenth, two thousand eight, Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes (Justice Reyes), then Chairperson of the Ninth Division of the CA, filed an application for leave from May fifteenth,

two thousand eight to June fifth, two thousand eight.

In Office Order No. one hundred forty-nine-zero-eight-CMV dated May fourteenth, two thousand eight issued by Presiding Justice Vasquez, Justice Jose C. Mendoza (Justice Mendoza) was designated by the Raffle Committee as Acting Chairman of the Ninth Division during the absence of Justice Reyes. Apart from his duties as regular senior member of the Fifth Division, Justice Mendoza was authorized "to act on all cases submitted to the Ninth Division for final resolution and/or appropriate action, except ponencia, from May fifteenth, two thousand eight to June fifth, two thousand eight or until Justice Reyes reports back for duty." The said office order likewise applied to the other Division(s) where Justice Reyes had "participated or took part as regular member or in an acting capacity."

On May twenty-ninth, two thousand eight, Antonio V. Rosete, Manuel M. Lopez, Felipe B. Alfonso, Jesus P. Francisco, Christian S. Monsod, Elpidio L. Ibañez, and Francis Giles B. Puno, as officers, directors and/or representatives of the Manila Electric Company (hereinafter to be collectively referred to as "Meralco"), filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against the Securities and Exchange Commission, Commissioner Jesus Enrique G. Martinez, Commissioner Hubert B. Guevarra, and the Government Service Insurance System. Aside from the application for immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order, petitioners prayed for the issuance of a preliminary injunction that should thereafter be declared permanent, as well as a declaration of nullity of the cease and desist and show cause orders issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission through Commissioner Martinez. The petition was received by the Court of Appeals at ten forty-nine a.m. on May twenty-ninth, two thousand eight and docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two.

On the same day, petitioners simultaneously filed at ten forty-eight a.m. an urgent motion for a special raffle. Presiding Justice Vasquez granted the motion in a handwritten note on the face of the urgent motion, and CA-G.R. No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two was raffled to Justice Vicente Q. Roxas (Justice Roxas). At three ten p.m., the Office of Presiding Justice Vasquez received a letter from Atty. Estrella C. Elamparo (Atty. Elamparo), Chief Legal Counsel of the Government Service Insurance System, requesting the re-raffling of the case "in the presence of the parties in the interest of transparency and fairness." At four ten p.m. on that day, the Government Service Insurance System filed an ex-parte motion to defer action on any incident in the petition pending the resolution of their motion for the re-raffle of the case.

Atty. Elamparo, accompanied by Atty. Orlando P. Polinar, also of the Government Service Insurance System Law Office, personally filed the urgent motion to defer action on the petition pending the resolution of their motion to re-raffle the case. Since the receiving clerk of the Court of Appeals could not assure them that the motion would be transmitted to the Court of Appeals Division, Attys. Elamparo and Polinar allegedly went to the office of Justice Roxas "for the sole purpose of personally furnishing him a copy" of the motion. They initially talked to a male clerk who referred them to one of the lawyers, who, however, told them that it was not possible for them to personally hand a copy of the motion to Justice Roxas. Thus, Attys. Elamparo and Polinar left a copy of the motion to the staff but no one wanted to sign and acknowledge receipt of the copy.

On May thirtieth, two thousand eight, Justice Reyes filed an application for the extension of his leave until June sixth, two thousand eight. In the meantime, Justice Mendoza, who had been designated to replace Justice Reyes during the latter's absence, informed Justice Roxas through a letter that he (Justice Mendoza) was inhibiting from the case on the ground that he used to be a lawyer of the Meralco. Hence, in an "Emergency Request for Raffle", Justice Roxas informed the Raffle Committee about the inhibition.

Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. (Justice Sabio) was assigned as Acting Chairman of the Ninth Division by raffle, "in lieu of Justice Mendoza". At eleven thirty a.m., the office of Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal (Justice Dimaranan-Vidal) received a notice of emergency deliberation with the new Acting Chairman of the Special Ninth Division, apparently sent by Justice Roxas, stating that her presence and that of Justice Sabio, Jr. were "indispensable" on account of the "national interest" involved in CA-G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two.

Meanwhile, Atty. Elamparo "received a telephone call from somebody who did not identify herself but who said that she had important information regarding the Meralco case". The unidentified caller told Atty. Elamparo that "a TRO was already being prepared and that certain Meralco lawyers had in fact been talking to Justice Roxas". The caller warned Atty. Elamparo against Justice Roxas who had "administrative cases and was 'very notorious'", but when prodded, the caller would not disclose more details.

At about one thirty p.m. also on May thirty, two thousand eight, Justice Sabio received a telephone call in his chambers from his older brother, Chairman Camilo Sabio (Chairman Sabio) of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. Chairman Sabio informed his brother that he, Justice Sabio, had been named the "third member" of the division to which the Meralco-Gsis case had been raffled. Justice Sabio was surprised as he had not yet been "officially informed" about the matter. Chairman Sabio likewise informed him that a TRO had been prepared. Chairman Sabio then tried to convince Justice Sabio "of the rightness of the stand of the Gsis and the SEC", and asked his brother to help the Gsis, which "represents the interest of the poor people". Justice Sabio told his brother that he would "vote according to his conscience" and that the most that he could do was "to have the issuance of the TRO and the injunctive relief scheduled for oral arguments", at which the respondents "must be able to convince" him that the TRO indeed had no legal basis.

In his signed testimony, which he read before the Panel of Investigators, Chairman Sabio narrated the circumstances of this call to his brother on May thirty, two thousand eight. It appears to have been prompted by a call from a member of the Board of Trustees of Gsis. To quote from Chairman Sabio's testimony:

Last May thirty, two thousand eight I was in Davao City Airport with my wife, Marlene, waiting for our one twenty-five P.M. PAL flight to Manila. . . .

As we were boarding, I received a call from Atty. Jesus I. Santos, a Member of the Board of Trustees of Gsis. We had known each other and had become friends since before Martial Law because as Chief Counsel of the Federation of Free Farmers we were opposing counsel in various cases in Bulacan.

Attorney Santos informed me that the dispute between the Gsis and Meralco was now in the Court of Appeals; and, that as a matter of fact, my brother, Justice Sabio, was chair of the Division to which the case had been assigned. Being a Trustee, Attorney Santos requested me to help. I readily welcomed the request for help and thanked him. There was no mystery about his having known of the results of the raffle because the lawyers are notified thereof and are present thereat. As a Trustee, Attorney Santos should be concerned and involved. As such it is his duty to seek assistance for the Gsis where he could legitimately find it. He was right in seeking my assistance.

I was aware of the controversy between the Gsis and Meralco. In essence this was in fact a controversy between the long suffering public and the mighty - financially and politically - controlling owners of Meralco. Meralco is not only a public utility but also a monopoly. Fortunately, Gsis had taken up the cudgels for the long suffering public, who are at the mercy of Meralco.

Immediately, I tried to contact Justice Sabio. But due to the noise I could not hear him. So I waited until we would arrive in Manila.

As we were leaving the Airport, I again got in touch with Justice Sabio. After, he confirmed that he was in fact in the Division to which the petition of Meralco had been raffled. I impressed upon him the character and essence of the controversy. I asked him to help Gsis if the legal situation permitted. He said he would decide according to his conscience. I said: of course.

On the same day, May thirty, two thousand eight, Gsis filed an urgent ex-parte motion to inhibit Justice Roxas from CA-G.R. No. SP one zero three six nine two. The Special Cases Section of the Court of Appeals received a copy of the motion at eleven fifty-eight a.m.

Claiming that the TRO was issued "to pre-empt the hearing" scheduled in the afternoon of that day before the SEC, the Gsis Law Office, through Atty. Marcial C. Pimentel, Jr., set forth its reason for the motion for inhibition as follows:

Three. Unfortunately, reports have reached respondent Gsis that the Honorable ponente has been in contact with certain lawyers of Meralco and has in fact already prepared a draft resolution granting the TRO without affording respondents even a summary hearing. The records of this case was, per information, immediately transmitted to the Honorable ponente upon his instructions. The worries of the respondent were exacerbated when it learned that there are supposedly two administrative cases pending against the Honorable ponente, both of which involve allegations of bias and prejudice.

It turned out, however, that at that time, Justice Roxas had not yet been officially notified by the Raffle Committee that the case was raffled to him. Moreover, contrary to the allegation of Atty. Elamparo that the raffle was rigged, Justice Roxas had no hand in the raffle proceeding, which was handled by the Division chaired by Justice Mariano del Castillo with the use of a "fool-proof Las Vegas tambiolo, like the lotto machine."

Justice Roxas brought to the office of Justice Sabio, for the latter's signature, the TRO which he had prepared, already signed by himself and Justice Dimaranan-Vidal. Convinced of the urgency of the TRO, Justice Sabio signed it on condition that the case will be set for oral arguments.

Thus, at two o'clock and eight p.m. on May thirty, two thousand eight, the Special Ninth Division composed of Justices Sabio, Roxas, and Dimaranan-Vidal, issued the Resolution granting the TRO prayed for by the petitioners and directing the respondents to file their respective comments (not a motion to dismiss) to the petition within ten days from notice, with the petitioners given five days from receipt of that comment within which to file their reply. The Special Ninth Division also set the hearing on the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction for ten o'clock in the morning on June twenty-three and twenty-four, two thousand eight. In the same Resolution, parties were directed to file their respective memorandum of authorities in connection with the application for a writ of preliminary injunction together with their comments/reply. After the parties had filed their memorandum of authorities relative to the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, the prayer for the said writ would be CD Technologies Asia, Inc. two thousand twenty-six considered submitted for resolution "forty-five days from promulgation of this Resolution". The SEC received a copy of the Resolution at four o'clock and three minutes p.m. on that day.

For Justice Roxas, the issuance of the TRO was an implied denial of the motion for inhibition filed against him. There was no need to put in writing the action on the motion for inhibition.

At three o'clock p.m., the Special Cases Section of the Court of Appeals received the Urgent Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order and To Hold Its Enforcement in Abeyance filed by the GSIS. Justice Roxas did not act on the Urgent Motion because he did not consider it meritorious.

On May thirty-one, two thousand eight, Justice Sabio received a cellular phone call from Mr. Francis De Borja (Mr. De Borja), a person he had lost contact with for almost a year already. Mr. De Borja greeted him with: "Mabuhay ka, Justice". When Justice Sabio, Jr. asked Mr. De Borja why he said that, Mr. De Borja told him that the Makati Business Club was happy with his having signed the TRO, to which Justice Sabio retorted, "I voted according to my conscience".

On June five, two thousand eight, the GSIS Law Office received a letter dated June two, two thousand eight of Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. informing GSIS Chief Legal Counsel, Atty. Elamparo, that the Court of Appeals could not grant her request for the re-raffling of CA-G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two "in the presence of the parties in the interest of transparency and fairness", as the case had been raffled in accordance with the procedure under the IRCA.

On June ten, two thousand eight, Justice B. L. Reyes reported back to work.

On June eleven, two thousand eight, at three o'clock and fifty minutes p.m., the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the SEC, filed a manifestation and motion praying for the admission of the comment (to the petition) attached thereto, as well as the advance and additional copies of the memorandum of authorities.

On June twelve, two thousand eight, at four o'clock and fifty-three minutes p.m., the GSIS filed its comment/opposition to the petition in CA-G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two, as well as its memorandum of authorities.

On June sixteen, two thousand eight, the Division Clerk of Court, Atty. Teresita Custodio (Atty. Custodio), delivered to Justice Reyes the cartilla of the Meralco case, and informed him that a hearing on the prayer for the issuance of a preliminary injunction had been scheduled at ten o'clock in the morning on June twenty-three and twenty-four, two thousand eight. However, on the same day, the Division Clerk of Court came back to retrieve the cartilla upon instructions of Justice Sabio. Justice Reyes instructed his staff to return the cartilla and when he asked the Division Clerk of Court why she was retrieving it, she said that Justice Sabio "demanded" that it be returned back to him. "Personally affronted" by the "domineering and superior stance" of Justice Sabio, Justice Reyes "read and re-read Secs. one, two (d) and five, Rule six (Process of Adjudication)" until he was satisfied that he should sit as Division Chairman in the Meralco case.

On either June seventeen or eighteen, two thousand eight, Justice Sabio requested the rollo of CA-G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two from Justice Roxas so that he could study the case before the hearing. Justice Roxas asked him whether Justice Reyes would preside over the hearing. Justice Sabio explained the reason why he, not Justice Reyes, should preside. Justice Roxas promised to instruct the Division Clerk of Court to send the rollo over to Justice Sabio. The next day, the Division Clerk of Court told Justice Sabio that the rollo was with Justice Reyes. When the rollo was eventually transmitted to Justice Sabio, the Division Clerk of Court asked him whether the rollo should be with Justice Reyes.

Justice Sabio explained why the rollo should be with him.

On June eighteen, two thousand eight, petitioners filed a motion for an extension of five days or until June twenty-three, two thousand eight within which to file their consolidated memoranda of authorities and reply to the comment of the SEC.

On June nineteen, two thousand eight, MERALCO filed an ex-parte manifestation together with their reply to the comment of the GSIS. Meanwhile, Justice B. L. Reyes asked Atty. Custodio to report on "what transpired between her and Justice Sabio" when she returned the cartilla. "Teary-eyed", Atty. Custodio begged off from making a report.

Justice Reyes decided to consult the Presiding Justice "to avoid an ugly confrontation" with the Justices on the "highly politicized case involving giants of the Philippine society". He explained to the Presiding Justice his understanding of the relevant IRCA rules and "the actual practice in similar situations in the past". The Presiding Justice promised to talk with Justice Sabio and, "for the sake of transparency and future reference", Justice Reyes requested permission to write an inquiry on the matter.

On the same day, Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice Vasquez a letter calling the attention of Justice Edgardo P. Cruz ("Justice Cruz"), Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, to the "dilemma" as to who between him and Justice Sabio should "receive" CA-G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three six hundred ninety-two. Justice Reyes posed these questions before the Presiding Justice:

Will the case remain with Justice Jose Sabio, Jr. as Acting Chairman of the Special Ninth Division and who participated in the initial Resolution of the case?

Will the case revert to the regular Ninth Division with the undersigned as Chairman?

For Justice Reyes, the "dilemma" was engendered by this provision of Section two of Rule six of the IRCA:

(two) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely: (one) giving due course; (two) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (three) granting new trial; and (four) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station.

The hearing on the application for preliminary injunction having been scheduled for June twenty-third and twenty-fourth, two thousand eight, Justice Reyes considered it "necessary" that the issues be resolved before that date. Moreover, the referral of the controversy to the Presiding Justice would give him sufficient time to seriously study the case before the hearing.

On June twentieth, two thousand eight, Presiding Justice Vasquez referred the letter of Justice Reyes to Justice Cruz, Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, noting "some urgency involved as the hearing of the case is on Monday, June twenty-third, two thousand eight".

On that same day, Justice Cruz wrote Justice Reyes a letter quoting Section two (d), Rule six of the IRCA and stating that the "issuance of a TRO is not among the instances where 'the Justices who participated' in the case shall 'remain' therein". Hence, Justice Cruz opined that "notwithstanding the issuance of the TRO (not writ of preliminary injunction), the case reverted to the regular Chairman (Justice Reyes) of the Ninth Division upon his return." Justice Reyes received a copy of the letter of Justice

Cruz in the afternoon of that day.

During the hearings of this case, Justice Cruz explained his opinion before the Panel. He opined that the motion to lift the TRO is not a motion for reconsideration because Rule fifty-two of the Rules of Court states that a motion for reconsideration may be filed with respect to a decision or a final resolution. A TRO is not a final resolution but an interlocutory order. Moreover, since the subject of the hearing on June twenty-third, two thousand eight was on the application for preliminary injunction, Justice Sabio had no right to participate in the hearing because as an Acting Chairman, his authority was only to act on the motion to lift the TRO. Under the IRCA, the position of Justice Sabio invoked the exception to the general rule in the IRCA. However, the settled principle is to construe a rule strictly against the exception. The participation of Justice Sabio in the hearing on June twenty-third, two thousand eight was a "passport" to participation in the decision-making process, in violation of the IRCA.

Justice Reyes having consulted with him, the Presiding Justice referred the matter to Justice Sabio who in turn, opined that "a temporary restraining order is part of the injunctive relief or at least its initial action such that he should be the one to chair the Division". In his office after that consultation with the Presiding Justice, Justice Reyes found that the Division Clerk of Court had given him a copy of the cartilla just in case he would preside over the hearing. In the evening, the Presiding Justice called up Justice Reyes to inform him that Justice Sabio "insisted that he would preside over the hearing of the case", and that the opinion of Justice Cruz, who was "junior" to Justice Sabio "was no better than his own opinion".

It turned out that, upon receipt of a copy of the letter of Justice Cruz, Justice Sabio told the Presiding Justice by telephone that he disagreed with the opinion of Justice Cruz "because he did not sign in an official capacity as Chairman of the Rules Committee, but in his personal capacity" and hence, the opinion of Justice Sabio "was as good as his, as in fact I (Justice Sabio, Jr.) am even more senior than he". Justice Sabio told the Presiding Justice that he "smelled something fishy" about the move to transfer the case to the Ninth Division especially because Justice Reyes did not inform him about it despite the fact that they were seated together on three occasions.

Justice Sabio "smelled something fishy" because a couple of weeks ago, he attended a Chairpersons' meeting regarding the leakage of the ponencia of Justice Bato, with Justice Reyes as Chairperson and Justice Jose Mendoza as senior member. The meeting was called because prior to the promulgation of the decision of Justice Bato, the losing party already filed a motion for the inhibition of the ponente. According to Justice Sabio information on the decision could not have been leaked by Justice Bato but by a member of the Division.

The Presiding Justice "did not do anything anymore" to prevent an "unpalatable" situation at the scheduled June twenty-third, two thousand eight hearing, notwithstanding the "conflicting opinions" of Justices Reyes and Sabio. The "personal view" of the Presiding Justice was at the time "with Justice Cruz" but Justice Sabio had a "different interpretation". Neither did the Presiding Justice suggest that the Rules Committee be convened because the Committee then had only two members. He felt that it would be "better" if Justices Reyes and Sabio "could settle it between themselves". The Presiding Justice was seeing the Justices "practically" everyday because he did not want "these things to blow up". However, neither did it enter the mind of the Presiding Justice that the hearing on June twenty-third could be reset. Had he known that there was a motion to inhibit Justice Roxas, he would have changed his position "that it should be the Sabio group".

Also on June twentieth, two thousand eight, the GSIS requested permission to conduct a power-point presentation during the hearing. Likewise the SEC, through the OSG prayed that it be allowed the use of Microsoft Powerpoint Application at the June twenty-third and twenty-fourth, two thousand eight hearings. Justice Roxas did not act on the motions.

On June twenty-first, two thousand eight, Justice Sabio came to know that it was the Division chaired by Justice Reyes that would handle the case on account of the opinion of Justice Cruz.

In the morning of June twenty-third, two thousand eight, Justice Sabio consulted with Justice Martin Villarama, Jr. ("Justice Villarama") who advised him, "in no uncertain terms", that his stand was "correct" and that he should remain in the case. Justice Villarama said that the case should remain with the Special Ninth Division "regardless of the transfer of the ponente to the Eighth Division because of the pending motion to lift TRO", which the Special Ninth Division should resolve "following the general rule that when a decision or resolution is rendered by a division, a motion for reconsideration thereof should be acted upon by all the Members of that division, whether regular or special, which participated in the rendition of the decision or resolution, except in case of death, retirement or resignation of such Member."

That morning, Justice Roxas also consulted Justice Villarama. The latter told the former that since there was a motion to lift the TRO, Justice Roxas should first rule on the motion. He also advised Justice Roxas to inhibit himself from the case, as there might be a problem. Justice Roxas told Justice Villarama that he would follow his "suggestion".

Justice Reyes also went to the office of Justice Villarama to tell him of his "strong conviction that the issuance of a TRO is not among the instances provided in Section two (d), Rule Six when the case shall remain with those Justices who participated in the case regardless of their transfer to other division(s)." Justice Villarama told Justice Reyes that per his "understanding and interpretation of said provision, ... the case should remain with the Special Ninth Division."

At nine fifty a.m., the Office of the Division Clerk of Court called Justice Reyes to inform him that the parties and their counsels were already in the hearing room. Justice Reyes informed the caller that he could not preside as Justice Sabio had "apparently hardened his position" and he wanted to avoid an "ugly spectacle". His name plate was displayed in the hearing room but Justice Sabio moved to another hearing room. Allegedly, the removal of the nameplate of Justice Reyes was the talk of the Court of Appeals for weeks.

Villaraza Cruz Marcelo and Angangco entered its appearance as counsel for Meralco. At the hearing, Justice Sabio presided with Justices Roxas and Dimaranan-Vidal in attendance. Justice Roxas, the ponente, did not ask a single question. Not one of the Justices in attendance brought up the motion for inhibition filed by the GSIS against Justice Roxas. In open court, the parties in CA-G.R. SP Number one zero three six nine two agreed to submit, within fifteen days, simultaneous memoranda on the injunctive relief prayed for by the petitioners, after which the application for preliminary injunction would be deemed submitted for resolution.

On June twenty-five, two thousand eight, or about two days after the separate conversations of Justice Villarama with Justices Sabio and Reyes, the Presiding Justice also consulted Justice Villarama about the letter-queries of Justices Roxas and Reyes on which Division should resolve "the matter of injunctive relief or issue the decision" in CA-G.R. SP Number one zero three six nine two.

The Presiding Justice issued Office Order Number one ninety-six dash zero eight dash CMV reconstituting the Committee on Rules and designating Justice Cruz as the Chairperson, with Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, Reyes, Hakim Abdulwahid, and Noel G. Tijam, as members. The Committee on Rules was tasked to propose amendments to the IRCA on or before August fifteen, two thousand eight "for submission and adoption of the Court en banc." The office order was later amended by Office Order Number one ninety-six dash zero eight dash CMV on August four, two thousand eight to include as members Justices Mario L. Guarina the third, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores. The Rules Committee used to be composed of only three members, namely: Justices Cruz, Abdulwahid, and Roberto Barrios, now deceased, as members, with Justice Cruz as chairperson.

It was also on June twenty-five, two thousand eight that Presiding Justice Vasquez issued Office Order Number two hundred dash zero eight dash CMV stating that, in view of the retirement of Justices Enrique Lanzanas, Lucenito N. Tagle, Agustin S. Dizon, and Rodrigo Cosico, and the appointments of Justices Ruben C. Ayson and Edgardo L. delos Santos, the Divisions would have a new composition effective July four, two thousand eight. Under that office order, Justice Sabio became the Chairman of the Sixth Division, with Justice Dimaranan-Vidal as a member. Justice Reyes became the Chairman of the Eighth Division, with Justices Roxas and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. ("Justice Bruselas") as members.

On June twenty-nine, two thousand eight, Justice Reyes went on official leave of absence to use a business class airplane ticket to Sydney, Australia that he had won in an APT Golf Tournament in January two thousand eight. He was still on official leave when the reorganization of the Court of Appeals took place on July four, two thousand eight.

On July one, two thousand eight, Justice Roxas told Justice Sabio that he did not attend the Access to Courts summit on June thirty and July one, two thousand eight at the Court of Appeals Auditorium because he was busy with the Meralco case. Justice Sabio was taken aback because at that time the parties had not yet submitted their memoranda.

That same afternoon, Mr. De Borja again called up Justice Sabio, seeking to meet with him for an "important" matter. Because Justice Sabio had six to eight p.m. classes at the Ateneo Law School, they agreed to meet after his classes but not for long because his wife and his daughter, Atty. Silvia Jo Sabio who is an Attorney six in the Office of the Chief Justice, would be waiting for him. According to Justice Sabio, the conversation at that meeting with Francis de Borja went as follows:

Seventeen. By the time my class was finished at eight p.m., Mr. De Borja was already waiting for me at the Lobby Lounge of the third floor of the Ateneo Law School. His first words to me were: Alam mo Justice kung sino ang kasama ko sa kotse? Si Manolo Lopez. Then he said: Noong tinatawagan kita at sinabi kong "Mabuhay ka Justice", si Manolo Lopez ang katabi ko noon. Nasa Amerika siya, kaya ako na lang ang pumunta dito para makiusap sa 'yo. Alam mo, itong kaso na ito is a matter of life and death for the Lopezes. And alam mo naman what the Marcoses did to them, which is being done now by the Arroyos.

At that point he mentioned the impasse between Justice Bienvenido Reyes and myself. He said: Alam naming may problema kayo ni Justice Reyes tungkol sa chairmanship.

I was surprised how he came to know about it, as this was an internal matter of the Court of Appeals which only happened fairly recently and many associate justices of the CA were not even aware of this. Just the same, I explained my stand and why I could not relinquish the chairmanship to Justice Reyes.

He then replied: Alam mo, Justice ang opinion dito ni Nonong Cruz ay i-challenge ang stand mo. Kaya lang, mayroon namang nagsabi na it might become messy.

Then he bragged to me: Ako din ang responsible sa pag-recommend at pag-hire ng Villaraza Law Firm.

Then he explained that he was there to offer me a win-win situation.

He said: Justice, mayroon kaming P ten million. Ready. Just give way to Justice Reyes.

Then I said: Bakit ganun. Nakasisiguro sila sa kanya, sa akin hindi?

He said: Mas komportable lang sila sa kanya

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. But at the same time, hindi ko rin magawang bastusin siya because I had known him since nineteen ninety-three and this was the first time that he had ever treated me like this, or shown that he believed I could be bought.

So I just told him: Francis, I cannot in conscience agree to that

His answer was: Sabi ko nga sa kanila, mahirap ka talaga papayag. Kasi may anak iyang Opus Dei. Numerary pa.

At this point, I just wanted to leave, so I told him I could not stay long. I told him my wife and lawyer daughter were waiting.

Even then, he was already insistent. His parting words before I left were: Just think about it, Justice.

At that time, Mr. De Borja was carrying a "sealed" brown paper bag, which he was handling "as if something important" was inside. However, Justice Sabio did not know if the bag contained ten million pesos. In his car, Justice Sabio told his wife and his daughter, Silvia Jo, about the offer of Mr. De Borja for Meralco.

In his affidavit submitted to the Panel of Investigators, Mr. De Borja describes himself as a businessman, a deal maker, and project packager. On July first, two thousand eight, he invited Justice Sabio for dinner "to touch base" and for chismis about the MERALCO- GSIS case. As the latter would have evening classes at the Ateneo Law School, and his wife and daughter would be waiting in their car after his classes, they just agreed to meet at the lobby-lounge of the School. What Mr. De Borja knew about the MERALCO case allegedly came from news reports but he was interested in the news because he is a "confirmed free-enterpriser". Moreover, De Borja thought that there was "nothing like hearing things directly from the horse's mouth".

When Mr. De Borja and Justice Sabio met, Mr. De Borja averred he was indeed carrying a bag, not an expensive looking luggage. After parking his car at the Rockwell basement, he took the escalator, intending to walk out of the mall. On his way, he passed by the Kenneth Cole shop and, since it was still early, he looked in and saw a T-shirt he liked. He bought the T-shirt, which he brought before the Panel of Investigators in the grey "Kenneth Cole Reaction" bag. The photographs of the bag and the T-shirt costing one thousand six hundred fifty pesos are marked Exhibits "A-De Borja" and "A-one-De Borja" and attached to the rollo of A.M. No. zero eight-eight-eleven-CA, while the photograph of the receipt issued by the Kenneth Cole Boutique, marked as Exhibit "A-two-De Borja", shows that the purchase was made on July first, two thousand eight at nineteen forty-seven. He stressed the bag did not contain ten million pesos.

Before the Panel, Justice Sabio claimed that the bag Mr. De Borja brought during the hearing was not the bag that Mr. De Borja was carrying when Justice Sabio saw him on July first, two thousand eight. What Mr. De Borja allegedly brought with him to the lobby-lounge of the Ateneo Law School was a brown bag with paper handle "about two-thirds (of the Kenneth Cole bag) in size". Justice Sabio was told by the Panel that it could be the subject of rebuttal evidence but he did not present such evidence.

According to Mr. De Borja, Manolo Lopez (Mr. Lopez), the owner of MERALCO whose wife was a member of Martha's Vineyard just like Mr. De Borja's wife, was also an acquaintance of Mr. De Borja at the Ateneo grade school. Mr. Lopez did not ask him (Mr. De Borja) to contact Justice Sabio. At a party where Mr. De Borja met Mr. Lopez, Mr. De Borja informed him that he knew Justice Sabio but Mr. Lopez did not say anything.

Mr. De Borja denied having offered ten million pesos to Justice Sabio. Instead, he claimed that Justice Sabio informed him that the government has offered him (Justice Sabio) money and a promotion to the Supreme Court to favor GSIS. When Mr. De Borja asked what would it take for Justice Sabio to resist the government's offer, Justice Sabio allegedly replied: "Fifty Million". He alleged that it was Justice Sabio who called up after that July first, two thousand eight meeting to "feel" his reaction to the "fifty million peso solicitation". Justice Sabio asked him: "O, ano, kumusta, ano ang nangyayari".

Mr. De Borja admitted having given three hundred thousand pesos to Justice Sabio, some fifteen years ago, as a balato because he came to value the friendship of Justice Sabio that developed while the latter was helping the Roa family in a business transaction. Mr. De Borja earned "more than twenty-five million pesos" although he received only three million pesos as down payment out of the sale of one hundred hectares of the Roa property. He gave the balato of ten percent of the three million pesos to Justice Sabio in cash at the Roa-owned bank in Cagayan de Oro. Since the Roas had a lot of "legal problems", Justice Sabio rendered advice and consultation at the time that he was an RTC judge in Cagayan de Oro. After the promotion of Justice Sabio to the Court of Appeals, Mr. De Borja invited him for dinner. They would see each other at get-togethers of the Roas with whom Mr. De Borja is related, even at a gathering in the house of Mr. De Borja's mother.

On July two, two thousand eight, Justice Sabio that informed Presiding Justice Vasquez that he (Justice Sabio) was offered a bribe (which he rejected) to have him ousted from the Meralco case. The news allegedly shocked the Presiding Justice. Justice Sabio also went to Justice Villarama who was both "shocked and amused". Justice Sabio did not tell them who the "offeror" was. However, a day or two later, Justice Sabio found out that Mr. De Borja had called their mutual friend, Mrs. Evelyn Clavano, who was also shocked that Mr. De Borja had "the gall to ask her" to convince Justice Sabio to accept the bribe.

Although Justice Sabio told the Presiding Justice that the offer of ten million pesos to a

Justice was, in the words of Justice Sabio, bastusan na ito, and he knew that bribing a Justice is a criminal act, the Presiding Justice did nothing because he could not "advise a fellow Justice on what to do" - the Justice would know what he should do. Neither did he think of consulting Justices Roxas and Dimaranan-Vidal on the chairmanship impasse.

On July three, two thousand eight, to stop Mr. De Borja from pestering him with phone calls and text messages, Justice Sabio called up Mr. De Borja who told him: Mabuti naman Justice tumawag ka, kasi malapit na ang deadline ng submission ng memorandum. Pinag-isipan mo bang mabuti ang offer namin? Kasi sayang din kung di mo tatanggapin, Kasi kahit aabot itong kaso sa Supreme Court, matatalo ka din. Sayang lang 'yung ten million pesos. Baka sisihin ka pa ng mga anak mo. Shocked by what he heard, Justice Sabio said "No". Since Mr. De Borja did not seem to understand why he kept saying "No", Justice Sabio explained to him: If I accept that, my conscience will bother me forever. How can I face my wife and two daughters? One a lawyer and the other a Numerary member of Opus Dei? And besides, how can I reconcile my being a member of PHILJA's Ethics and Judicial Conduct Department; being a lecturer of the MCLE; and being a pre-bar reviewer of the Ateneo Law School on Legal and Judicial Ethics? Mr. De Borja retorted: Wala naman kaming pinapagawa sa iyo na illegal, eh . Then he added: You know Justice, after two or three weeks, makakalimutan na ito ng mga tao. Meron naman diyang mga Atenista na tumatanggap. Justice Sabio said: I don't know about them, but I am different. Mr. De Borja then said: Well, if you will not accept, we will be forced to look for other ways. To this, Justice Sabio said: But they will have to contend with me. In parting, Mr. De Borja said: Justice, no matter what, saludo talaga ako sa iyo.

Mr. De Borja admitted that Justice Sabio called him up, but denied the above conversation with Justice Sabio.

On July four, two thousand eight, the reorganization of the Court of Appeals became effective and brought Justices Reyes, Roxas and Bruselas to the Eighth Division. Justice Reyes went to see the Presiding Justice about the urgent motion for him to assume the chairmanship of the Division, which shows on its face that the Urgent Motion dated July ten, two thousand eight was received by the Court of Appeals at two minutes past eight p.m. on July ten, two thousand eight and by Atty. Teresita C. Custodio on July nine, two thousand eight. Justice Reyes expressed to the Presiding Justice his apprehension that should he fail to assume the chairmanship, he would face administrative liability for nonfeasance or dereliction of duty. The Presiding Justice suggested that the respondents in the case be required to comment on the Urgent Motion "in a resolution to be issued by the former Ninth Division of Justice J.L. Sabio, Jr. since to allow the new Division of Justice B.L. Reyes to issue the resolution . . . would render moot and academic" the same motion. Justice Reyes agreed and told the Presiding Justice that he would be sending over the records to him so that the Presiding Justice could place a note thereon as to what had been agreed upon. However, the records of the case did not reach the Presiding Justice.

For Justice Roxas, the July four, two thousand eight reorganization was mandatory and the Meralco case followed him as its ponente to the Eighth Division. By the reorganization, Justice Sabio was moved from the disbanded Special Ninth Division to the Sixth Division, as the reorganization did not spare any Justice. Moreover, the IRCA does not require that the Justices that issued a TRO be the same Justices that will render the decision. This is because the TRO does not appear in Section two (d), Rule seven of the IRCA. Accordingly, only the issuance of a preliminary injunction could be an exception to the July four, two thousand eight reorganization of the Court of Appeals. He believes the IRCA does not require that the Justices who heard the case should also decide it because the Court of Appeals is a court of record and Justices may rely on the transcript of stenographic notes. And so, once the three Justices have signed the decision, the ponente has the "pressing duty" to promulgate the decision.

Since July four, two thousand eight, Justice Bruselas alleged that he acted "on all the ponencias" of Justices Reyes and Roxas, "just as they had acted" on his ponencias.

On July seven, two thousand eight, the GSIS filed its memorandum.

On or about July eight, two thousand eight, Atty. Silvia Sabio, to help her father, sought the advice of Atty. Jose Midas Marquez ("Atty. Marquez") regarding the bribery attempt. Atty. Marquez advised that Justice Sabio should write the Chief Justice about the incident, detailing not only the bribery attempt but all that has transpired relative to the chairmanship issue. Atty. Silvia Sabio immediately called her father and relayed Atty. Marquez's advice. Later that date, Justice Sabio handed his daughter, Silvia, a handwritten letter for her to deliver to the Chief Justice. The handwritten letter, in essence, requested permission for Justice Sabio to "unburden" himself before the Chief Justice on the Meralco case.

At around two thirty p.m., Justice Reyes went to see Justice Sabio. The conversation between them, as recalled by Justice Sabio, was as follows:

• As soon as he came in, I said: "Why did you stab me behind my back?" He said, "Why, what did I do? I asked him Why is it that you have to resort to that strategy of seeking the opinion of Ed Cruz, in his personal capacity, when we could have discussed the matter with the PJ?

• I reminded him that we were seated three times near each other on different occasions only recently and he never mentioned to me about the plan to oust me.

• He said: Perhaps that was my fault. I should have talked to you.

• I told him, that all the while I thought we were friends. Why did you have to do these things behind my back and not discuss the matter with me face to face?

• Then he said it just came about due to the urgent motion; that he was afraid Meralco would take action against him for nonfeasance for not doing his job.

It was then that I said: Are you aware that I was offered ten million pesos for me to give way to you?

I further asked him the following: In the first place, how was the Meralco emissary able to know that there was an impasse between you and me when that was supposed to be an internal matter?

If you will now insist on assuming the chairmanship after I told you of the ten million peso offer, what will I think of you?

Are you a Trojan horse? Can you blame me if I think you are part of this whole scheme or shenanigan?

Does not the timing alone stink of corruption? After they failed to convince me of their offer, now they will use you to oust me? Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain with mine?

And why did they file this stupid urgent motion to assume? In my nine years in this court, I have never seen such an animal as this. This is a cowardly act, and whoever advised this stupid motion is also stupid. Why do you have to dignify such a foolish motion? They should file a motion for me to inhibit or recuse myself.

Why is it that Meralco actively participated in the hearing on the twenty-third and never raised any question on the alleged irregularity of my having presided over the hearing?

Why do you insist on assuming the case? Are you not aware that several days after the issuance of the TRO, respondents filed a motion for inhibition of Justice Vicente Roxas and a motion to lift the TRO. Who then had the right to resolve such motion?

Under the circumstances, anong iisipin ko sa yo? Ano ang tingin ko ngayon sa iyo?

His feeble answer was: you. He then said he did not know of those pending motions. (Incidentally, these motions were never resolved.) He also said, wala talaga akong interest dito kundi ayaw ko lang ma charge ng non-feasance for failing to do my duty.

I answered him: Malayo yung non-feasance. Hindi ito nonfeasance. I taught the subject for many years and this is not one of them.

So I told him, I have made my decision on the matter. Bahala ka na. Then I stood up to show him to the door. He was silent after that and before he left, he put his arm around me.

For his part, Justice Reyes kept on repeating: "Wala talaga ako dito, wala akong interest kung di yun lang hindi ako ma non-feasance. Justice Sabio thought otherwise.

Meanwhile, Justice Roxas brought to the office of Justice Dimaranan-Vidal "the final decision on the Meralco case" bearing his signature, which he gave to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal for "concurrence/dissent". According to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal, Justice Roxas explained to her the "rationale for his conclusion". Justice Roxas went out for a while and returned "with an expensive looking travelling bag" from where he pulled out the "purported final decision". Before the close of office hours, Justice Roxas returned to the chambers of Justice Dimaranan-Vidal to check if he had signed his decision. When she replied that yes, he had signed it, Justice Roxas said he would pick it up the next day.

Justice Dimaranan-Vidal signed the decision notwithstanding that on July eighth, two thousand eight the Court of Appeals had been reorganized because she believed that the Special Ninth Division was still existing on account of its having issued the TRO. She also concurred with the portion of the decision recommending administrative sanctions against the GSIS lawyers because she believed the OSG or the OGCC should have appeared for the GSIS.

Also late that day, Justice Villarama told Justice Sabio that he had advised Justice Reyes to "lay off the case" and allow Justice Sabio "to continue" and to resolve the urgent motion for Justice Reyes to assume the chairmanship. Justice Villarama recalled that Justice Reyes repeatedly said: "Wala talaga ako dito Jun, Wala akong personal interest dito".

After "a careful and judicious study" of the more than fifty-six-page decision of Justice Roxas, Justice Dimaranan-Vidal signed it. True to his word, Justice Roxas personally picked up the decision that day "purportedly for the action of the Acting Chairman, Justice Sabio", who was then on leave of absence until July eleventh, two thousand eight. Notwithstanding the fact that the parties had not submitted their respective memoranda, Justice Dimaranan-Vidal signed the "convincing" ponencia, including three copies of the signature page, because Justice Roxas was insistent of the urgency of the signing of the decision due to the impending lapse of the TRO on July twenty-ninth, two thousand eight. Justice Sabio thought otherwise.

However, Justice Roxas denied that the decision he gave to Justice Dimaranan-Vidal was the final decision. He denied that he gave it to her for her signature. He said it was only for her to read because she asked to read it. He said it was a mere draft as "everything was unofficial" - there was no rollo or logbook with it, it was not placed in an envelope, and it did not have the "special seal" of Justice Roxas. It allegedly "was thrown in the garbage can".

On July ninth, two thousand eight, the OSG filed the memorandum for the SEC.

On July tenth, two thousand eight, Meralco filed an urgent motion praying that Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship of the Division, alleging the reasons for the urgent motion as follows:

Five. At the scheduled oral arguments on twenty-third June two thousand eight in the instant case, the parties were first directed to one of the Hearing Rooms of the Court of Appeals. At the said room, the name plate of Justice Reyes was already placed on the table for the justices. Thus, petitioners were of the impression that the leave of absence of Justice Reyes was over and that he would be presiding over the oral arguments as Chairman of the Ninth Division of the Honorable Court.

Six. However, when the parties were directed to transfer to another Room of the Court of Appeals for the oral arguments in the instant case, petitioners saw that the name plates on the table for the justices included that of Justice Sabio, Junior, together with that of Justices Roxas and Dimaranan-Vidal. Thereafter, Justice Sabio presided over the oral arguments as Chairman of the Special Ninth Division of the Honorable Court. Petitioners were, thus, of the impression that the regular Chairman of the Ninth Division, Justice Reyes, was still on temporary leave of absence.

Seven. Subsequently, it has come to the attention of the petitioners that Justice Reyes has already returned from his temporary leave of absence and has resumed his duties as Chairman of the Ninth Division of the Honorable Court.

Eight. Under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, Justice Sabio, Junior, should now refrain from acting as the chairman of the Division hearing the instant case as he is already disqualified from acting as such upon the return of Justice Reyes.

Eight point one. With due respect, Justice Reyes cannot shirk from his bounden judicial responsibility of performing his duties and functions as Chairman of the Ninth Division of the Honorable Court.

Eight point two. Specifically, under Section three (d), Rule four of the two thousand two Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a case can remain with the justices who participated therein only when any of the following actions have been taken: (a) giving due course; (b) granting of a writ of preliminary injunction; (c) granting of a new trial; or (d) granting of execution pending appeal.

Nine. None of the foregoing instances apply with respect to Justice Sabio, Jr.'s continuing hold on the case. Although Justice Sabio, Jr. was one of the Justices who issued the temporary restraining order in favor of the petitioners in the instant case, this circumstance is not among the grounds as above-quoted, when a justice of the Court of Appeals may remain in the Division.

Ten. As above-quoted, the rule is categorical that it is not the grant of a temporary restraining order but rather the grant of a writ of preliminary injunction that sanctions a justice's remaining with the Division. Thus, the continued participation of Justice Sabio, Jr., in the instant case, considering the clear Rules of the Honorable Court, is not only irregular but may lead one to conclude that he is exhibiting undue interest in the instant case.

On this day, Justice Reyes reported back to work after his trip to Australia.

On July eleventh, two thousand eight, Justice Sabio was on leave when Justice Roxas called him up for a meeting to discuss the case. Justice Sabio told him that he needed ample time to read the memoranda of the parties. Justice Roxas promised to send to Justice Sabio the memoranda immediately.

At four p.m., Justice Reyes received from the Eighth Division Clerk of Court a copy of Meralco's Urgent Motion for him to assume the chairmanship of the Ninth Division.

On Monday, July fourteenth, two thousand eight at the flag ceremony, Justice Sabio requested Justice Roxas to meet with him as he had by then read the memoranda of the parties. Justice Roxas initially agreed to the meeting but he later informed Justice Sabio that he had another matter to attend to; neither was he available in the afternoon. Justice Roxas had become scarce. Justice Sabio learned that Justice Dimaranan-Vidal was also looking for Justice Roxas.

Justice Sabio prepared a resolution on the motion for the reconsideration of the TRO and informed Justices Roxas and Dimaranan-Vidal that he wanted to discuss it with them. The resolution he prepared "never saw light".

At ten a.m., Justice Roxas, with his messenger, brought the rollo of C A G R. S P Number one hundred three six nine two to Justice Reyes, and told the latter that he and Justice Bruselas would be coming over to deliberate on the case. Ten minutes later, the Eighth Division deliberated on the case. After a cursory examination of the rollo, Justice Reyes found that the decision had been signed by Justices Roxas and Bruselas but Justice Reyes asked for more time to study the case.

A transcript of the "Final Deliberation" on July fourteenth, two thousand eight is attached to page one nine two six of Volume three of the rollo of C A-G.R. S P Number one hundred three six nine two and marked as Exhibit two - Roxas on page two seventy-nine of the rollo of A M. Number zero eight-eight-eleven-C A. According to Justice Roxas, it was he who prepared the transcript from memory to "lend credence" to the certification of Justice Reyes at the end of the decision pursuant to Article eight, Section thirteen of the Constitution. Justice Reyes denied having seen it or having authorized its transcription. Justice Bruselas did not sign any transcript of the deliberation as he was not aware that a transcript was being taken. There was no stenographer present, as only the three of them, Justices Reyes, Roxas, and Bruselas were present at the deliberation. Neither was there a recording machine. Justice Roxas admittedly prepared the transcript "from memory".

The statement attributed to Justice Reyes in the transcript that there were "previous deliberations" were "really meetings", which they had twice, in the office of Justice Reyes, according to Justice Roxas.

On July fifteenth, two thousand eight, when she felt that the timing was right, Atty. Silvia Sabio testified that she handed her father's letter to the Chief Justice through his private secretary, Ms. Jasmin Mateo. A few days later, however, Presiding Justice Vasquez told Justice Sabio that the Chief Justice would no longer meet with him, as the Presiding Justice had apprised the Chief Justice about the matter.

According to Justice Reyes, at two p.m. that day, the Office of the Presiding Justice informed him that Justice Sabio was waiting for him in his office. As soon as Justice Reyes was seated, Justice Sabio "berated" him and accused him of "orchestrating matters". Justice Sabio told him that an emissary of Meralco had offered him ten million pesos to drop off the case, hence, he asked that if he was offered that much, how much could have been offered "to the principals?".

On July seventeenth, two thousand eight, Justice Reyes went back to the office of the Presiding Justice and informed him of the episode in the office of Justice Sabio. He also went to ask Justice Villarama for his opinion as to who was "the rightful claimant" to the chairmanship of the Division that should decide the Meralco case. Justice Villarama allegedly replied that they "were both correct".

On July eighteenth, two thousand eight, at the pre-launching meeting for the C A-C M I S, Justice Villarama had a "brief chat" with Justice Bruselas. The former told the latter that "both Justices Sabio and Reyes are correct in the sense that one of them can properly assume chairmanship either under the exception provided in Section two (d), Rule six of the two thousand two I R C A depending on the final disposition of the prayer for injunctive relief, or pursuant to the general rule enshrined in Section seven (b), Rule six."

On July twenty-first, two thousand eight, Justice Roxas personally filed with the Presiding Justice an "Interpleader Petition" praying that Presiding Justice Vasquez "decide which division Chairman (Justice Sabio's Former Special Ninth Division or Justice B. L. Reyes' Eighth Division) should sign the Preliminary Injunction or Decision". Justice Roxas averred that "the impasse between two Chairmen from two Divisions has to be resolved much earlier than July thirtieth, two thousand eight because July thirtieth, two thousand eight is the expiration date of the T R O issued by the Special Ninth Division (signed by Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Justice Vicente Q. Roxas ponente and Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal)". He opined that the two Chairpersons differed in the interpretation of Sections one and two (d) in relation to Section five.

of Rule Six on Process of Adjudication of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals. His stand was that the IRCA "should be strictly applied" because "when the provisions are clear, there is no room for interpretation".

Justice Roxas endorsed his "Interpleader Petition" to Justice Reyes for his "signature or dissent" to the "finalized MERALCO Decision", which had been in Justice Reyes' possession since July fourteen, two thousand eight. He also gave the rollo of the case to Justice Reyes.

Presiding Justice Vasquez allegedly told Justice Roxas that as Presiding Justice, he had no authority to rule on the Interpleader Petition, which is not an administrative concern over which the Presiding Justice must intervene. Nevertheless, to avoid further discussion, the Presiding Justice told Justice Roxas that he would study the matter.

On July twenty-two, two thousand eight, Justice Reyes wrote the Presiding Justice a letter on "what was discussed between us last seventeen July two thousand eight at around three thirty p.m.". Apparently the Presiding Justice had suggested "to endorse the case and have the Special Ninth Division direct the respondents to file their simultaneous comments on the petitioners' Urgent Motion (For Honorable BIENVENIDO L. REYES to Assume Chairmanship of the Division in the Instant Case) dated ten July two thousand eight."

Justice Reyes expressed "doubts" that the suggestion was "most prudent", as the dispute "revolves around the correct interpretation" of the IRCA. He believed that since the question was "purely internal", the CA should not seek "enlightenment" from the litigants for it would only be construed against its "competence". He shared Justice Cruz's and Roxas' interpretation of the IRCA. Hence, he urged the Presiding Justice to decide the matter; otherwise, he would interpret the rules according to his "best lights and act accordingly".

On July twenty-three, two thousand eight, Presiding Justice Vasquez asked for the rollo of CA G.R. No. SP No. one hundred thirty-three thousand six hundred ninety-two so he could "properly submit the requested opinion". It was then that he came across the unresolved motion praying for the inhibition of Justice Roxas and the pending urgent motion to lift the TRO or to hold its enforcement in abeyance. The Presiding Justice considered the latter as a motion for reconsideration of the Resolution issuing the TRO.

Meanwhile, at noon of that day, as Justice Reyes had not yet received "any reaction" from the Presiding Justice, he signed the decision as well as the Certification. It was promulgated on the same day.

The decision was promulgated without waiting for the Presiding Justice's opinion on whether it was the Eighth or Special Ninth Division that should decide the case. Justice Roxas alleged that he did not expect the Presiding Justice to "answer" or resolve the matter anyway.

On July twenty-four, two thousand eight, Presiding Justice Vasquez issued his reply to Justice Reyes' letter and Justice Roxas' "Interpleader-Petition". The Presiding Justice claimed having doubts on whether he possessed "the authority to decide the subject conflict" simply because under the IRCA, the Presiding Justice has control and supervision only over administrative affairs of the Court. The controversy was certainly not an administrative matter but Section eleven of Rule eight of the IRCA provides that the Presiding Justice "has the authority to act on any matter not covered" by the Rules although such action should be reported to the Court en banc.

The Presiding Justice expressed in his letter the view that "the (Special Ninth)

Division that issued the temporary restraining order should continue resolving the injunctive prayer in the petition" because it was the Division that issued the Resolution granting the TRO and setting the hearing on the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, aside from the fact that the parties did not contest the authority of Justice Sabio as Division Chairman at the time, although Justice Reyes had reported back to work. Moreover, the motion for inhibition and the urgent motion to lift the TRO "have a bearing" on the application of Section two of Rule six of the IRCA, especially because Section seven B of Rule six points to the retention of the case by the Special Ninth Division. Furthermore, the new Division headed by Justice Reyes may not be allowed to resolve the pending incidents because two of its members, Justices Reyes and Bruselas did not participate in the hearing on June twenty-three, two thousand eight. He did not believe that Justice Reyes would be charged with dereliction of duty should he not assume the chairmanship. The Presiding Justice ended his letter with the hope that the matter would be "laid to rest" and that whoever would be dissatisfied "with its outcome may elevate the matter to the Supreme Court".

At two p.m. that day, Justice Sabio informed the Presiding Justice that a decision had been promulgated in the Meralco case the previous day. The Presiding Justice was surprised because Justices Roxas and Reyes had asked him to resolve the impasse on the Division chairmanship. Upon inquiry, the Presiding Justice found that the decision had indeed been promulgated at four ten p.m. on July twenty-three, two thousand eight.

It was also on July twenty-four, two thousand eight that Justice Dimaranan-Vidal received a call from Justice Sabio, informing her that Meralco had offered him a bribe of ten million pesos "in exchange for his voluntary stepping out from the Meralco case in order to give way to Justice B. L. Reyes", and that the decision in the Meralco case had been promulgated by the Eighth Division. Shocked that Justice Roxas did not inform her "as a matter of judicial courtesy" of the scrapping of the decision which she signed on July eight, two thousand eight, Justice Dimaranan-Vidal wrote a letter to the Presiding Justice dated July twenty-four, two thousand eight, bringing to his attention "the apparent and obvious irregularities in the handing of CA- G.R. SP No. one hundred thirty-three thousand six hundred ninety-two", and complaining about Justice Roxas' "lack of judicial courtesy" in discarding for reasons she would not know, his "purported final Decision" that he had asked her to sign and which she signed "after a judicious study of the records and rollo thereof". Justice Roxas gave the lame excuse that he had "to incorporate therein some ten pages which he forgot to include in his Decision".

Justice Dimaranan-Vidal expressed "surprise and consternation" when she learned "on even date that a Decision" in the case had been promulgated on July twenty-third, two thousand eight by the Eighth Division chaired by Justice Reyes, with Justices Roxas and Bruselas as members. She said:

My deepest regret is that the undersigned who already signed the supposed final draft of the Decision in the instant case which bears the signature of the ponente, was not even informed by the latter as a judicial courtesy at least, of the hurried easing out of the undersigned from the case. This inevitably posed even to an unprejudiced mind the following questions: under what basis was the case suddenly transferred to the Eighth Division and why is it that neither the undersigned nor the Acting Chairman Justice SABIO, of the Special Ninth Division not consulted thereof? and, foremost, what happened to the Decision which the undersigned signed after devoting her precious time and effort in carefully and laboriously examining the voluminous records and rollo of the case?

Sad to say the circumstance obtaining herein constitute a flagrant violation of the provision of Canon five particularly Sections two and three thereof of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

On July twenty-fifth, two thousand eight, Justice Bruselas wrote the Presiding Justice a letter, which was "prompted by a disturbing telephone call" he received from Justice Sabio in the morning of July twenty-fourth, two thousand eight. Justice Sabio informed Justice Bruselas that, "after the injunction hearing" on June twenty-third, two thousand eight, Meralco offered him ten million pesos "to either favor them or yield the chair" to Justice Reyes. Justice Sabio told Justice Bruselas that he had informed the Presiding Justice of the "bribery incident" and that he "was disgusted over the turn of events because he should have remained chair of the Special Ninth Division that issued the TRO on the case." Justice Bruselas informed Justice Sabio that it was the first time that he heard of the matter and that he had "participated in the deliberation on the case and concurred with the ponencia" of Justice Roxas "without such information ever being taken up". Justice Sabio told Justice Bruselas that he would not leave the matter "as it is" because he would bring it up in the "open, to media, etc." Justice Sabio asked Justice Bruselas that if ten million pesos was offered to him, how much would have been offered to the "others".

Troubled by the information, Justice Bruselas went to the Presiding Justice where Justice Dimaranan-Vidal, who had received the same call from Justice Sabio, joined them. After that meeting with the Presiding Justice, Justice Bruselas called up Justice Reyes who confirmed that he had heard about the "bribe offer" but that he did not reveal the same to Justice Bruselas as it "escaped" his mind. The effort of Justice Bruselas "to get in touch" with Justice Roxas proved futile.

Allegedly prompted by "the manner by which the decision . . . was arrived at, and how the decision was promulgated", and that unless an "immediate and thorough investigation thereon be undertaken" by the Court of Appeals, "both the individual and institutional integrity of the justices" and of the Court of Appeals would "undoubtedly be tarnished", Justice Sabio wrote on July twenty-sixth, two thousand eight a letter to the Presiding Justice, which precipitated the present investigation.

On July twenty-eighth, two thousand eight, the Philippine Daily Inquirer "carried an account" of the letter of Justice Dimaranan-Vidal to the Presiding Justice, without her knowing how her confidential letter to the Presiding Justice leaked out.

Before Justice Bruselas delivered his letter to the Presiding Justice, he received a copy of the letter of Justice Sabio and, through a telephone call, reiterated his "full agreement with his desired investigation".

The Presiding Justice called the Court of Appeals to an "emergency en banc session at ten a.m. on July thirty-first, two thousand eight at the Session Hall to elicit the reaction of the Court and on the "possible effect" on the decision rendered. The session was also called in order that the "predicament experienced in CA-G.R. SP Number one hundred thirty-three, six hundred ninety-two" could be deliberated upon by the Committee on Rules with a view to amending the IRCA on the reorganization of the Court of Appeals. The Executive Justices of Cebu and Cagayan de Oro, Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Romulo V. Borja, respectively, were instructed to attend the en banc session to report to the other Justices in their stations what transpired at the session, and to "collect the personal reaction, comment or view" of the Justices on the matter.

In its closed door en banc session on July thirty-first, two thousand eight, "after a torrid discussion of all the issues," the Court of Appeals decided, as follows:

One. Refer the propriety of the actions of the Justices concerned to the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator;

Two. Leave the matter regarding the validity of the decision rendered in the above-entitled case to the parties for them to take whatever legal steps they may deem appropriate in the usual course of procedure; and

Three. Refer the conflict in the interpretation of our Internal Rules to the Committee on Rules of the Court of Appeals in order to prevent the recurrence of a similar situation.

After the en banc session, Justice Dimaranan-Vidal expressed in a letter for the Presiding Justice her "strong reaction" to the paper of Justice Roxas "falsely" imputing to her "grandstanding before the media or resorting to media-recourse instead of just filing an administrative complaint before the Supreme Court", and taking exception to "the equally outrageous, revolting and baseless accusation that she is allegedly clinging" to the case. She asserted that she never leaked a copy of her letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, as her letter was only intended to bring to the attention of the Presiding Justice "the impropriety done by Justice Roxas in the MERALCO case" that resulted in her having been eased out of the case notwithstanding that she "carefully and judiciously" examined the ponencia with more than fifty pages, after devoting her "precious time" to such study, and affixing her concurrence thereto. Justice Dimaranan-Vidal reiterated her prayer for an investigation of the matter.

Meanwhile, on that day, Mr. De Borja, executed an affidavit admitting that he was the businessman referred to by Justice Sabio, Jr. in his letter to Presiding Justice Vasquez. Mr. De Borja publicly claimed having learned "from the news" that Justice Sabio was "one of the justices" in the case arising from the order of the SEC to nullify the proxies issued in favor of the MERALCO management. He also alleged that Justice Sabio told him about the "blandishments coming from the government side", that he was being offered a promotion to the Supreme Court and money to favor the GSIS position. Mr. De Borja asked Justice Sabio, Jr., "What would it take for you to resist the government's offer?" and that the response of Justice Sabio, Jr. was "Fifty Million".

Justice Sabio asked permission from the Presiding Justice to hold a press conference the next day on account of the publicized affidavit of Mr. De Borja. The Presiding Justice told Justice Sabio that "this is a matter of self-defense on his part", hence, the Presiding Justice cannot stop him from doing so.

Justice Sabio issued a signed statement as an "initial response" to the affidavit of Mr. De Borja, "vehemently" denying that Mr. De Borja asked him what it would take for him to inhibit from the case, and that he "never asked for money" from him.

On August first, two thousand eight, Justice Sabio called the press conference to read a signed statement entitled "My Reaction to Mr. Francis De Borja's Affidavit dated July thirty-one, two thousand eight on the Meralco-SEC Case".

Expressing anger at the "filthy lie" of Mr. De Borja, Justice Sabio decided to narrate "almost word for word" his "conversations" with Mr. De Borja.

In an affidavit dated August first, two thousand eight, which Evelyn Clavano executed in Davao City, she stated that -

Francis de Borja requested me if I have the cell phone number of Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. He related that because he was very close to the Lopezes of Meralco, he wanted to call him 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.

On August fourth, two thousand eight, the Supreme Court constituted the Panel of Investigators to investigate "(one) alleged improprieties of the actions of the Justices of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Number one hundred thirty-three thousand six hundred ninety-two (Antonio V. Rosete, et al. versus SEC, et al.) and (two) the alleged rejected offer or solicitation of bribe disclosed respectively by Mr. Justice Jose Sabio and Mr. Francis de Borja".

The Panel of Investigators held hearings from August eighth to twenty-third, two thousand eight. Affidavits were submitted to the Panel to serve as the parties' direct testimonies upon which they were cross-examined by the Panel and the other parties.

On September fourth, two thousand eight, the Panel of Investigators submitted its Report of even date to the Court en banc.

According to the Report, "the investigation has revealed irregularities and improprieties committed by the Court of Appeals Justices in connection with the MERALCO case, CA-G.R. SP Number one hundred thirty-three thousand six hundred ninety-two, which are detrimental to the proper administration of justice and damaging to the institutional integrity, independence and public respect for the Judiciary."

Findings regarding the conduct of Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas

Justice Roxas inexcusably failed to act on a number of motions of the parties prior to the promulgation of the

Decision.

As found by the Panel of Investigators, several motions were not resolved or acted upon by Justice Roxas. These were enumerated in the Report as follows:

(a) The "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Defer Action on any Incident of the Petition Pending Resolution of Re-Raffle" filed by GSIS on May twenty-ninth, two thousand eight soon after this case was filed on that date.

(b) GSIS' "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Inhibit" Justice Roxas, which was filed on May thirtieth, two thousand eight. As the motion raised a prejudicial question, Justice Roxas should have resolved it before issuing the TRO sought by Meralco, but he never did.

(c) GSIS' Motion to Lift TRO which was filed on May thirtieth, two thousand eight.

(d) GSIS' Motion filed on June eighteenth, two thousand eight, praying that it be allowed to use Power point at the hearing on June twenty-third, two thousand eight. On June twentieth, two thousand eight, the SEC filed a similar motion. Both motions were not acted upon by Justice Roxas.

(e) Meralco's "Motion for Extension of Time to file their Consolidated

Memorandum of Authorities and Reply to Respondent SEC's Comment" filed on June twenty-fifth, two thousand eight.

(f) Meralco's "Urgent Motion for Honorable Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes to Assume Chairmanship of the Division in the Instant Case", which was filed on July tenth, two thousand eight.

We agree with the Panel of Investigators that "by ignoring or refusing to act on the motion for his inhibition, Justice Roxas violated Rule V, Section three, third paragraph of the IRCA, which provides that he should resolve such motion in writing with copies furnished the other members of the Division, the Presiding Justice, the Raffle Committee, and the Division Clerk of Court". The pertinent portion of the said provision states:

Section three. Motion to Inhibit a Division or a Justice -

A motion for voluntary inhibition of a Justice shall be acted upon by him alone in writing, copy furnished the other members of the Division, the Presiding Justice, the Raffle Committee and the Division Clerk of Court.

This Court cannot agree with Justice Roxas' proposition that the issuance of the TRO constitutes an implied denial of the motion to inhibit since under IRCA the obligation of the Justice to act on such a motion is mandatory.

Furthermore, the Court finds well-taken the Panel's finding that "Justice Roxas' failure to act on the other motions of the parties violated Canon three, Rule three point zero five of the nineteen eighty-nine Code of Judicial Conduct (which applies in a suppletory manner to the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary) providing that:

"Rule three point zero five. - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods."

Even Section Five, Canon Six of the New Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that "judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness." Thus, it has become well-settled in jurisprudence that even just undue delay in the resolving pending motions or incidents within the reglementary period fixed by law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. With more reason, this Court finds suspicious and reprehensible the failure of Justice Roxas to act at all on pending motions and incidents in C A-G R S P Number one zero three six nine two.

This is in fact not the first time that Justice Roxas has been cited administratively for failure to resolve pending incidents in cases assigned to him. In Orocio v. Roxas, A M. Numbers zero seven one one five dash C A dash J and C A zero eight four six dash J, this Court imposed a fifteen thousand peso fine on Justice Roxas for unwarranted delay in resolving two motions for reconsideration in another case and sternly warned him that future commission any act of impropriety will be dealt with more severely.

Justice Roxas is guilty of gross dishonesty.

Apart from Justice Roxas' inexcusable inaction on pending incidents in the Meralco case, the Panel of Investigators found that he had been dishonest and untruthful in relation to the said case. The Court adopts the following findings of the Panel:

Justice Roxas was dishonest and untruthful.