Case Digest (A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA)
Facts:
A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA, September 09, 2008, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The matter originated from the August 1, 2008 letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. referring for action the public controversy surrounding CA‑G.R. SP No. 103692 (the Meralco case: Antonio V. Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.). The Court constituted a three‑member Panel of Investigators (retired Justices Grino‑Aquino, Romero and Callejo, Sr.) to probe alleged improprieties by members of the Court of Appeals (CA) in that case and a reported offer/solicitation of a bribe involving Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Mr. Francis De Borja.Chronology of salient events: on May 29, 2008 Meralco filed an original petition in the CA seeking injunctive relief against the SEC and GSIS; a special raffle assigned the case to Justice Vicente Q. Roxas (ponente) and a Special Ninth Division composed of Justices Roxas, Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan‑Vidal issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on May 30, 2008 setting hearings on the application for preliminary injunction. Several motions, including a motion to inhibit Justice Roxas, motions to re‑raffle and to lift the TRO, and other procedural requests were filed but many were not acted upon.
A chairmanship dispute developed between Justices Sabio and Bienvenido L. Reyes after Justice Reyes returned from leave in June 2008; divergent interpretations of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), especially Section 2(d), Rule VI, produced conflicting claims over who should preside and decide the injunctive matter. Meanwhile Justice Sabio reported that Mr. De Borja (a businessman) offered him P10 million to step aside; Mr. De Borja later denied offering such a bribe but admitted contacts with Justice Sabio.
The Panel conducted hearings (August 8–23, 2008), received affidavits and cross‑examinations, and submitted its Report (September 4, 2008) finding irregularities and improprieties detrimental to the CA’s integrity. The Report recommended disciplinary measures against Justices Roxas, Sabio, Reyes, Dimaranan‑Vidal and reprimand...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was there a proper administrative basis for the Supreme Court to investigate and discipline members of the Court of Appeals in connection with CA‑G.R. SP No. 103692?
- Did Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas commit offenses (delay, dishonesty, undue interest, conduct prejudicial to the service) warranting dismissal?
- Did Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. commit misconduct or conduct unbecoming a justice warranting suspension?
- Did Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. fail to discharge his administrative duties so as to warrant disciplinary sanction?
- Should other actors (PCGG Chairman Camilo L. Sabio;...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)