A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA - Re: Letter of Vasquez Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA)

Factual Background

The proceedings arose from alleged improprieties attending CA G.R.-SP No. 103692, styled Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al. (the Meralco-GSIS case). The Court of Appeals divisions became embroiled in a chairmanship dispute between Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Bienvenido L. Reyes. Allegations also surfaced of a bribery offer by Mr. Francis de Borja to influence the chairmanship and disposition of the case, and of irregularities in the deliberation, drafting, and promulgation of the ponencia signed by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, including production of a disputed "Transcript of Deliberation."

Procedural History

Following the CA en banc’s referral of the matter to this Court, a Panel of Investigators conducted inquiries and issued a report. The Supreme Court issued a Decision on September 9, 2008 sanctioning several CA justices for improprieties. The present Resolution considered multiple motions for reconsideration filed by Justice Roxas, Justice Sabio, Presiding Justice Vasquez, Justice Vidal, and Mr. de Borja seeking reversal, mitigation, or clarification of findings and penalties imposed in the September 9 Decision.

Issues Presented on Reconsideration

The consolidated motions raised primarily the following issues: whether the Court’s findings of administrative liability were supported by the record; whether the penalties imposed were appropriate; whether particular conduct—conversations with relatives and third parties, actions in the chairmanship impasse, issuance and promulgation of decisions, and alleged fabrication of documents—constituted violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and the Code of Professional Responsibility; and whether any parties were denied due process or prejudged by the Court’s Decision.

Positions of Justice Vicente Q. Roxas

Justice Vicente Q. Roxas sought reduction or reversal of his dismissal. He defended the speed of promulgation as diligence, invoked Canon 6, Section 5, and claimed motives of efficiency and confidentiality. He argued confusion caused by the chairmanship dispute justified his actions, characterized the disputed "Transcript of Deliberation" as an unsigned draft rather than fabrication, and asserted he acted in good faith in making his ponencia. He also complained that he was not formally notified as a respondent and pleaded for mercy based on personal and familial hardship.

Positions of Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.

Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. sought review of findings that he committed simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming, and sought vacation of his two-month suspension. He denied wrongdoing in his telephone conversation with his brother, PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio, asserting he declined any request and voted according to conscience. He described his dealings with Mr. de Borja as reactive to persistent approaches and denied accepting any bribe, claiming he rejected an alleged PHP 10,000,000 offer. He defended his refusal to yield the chairmanship by citing an opinion favorable to him and suspicions concerning the conduct of other justices. He urged that his disclosures constituted whistle-blowing done at personal risk.

Positions of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.

Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. sought reversal of the reprimand imposed upon him. He argued that the Panel failed to inform him he would be a respondent, that he acted prudently and within his prerogatives as primus inter pares in seeking to resolve the chairmanship impasse and dealing with the bribe allegation, and that familial employment connections to GSIS did not influence his actions.

Positions of Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal and Mr. Francis de Borja

Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal pleaded compassion and clemency, noted a long unblemished public service record, and explained that she relied on representations by Justice Roxas when assenting to the Meralco decision. Mr. Francis de Borja sought deletion or clarification of statements he claimed prejudged him, asserted constitutional rights to due process and presumption of innocence, and requested further referrals for investigation and stronger penalties against some officials.

Court’s Evaluation of Justice Roxas’ Conduct

The Court reaffirmed that Justice Roxas’ haste could not be excused by Canon 6, Section 5 when coupled with other irregularities. The Court found that Roxas promulgated a decision amid unresolved motions and a pending chairmanship dispute, that he failed to await definitive resolution, and that the "Transcript of Deliberation" was properly characterized by the Panel as fabricated for the appearance of deliberation. The Court held that these acts brought disrepute on the appellate court and did not merit mitigation; his plea for mercy did not outweigh the weight of the record.

Court’s Evaluation of Justice Sabio’s Conduct

The Court sustained the Panel’s findings that Justice Sabio violated Canons governing independence and propriety. The Court explained that Sabio’s continued engagement in a substantive telephone conversation with his brother, a high executive-branch official, in which merits were discussed, created the appearance of influence and breached Section 5, Canon 1 and Canon 4, Section 1. The Court further concluded that Sabio’s communications and meetings with Mr. de Borja were imprudent; by agreeing to meet without ascertaining motives and by maintaining contact after an initial suspicious call, he exposed himself to attempts to lobby and to the appearance of susceptibility. The Court emphasized that appearance of influence sufficed for violation; actual influence was not required. The Court found Sabio’s refusal to yield the chairmanship and his failure to inhibit himself compounded the impropriety. On the record, the Court classified his culpability as simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming, and upheld a two-month suspension without pay as appropriate.

Court’s Evaluation of Presiding Justice Vasquez’s Conduct

The Court held that Presiding Justice Vasquez received full opportunity to be heard and that the Panel’s mandate encompassed inquiry into his actions. The Court found that he failed to act promptly and decisively to resolve the chairmanship impasse and to prevent escalation, that he should have reconstituted the Rules Committee or referred the controversy to the court en banc, and that his vacillation tarnished the image of the Court of Appeals. The Court found insufficient evidence of improper motive tied to family members employed in GSIS, but maintained that his lapses warranted a severe reprimand.

Court’s Evaluation of Justice Vidal’s Conduct

The Court clarified that the admonition of Justice Vidal was not a punitive "admonition with warning" under Rule 140 but a plain admonition. The Court accepted mitigating circumstances, including her testimony credited by the Panel and her long service, but concluded that she was remiss in assenting to the Meralco decision without reading the parties’ memoranda or participating in deliberations. Accordingly, the Court affirmed admonition as appropriate.

Court’s Treatment of Mr. de Borja’s Claims and Criminal Referral

The Court dismissed Mr. de Borja’s motion for lack of stan

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioner in this administrative proceeding was the Office of the Court of Appeals as represented by the Panel of Investigators constituted to probe improprieties in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692.
Respondents included Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., and Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, and non-judicial actor Mr. Francis de Borja was a subject of investigative findings and referrals.
The Court entertained several motions for reconsideration filed respectively by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal, and Mr. Francis de Borja challenging a prior per curiam decision dated September 9, 2008.
The Court treated Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal's "Plea for Compassion and Clemency" as a motion for reconsideration and addressed all motions together in this resolution.
The Court denied all motions for reconsideration and affirmed its prior administrative findings and penalties with finality.

Key Factual Allegations

The subject matter arose from alleged improprieties attending the deliberation, drafting and promulgation of the CA decision in the Meralco-GSIS case, CA G.R.-SP No. 103692.
Justice Vicente Q. Roxas was alleged to have hastily promulgated a ponencia, fabricated a "Transcript of Deliberation," failed to resolve pending motions before promulgation, and shown undue interest in the case.
Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. was alleged to have entertained an improper telephone call from his brother, PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio, communicated repeatedly with Mr. Francis de Borja, accepted earlier monetary consideration while an RTC judge, refused to yield the chairmanship of the special division, and displayed unusual interest in holding on to the Meralco case.
Mr. Francis de Borja was alleged to have offered P10 million to Justice Sabio to give way in the chairmanship dispute and was alleged to have attempted to bribe or to have offered a bribe, allegations later referred to the Department of Justice.
Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. was alleged to have been indecisive and to have failed to promptly and effectively resolve the chairmanship impasse and the reported bribery, and to have temporized in asserting administrative authority.
Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal was alleged to have signed the Meralco decision without adequate deliberation and without reading parties' memoranda despite being presented with representations by Justice Roxas.

Investigative Findings

The Panel of Investigators found, and the Court affirmed, that the deliberation and promulgation process surrounding the Meralco decision was attended by irregularities and improprieties which warranted administrative sanctions.
The Panel found that a "Transcript of Deliberation" associated with the Roxas ponencia was a fabrication containing falsehoods.
The Panel concluded that Justice Sabio's conversations with his brother and with Mr. de Borja were indiscreet and imprudent and that his refusal to yield the chairmanship displayed unusual interest in the case.
The Panel found that Presiding Justice Vasquez failed to act promptly and decisively to resolve the chairmanship dispute and to contain the controversy.
The Panel concluded that Justice Vidal had been remiss in relying upon representations of another justice and in not ensuring proper deliberation before signing the decision.

Legal Issues

Whether the acts of the respondents constituted violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including Canon 1 (Independence) and Canon 4 (Propriety), and other ethical standards applicable to the judiciary.
Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to grave misconduct, simple misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a justice, or lesser lapses warranting admonition.
Whether the Panel and this Court could refer factual allegations of criminality, such as attempted bribery by Mr. Francis de Borja, to the appropriate prosecutorial authorities without prejudging criminal liability in an administrative proceeding.
Whether the penalties originally imposed were excessive or required modification in light of each respondent's explanations, good faith, or mitigating circumstances.

Parties' Main Contentions

Justice Vicente Q. Roxas contended that he promulgated the decision to expedite disposition and preserve confidentiality, that Canon 6, Section 5 authorized prompt resolution, and that the so-called "Transcript" was an unsigned draft not intended as an official fabrication.
Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. contended that his brother initiated a single telephone call that he did not solicit, that he declined any request and voted according to conscience, that he was the target of an attempted bribe which he reje