Justices Vicente Roxas and Jose Sabio, two of the main characters in the alleged bribery scandal in the Court of Appeals, may face dismissal from service for serious violations of the Rules of Court and judicial ethics.
This developed as court observers expressed disappointment over the report prepared by the panel of retired Supreme Court justices on the Court of Appeals bribery scandal, saying it was a cop-out.
In refusing to recommend sanctions and tossing the responsibility to the SC, they observed the panel showed a failure of “judicial authority to wallop erring justices.”
Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Feliciano Bautista, sought for his reaction on the panel’s findings, said: “If they found irregularities, the panel should be brave enough to say it so.”
The IBP has sought the resignation of the justices linked and involved in the case. Asked about the status of the resignation call, Bautista said “it still stands.”
The panel—composed of retired justices Carolina Grino-Aquino, Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo---was formed to look into the bribery scandal on the Meralco case and determine if there were improprieties committed by the CA justices involved.
The panel is chaired by Grino-Aquino, who also chaired the committee that looked into the contempt case against Malaya publisher Amado “Jake” Macasaet for his series of columns alleging that a “lady justice” received P10 million bribe contained in a milk box.
The Aquino panel found Macasaet guilty of indirect contempt of court.
Vasquez: failed leadershipIn the CA controversy, the Aquino panel indicted five justices for committing a range of irregularities and improprieties. The five are Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez and Justices Jose Sabio, Vicente Roxas, Bienvenido Reyes and Myrna Vidal.
Vasquez was castigated for his failed leadership, while Vidal and Reyes were found to have been discourteous and too compliant respectively. Vasquez was cited for his indecisiveness in dealing with the issue, Reyes for signing the decision without waiting for Vasquez to settle the issue while Vidal allowed herself to be rushed into signing the first version of the Meralco decision without reading the memoranda and knowing fully well that they have not deliberated on the case.
But compared with the panel’s judgment on Sabio and Roxas, the three however, received only a minor admonition.
SC sources said, however, that it is not be unusual for SC-formed panels to stop short in recommending sanctions, to give the Tribunal leeway on the proper disciplinary action. Other observers however say such panel has the latitude to go beyond administrative sanctions and recommend further investigation on possible criminal charges. Its failure to come up with suggested sanctions indicate “they do not want to rock the boat from their level.”
Serious offensesIn any case, a check with the Rules of Court pertaining to disciplinary actions on erring judges and justices show that Sabio and Roxas face dismissal from service.
Sec. 8 of Rule 140 states that serious charges (against judges and justices) may include bribery (direct or indirect), dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Ethical Conduct among others.
Section 11 states that a respondent found guilty of a serious offense may be dismissed from service and disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to any public office; suspension from office without salary and other benefits and a fine of P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.
The panel concluded that Sabio violated the new Code of Judicial Conduct when he allowed his brother, Presidential Commission on Good Government chair Camilo Sabio, to influence his conduct on the Meralco case and was remiss on his duty to inform the Presiding Justice about his brother’s phone call.
Sabio was also reprimanded for discussing the Meralco case with businessman Francis de Borja as it broke the seal of confidentiality in pending court cases.
The 59-page report cited Sabio’s violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct as follows: (
See Panel findings in Research section)
Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently…free from extraneous influence…
Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
Roxas: dishonestAs for Roxas, who penned the Meralco decision, the panel described him as dishonest and untruthful for fabricating a transcript of the deliberation and claiming there was actual deliberation of the case.
The panel further said Roxas showed “undue interest” in the case because he prepared the decision before the parties filed their memoranda.
“He cheated the parties’ counsel of the time, effort, and energy that they invested in the preparation of their ponderous memoranda which, as it turned out, neither he nor the other members of the Eighth Division bothered to read before signing his decision,” the report said.
The panel also found that Roxas violated the rules of court by “ignoring or refusing” to act on the motion for his inhibition and by failing to act on the other motions of the parties.
Missing in SC reportIn the discussion on Vasquez, however, the panel did not cite two issues which came up during the public hearings.
One was Vasquez’s failure to disclose to the CA that he has relatives who work in GSIS, a party to the case. They include his two daughters and a sister.
The other is his non-disclosure of the opinion of Justice Edgardo Cruz who said that the Meralco case belonged to the Eighth Division because the main writer or ponente, Roxas, is in the said division.
