The Court of Appeals Controversy Part 5: CA says respect our silence

The Inquirer reports that the Court of Appeals has issued a statement that it has referred the controversy to the Supreme Court Office of the Court Administrator. The justices also agreed to leave the ruling on the dispute between the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) to the “parties concerned for appropriate action;” and refer the conflict to its standing committee on the internal rules of court.

The Inquirer further reports that the justices also appealed to everyone to respect their silence on the issue and refrain from public discussion of the case.

Commentary:

With the appeal of the Court of Appeals to refrain from public discussion of the case, I don't know where that leaves this blog. I will check the rules on "sub judice" and post about it later.

The Court of Appeals Controversy Part 4: Who is Justice Jose Sabio, Jr.?

The man of the hour is Justice Jose Sabio, Jr., whose letter to Justice Conrado Vasquez has stirred a controversy on how the Court of Appeals handled the resolution of the stockholder fight between GSIS and the Lopezes in the control for MERALCO.

According to the Court of Appeals website,

Justice JOSE L. SABIO, JR. is the third of the five children of the late spouses, Executive Judge Jose P. Sabio, Sr. and Ester Loyola Sabio. Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. finished his bachelor's degree in Commerce, major in Accounting, from Liceo de Cagayan University. He was first employed with Procter and Gamble, in Cebu City. To advance his professional career, he sought transfer to Manila, and then enrolled at the Ateneo de Manila University College of Law. He finished Law in 1967 and was admitted to the Bar in 1968.

Beckoned to public service, he returned home to Cagayan de Oro, worked as Secretary to the Mayor and City Assessor. He ventured in politics, becoming barangay captain of Gusa, president of the Association of Barangay Captains and member of the Sangguniang Panglungsod.

His appointment to the Court of Appeals on May 26, 1999 was preceded by a career in the judiciary that began in March 1990, as RTC Judge of Branch 16, Tangub City, Branch 27 in Gingoog City and Branch 23 in Cagayan de Oro City.

He was conferred the title, Professor Emeritus by Xavier University College of Law where he taught Political Law and Constitutional Law, Law on Public Officers, and Private Corporation for 32 years.

Today he is a professorial lecturer of the Philippine Judicial Academy (PHILJA), the UP Institute of Judicial Administration (UPIJA), and Pre-bar reviewer in Legal Ethics at the Ateneo School of Law where he also handles, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law I.

Commentary

I really find it amusing that a professor of Legal Ethics at my alma mater, Ateneo de Manila School of Law, is a the center of the present controversy. Even moreso considering that today, July 31, 2008, is the feast day of St. Ignatius de Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus, which owns the Ateneo and Xavier University, where Justice Sabio has found an academic career in law.
It must have been really tough agonizing over the events after the PHP 10 M bribe offer and his decision to write the letter to Justice Conrado Vasquez. Why did he prefer to speak out instead of letting the controversy die down? The easier path would have been to quietly fade into the background. Yet, instead he has chosen to speak out and spend a lot of energy writing the letter to the Court of Appeals presiding justice. Is Justice Sabio for real?

Court of Appeals Controversy Part 3: Who is the Mysterious Businessman?

Justice Sabio's letter to Presiding CA Justice Conrado Vasquez reveals a clear case of bribery. According to Justice Sabio, a Makati businessman waited until the end of his Law School class to see him. The Makati businessman was brokering for MERALCO. The Makati businessman offered PHP 10 M for Justice Sabio to give way to Justice Reyes in the MERALCO case. Justice Sabio's letter states,

Then sometime on July 1, 2008, a Makati businessman whom I knew way back then, called me up and requested for an urgent meeting. Since I had classes from 6 pm to 8 pm that said businessman waited to see me in the Law School after my class. It turned out that he was brokering for MERALCO. He started by explaining to me the problem between Justice Reyes and myself, and who should continue to handle the case. I was surprised why he came to know about this matter considering that it was an internal problem and that it only happened very recently. He then proceeded to explain to me that their lawyers wanted to directly challenge my stand but another lawyer advised them that it might become messy. So, they were talking of a win-win situation, which meant offering P10M for me to give way to Justice Reyes. I politely declined the offer and told the emissary that it was not only a matter of principle but that it will affect the integrity of the Court. Before he left, he told me that they were still hoping that I could see it their way. In their eagerness to succeed on that aspect, the emissary even called up a close family friend in Cagayan de Oro to help them convince me to accept the offer.

Commentary:

it will only be a matter of time before Justice Sabio is forced to reveal the identity of this mysterious businessman. With the Court of Appeals now holding a session en banc, a discussion of the bribe offer and the details surrounding will surely take place and Justice Sabio's story is going to be scrutinized to the last detail. This also brings us to the point: Why did Justice Sabio did not reveal the name of the Makati businessman who made the bribe offer? Why, instead of filing a case for bribery, did Justice Sabio choose instead to write a letter of Complaint to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals? Further, as can be seen from the narration of Justice Sabio there was a clear conspiracy to ease him out of the case. The conspiracy appears to include even the lawyers of MERALCO (Note: I don't know who they are as their names are not revealed in the papers) as shown by the fact that they filed a "Motion for Justice Reyes to Assume Chairmanship". According to Justice Sabio, he found the motion strange and stupid. As a legal practitioner myself, I would say Justice Sabio's comment appears to not unfounded.

The Court of Appeals Controversy Part 2: Justice Sabio's Telling Letter

The Inquirer links to the text of Justice Sabio's letter addressed to Justice Conrado Vasquez, the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals. Scroll down to the middle portion of the letter in which Justice Sabio asked loaded questions, as it were, as follows:

I also told Justice B. Reyes of the P10M offer for me to give way to him. It was then that I confronted Justice B. Reyes with the following questions:

“If you will insist on assuming the chairmanship, after you have been told of the P10M offer, what will I think of you now? Why should MERALCO insist on you assuming the chairmanship and have me ousted?”

“Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain with mine?”

“Can you blame me now if I will think that you are a 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?”

“Why did they (MERALCO) actively participate in the hearing on the 23rd and never raised any question regarding the supposed irregularity of my presiding 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 (GSIS) filed a motion for inhibition and motion to lift the TRO? Who then has the right to resolve such motions?” (Sad to say that up to this time, said motions have been left unresolved.)

“Under the circumstances do you expect me to give way to you?”

His feeble reply was “I am afraid that they will file a case of non-feasance against me.”

I told him that this was not a case of non-feasance and explained to him how that could not be possible, having taught the subject for some time.

Commentary

I don't know why Justice Sabio and Justice Reyes were approached by litigants and both appeared to have entertained them. Also, Meralco's lawyers appear to be orchestrating Justice Sabio's removal from the division deciding the case. Indeed, Justice Sabio's question reveals a lot. Why? And as he posits, "“Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain with mine?” “Can you blame me now if I will think that you are a part of this whole scheme or shenanigan?” The answer is written on the question.



-0-


The full text of Justice Sabio's letter is quoted here. Justice Sabio even appended a text message from his daughter cheering him on.

July 26, 2008


HON. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR.
Presiding Justice
Court of Appeals
Maria Orosa St., Ermita, Manila

RE: C.A. G.R. SP No. 103692
ROSETE et al vs. SEC et al

Dear Presiding Justice Vasquez:

The attendant circumstances, the manner by which the decision in the above case was arrived at, and how the decision was promulgated behooved me to write this urgent complaint. Unless immediate and thorough investigation thereon be undertaken by this Court, both the individual and institutional integrity of the justices and of this Court will undoubtedly be tarnished. If that happens, the public’s confidence in the judicial process will be irreparably undermined and damaged.

The genesis of this complaint:

The above case was raffled to Ponente, Justice Vicente Roxas, who at that time was its Senior member, with Justice Bienvenido Reyes, chairman and Justice Myrna Vidal, Junior member of the Ninth Division. Since Justice Reyes was on leave at that time and considering that a TRO was prayed for, a raffle was made for an acting Third Member, who happened to be Justice Jose Mendoza. However, because Justice Jose Mendoza was formerly connected with Petitioner MERALCO, another raffle was conducted and I took over and acted as chairman.

On May 30, 2008, convinced of the urgency of the matter, and the merit of the prayer for the issuance of a TRO, I signed the TRO prepared by Ponente Justice Roxas who surprisingly personally brought it to my office at that time. Justice Roxas was told that we should schedule the case for hearing on oral arguments which was to be done on June 23 and 24, 2008.

Sometime on June 16 or 17, 2008, Justice Bienvenido Reyes returned from vacation. To my puzzlement, on June 20, 2008, I received a copy of a letter sent by Justice Edgardo Cruz, addressed to Justice Bienvenido Reyes, with an opinion that Justice Reyes should take over the case and for me not to continue.

Thereupon, I called you up and told you that I found it strange that Justice Reyes never told me about the matter in spite of the fact that we were seated together several times on separate occasions. If you recall, I commented then that I smelled something fishy about the move. For one, the alleged opinion was a personal opinion of Justice Edgardo Cruz, who acted in his personal capacity. I conveyed to you that I wondered why the matter was not openly and deliberately discussed with you.

You were informed then that it was my considered opinion that I was still the proper party to hear the case. On the morning of July 23, 2008, just before the scheduled hearing, I went to Justice Martin Villarama Jr., a more senior, experienced and respected member of this Court for consultation and guidance. Justice Villarama advised me that my stand was correct and therefore I should remain in this case.

Thus, the hearing as scheduled on the morning of June 23 proceeded, where I presided and all parties joined in the spirited arguments on the pros and cons of the petition. After the oral arguments, the parties were directed to submit their respective memoranda simultaneously within fifteen (15) days from that date, addressing all the issues directed by the Court. Incidentally, before the hearing, Justice Roxas requested me if he could read a prepared paper. Finding it to be a kind of scripted speech, I told him it was restrictive and not proper for an open hearing.

Then sometime on July 1, 2008, a Makati businessman whom I knew way back then, called me up and requested for an urgent meeting. Since I had classes from 6 pm to 8 pm that said businessman waited to see me in the Law School after my class. It turned out that he was brokering for MERALCO. He started by explaining to me the problem between Justice Reyes and myself, and who should continue to handle the case. I was surprised why he came to know about this matter considering that it was an internal problem and that it only happened very recently. He then proceeded to explain to me that their lawyers wanted to directly challenge my stand but another lawyer advised them that it might become messy. So, they were talking of a win-win situation, which meant offering P10M for me to give way to Justice Reyes. I politely declined the offer and told the emissary that it was not only a matter of principle but that it will affect the integrity of the Court. Before he left, he told me that they were still hoping that I could see it their way. In their eagerness to succeed on that aspect, the emissary even called up a close family friend in Cagayan de Oro to help them convince me to accept the offer.

If you recall, the morning after, I went to see you in your office and informed you of the attempt to have me ousted from the case. Justice Villarama was likewise informed by me of the said disturbing incident.

Again, sometime on July 4, the emissary frantically tried calling me. To put an end to the pestering calls, I told the emissary that to accept the offer would not only bother my conscience forever, but also that I could not possibly face my wife, my two daughters—one a lawyer and the other a Bar candidate, as well as the rest of my family. I already discussed my stand with my family and to suddenly change my stand would have definitely affected them. Besides, I told him: “How can I reconcile my being a member of Philja’s Ethics and Judicial Conduct Department, being MCLE lecturer and Ateneo’s Pre-Bar reviewer in Legal and Judicial Ethics, if I accepted the offer?” His feeble answer was, “we are not doing anything illegal since we do not ask you to decide one way or the other.” I told him, “It is a matter of principle.”

Before we ended the conversation, the emissary said that they will be forced to resort to other means to have Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship. I countered that since that would involve the integrity and reputation of the Court, they will have to contend with me.

On July 4, 2008, Justice Roxas was frantically getting in touch with me to discuss the case while I was on official leave. I told Justice Roxas that I still needed ample time to read the memoranda of the parties to intelligently discuss the case with him. Justice Roxas told me that he will have the memoranda sent to me immediately.

Surprisingly, on Monday, July 7, 2008, an urgent motion for Justice B. Reyes to assume the chairmanship was filed by Petitioner MERALCO. If you again recall, we had a discussion on the matter and you finally advised me to discuss the matter with Justice B. Reyes.

Sometime in the afternoon of July 8, 2008, Justice B. Reyes came to see me in my office, to discuss, among others, the urgent motion. I told Justice Reyes that I found the motion rather strange and even referred to it as stupid. I further told Justice Reyes that in my more than nine years in the Court, I never came across such a kind of pleading; and that the proper pleading to file should have been a motion to have me recuse or inhibit myself.

I also told Justice B. Reyes of the P10M offer for me to give way to him. It was then that I confronted Justice B. Reyes with the following questions:

“If you will insist on assuming the chairmanship, after you have been told of the P10M offer, what will I think of you now? Why should MERALCO insist on you assuming the chairmanship and have me ousted?”

“Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain with mine?”

“Can you blame me now if I will think that you are a 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?”

“Why did they (MERALCO) actively participate in the hearing on the 23rd and never raised any question regarding the supposed irregularity of my presiding 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 (GSIS) filed a motion for inhibition and motion to lift the TRO? Who then has the right to resolve such motions?” (Sad to say that up to this time, said motions have been left unresolved.)

“Under the circumstances do you expect me to give way to you?”

His feeble reply was “I am afraid that they will file a case of non-feasance against me.”

I told him that this was not a case of non-feasance and explained to him how that could not be possible, having taught the subject for some time.

The next day, Justice B. Reyes went to see Justice Villarama to seek his advice on the impasse. According to Justice Villarama, he advised Justice Reyes to lay off the case and allow me to continue and to resolve the urgent motion for assumption of Justice Reyes.

In the morning of July 11, I prepared a resolution referring the “Urgent Motion for Justice B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship” to the respondents for comment. I forwarded the resolution to the office of Justice Roxas who was in possession of the rollo. Again, sadly, the said resolution died a lonely death in the office of Justice Roxas, for it was never released.

Then on July 14, before the flag-raising ceremony, I requested Justice Roxas for a meeting regarding the case, since I had already read the memoranda submitted. Initially, Justice Roxas agreed, but after our snacks at about nine o’clock he advised me that he cannot attend the meeting because he had another matter to attend to. He also said he could not be available in the afternoon. Since that time, I had been trying to get in touch with Justice Roxas for a meeting, but he could not be reached in his office and neither did he answer my text messages for a meeting. Justice Vidal had also been eagerly awaiting this meeting.

I came to know later that as early as July 11, Justice Myrna Vidal already signed the ponencia only to be advised by Justice Roxas that he needed the decision back and could not forward it to me because he still had to incorporate some 10 pages which he forgot to include in the decision. I was disturbed by the fact that even if only few days have lapsed since the memoranda were submitted, Justice Roxas could already write and prepare a more than 50-page decision.

I also learned that a corrected decision where Justice Vidal was unceremoniously ousted was signed by a new member, Justice A. Bruselas, Jr. on July 17, although promulgated on July 23, when I was on official leave. Again, why was Justice Vidal unceremoniously removed when the case was with the Special Ninth Division of which she was a regular member? A case of one blunder after another.

But the worst was yet to happen in this case. On July 21, 2008, Justice Roxas filed with you, as Presiding Justice (PJ), an interpleader petition. Justice B. Reyes also wrote you a letter on July 22, 2008, requesting you to rule on the impasse. Without waiting for your ruling on the matter—which you did on July 24, 2008—they already promulgated the decision on the 23rd. Was it because they anticipated your opinion to be adverse to their stand that they disrespected your office by promulgating the decision earlier?

Above premises considered, I urge an investigation. At stake is not only the individual integrity of the justices but also the institutional integrity of the Court. Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct clearly provides that “integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of judicial office, but also the personal demeanor of judges.” Section I thereof provides: “Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.” In fact in one case, the Supreme Court said: “In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue. It is a necessity.” (Fernandez vs. Hamoy, 436 SCRA 186)

With the events that transpired as narrated, and in light of the high mandate imposed by the New Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, there is a need for a no-nonsense investigation by this Court, if only to protect and defend its integrity and to encourage public confidence in the dispensation of justice.

Very respectfully yours,

JOSE L. SABIO, JR.

Cc: Justice Martin Villarama, Jr.
Justice Myrna D. Vidal
Justice Apolinario Bruselas, Jr.

*My daughter’s text message after she learned that I rejected the offer: “Pa, if it’s any consolation to you, there’s the knowledge that you are giving so many people the good example of what Christian integrity means, and what it really means to be a man for others. Maybe by this example of yours, you have sown the seed of their own conversion.

I am so proud of you PAPA and grateful to God for giving me a father like you who I can really be proud of in front of God and everybody. Love you so much Pa"

(To be continued)

The Court of Appeals Controversy: PHP 10 Million to inhibit, how much to decide?

The Inquirer today banners a headline on a PHP 10 Million attempt to bribe Justice Sabio of the Court of Appeals. According to Justice Sabio, a Meralco emissary offered him the money in exchange for Justice Sabio's inhibition from the heated Meralco stockholder fight. Justice Sabio's story has the stuff of credibility written into it. The Inquirer relates the story as follows:

The emissary began by explaining the problem of who between Sabio and Reyes should preside over the Meralco case.

Sabio was surprised that the emissary knew about the matter, “an internal problem” that happened only “very recently.”

The emissary said his camp’s lawyers wanted to “directly challenge” Sabio’s insistence on presiding over the case, but that they were told it might “become messy.”

It was then that Sabio was offered P10 million, which he rejected.

“So, they were talking of a win-win situation, which meant offering P10 million for me to give way to Justice Reyes. I politely declined that offer and told the emissary that it was not only a matter of principle but that it will [also] affect the integrity of the court. Before he left, he told me that they were still hoping that I could see it their way,” Sabio said.

“In their eagerness to succeed on that aspect,” Sabio said, the emissary got in touch with a family friend in Cagayan de Oro City to convince him to accept the money.

‘Pestering’ calls

Sabio said that subsequently, he received frantic calls from the emissary.

He continued his account to Presiding Justice Vasquez thus:

In order to put an end to the “pestering” calls, Sabio told the emissary that his conscience would forever be bothered and he would be unable to face his wife and two daughters if he accepted the offer.

He also told the emissary that taking the money would be contrary to his being a member of the Philippine Judicial Academy’s Ethics and Judicial Conduct Department and Ateneo de Manila University’s pre-bar reviewer in legal and judicial ethics.

The emissary’s “feeble response” was: “We are not doing anything illegal since we do not ask you to decide one way or the other.”

His reply was that it was “a matter of principle.”

Before the conversation ended, the emissary told Sabio that his camp would be forced to employ other ways to ensure that Reyes would chair the division that would decide on the case.

Questions to Reyes

On July 7, Meralco filed an urgent motion for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the 9th Division, which Sabio described as a “strange,” even “stupid,” motion.

Sabio also said in the letter that he had told Reyes of the P10-million offer, and asked the latter certain questions, including:

“If you will insist on assuming the chairmanship, after you have been told of the P10-million offer, what will I think of you now? Why should Meralco insist on you assuming the chairmanship and have me ousted?”

“Is it because they are certain of your loyalty and they are uncertain [of] mine?”

“Why did they (Meralco) actively participate in the hearing on the 23rd and never raised any question regarding the supposed irregularity of my presiding over the hearing?”

Sabio said Reyes’ “feeble” reply to him was: “I am afraid that they will file a case of nonfeasance against me.” (Nonfeasance means “the omission of an act that ought to have been performed.”)

Commentary

If the offer was PHP 10 Million for the justices to inhibit, how much then was the offer for a justice to decide? The question cannot just be ignored, considering that Meralco subsequently won the case and the decision was penned by somebody else other than Justice Sabio, who did not inhibit from the case, yet still removed from the case by some strange circumstance.

The Court of Appeals is holding an en banc session today to resolve Justice sabio's complaint. (to be continued)

The Law/Power Equation (Part 1)

'Truth', French philosopher Michel Foucault, suggests is to be understood as a system of ordered procedures for the production, regulation, distribution, circulation and operation of statements.'Truth', he adds, is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. Foucault calls it a 'regime' of truth.

Laws are statements in the context of power. I say "statement" in the logical sense, where validity, and not the metaphysical truth, is the goal. But I also say laws are statements in the context of power, because in real life legal statements can send people to or save them from jail. Foucault's proposition can be reduced to a simple equation: power = law, law = power. Power sustains law. Law sustains power. We can call this the Law/Power Equation.

In the context of a democracy, power is held by the people and is exercised during elections. The people are supposed to have aspirations and by exercising their power through elections, they are supposed to pursue these aspirations. Thus, power is but a means to an end, which end ultimately is the sum of all the aspirations of the people. In the context of the French Revolution, these aspirations are lIberty, equality and fraternity. Democracy therefor subverts the law/power equation. Law and power are not pursued for their own sake but for the sake of a metaphysical vision of man.

But the democratic subversion of the Law/Power Equation is not an automatic phenomenon. People do not naturally aspire for liberty, equality and fraternity from birth. These are learned aspirations and are handed down from generation to generation. It has happened, as a matter of fact, that instead of a regeneration of aspirations, what happens is a degeneration, and the aspirations of a people are forgotten or even corrupted.

Unfortunately, the systems and institutions that keep the Law/Power Equation subverted by the ends of democracy are often enduring, sometimes more enduring than the forgotten, corrupted, and degenerated aspirations of a people. When this happens, law and power become means and ends in themselves and are subverted by other degenerate aspirations. It is therefore important that measures are put in place to ensure that every generation experiences a repetition of circumstances that brought about the birth of a people's aspirations. A repetition of the experience should help the people remember the urgency and importance of subverting the Law/Power Equation.

How is this experience of repetition possible? That should be the ends and task of of a democratic education.

(To be continued)