REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A In Re: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" A.M. No. 08-8-11-C Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., (123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos, 3000 Bulacan) Petitioner-in-Intervention. X------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------X Verified Motion For Leave To Intervene / Petition-in- Intervention In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With - Urgent Omnibus Motions I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, and II. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.” Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, S.C. Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, Supreme Court, and The (Acting) Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila &
A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, Motion For Leave To Intervene , 6 August, 2008, 49 pages
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Office of the Court Administrator
SUPREME COURT - En Banc - M A N I L A
In Re: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)"
Verified Motion For Leave To Intervene / Petition-in-Intervention In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With -
Urgent Omnibus Motions
I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, andII. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.”
Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, S.C. Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing, and the MEMBERS, En Banc, Supreme Court, and The (Acting) Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila &
Mme. Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, Chairperson,59-D Tuason St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, M.M.,
Mme. Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Member and 11 Champaca St., Tahanan Village, Paranaque City, 1700, M.M., and
Mr. Justice Romeo Callejo, Jr., Member9 Ruego St., BF Homes, Commonwealth Ave., Quezon City, 1121, M.M.
Your Honors,
I, the undersigned petitioner, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, by MYSELF and for MYSELF, as litigant / Intervenor, in this case, as
concerned citizen, and taxpayer, inter alia, AND WITH LEAVE OF COURT, most respectfully depose and say, that:
By Norman Bordadora Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 00:41:00 08/03/2008
FORMER SENATE PRESIDENT JOVITO Salonga on Saturday confirmed the purported corruption in the Court of Appeals and said reforms were urgently needed.
“It is true that there is bribery in the appellate court,” the 88-year-old founder of the judiciary watchdog group Bantay Katarungan told the Inquirer. “It should be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice.”
Preventive suspension
On Friday, a former Malabon City Judge asked the Supreme Court to order the preventive suspension of all appellate court justices involved in the Meralco vs GSIS case.
In a “verified complaint-letter affidavit,” RTC Judge Florentino Floro Jr. said these justices should be investigated for gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest and violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct and of Professional Responsibility, among others. Floro said the high court should once and for all “cleanse the entire Court of Appeals.” “The undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this court, because of the shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial system: CA justices accusing each other, not in courts, but in the media. This is too much. This is the darkest hour of the CA since its creation,” he said.
Floro named as respondents in the case Sabio and Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Apolinario Bruselas, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente
2
Roxas, as well as CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. He said the high court should appoint one of its retired associate justices as an independent investigator and a special prosecutor to look into the matter.
Headline maker
Floro himself made headlines when he was ordered dismissed from the judiciary in 2006 by the Supreme Court. The high court declared him mentally unfit after he admitted to having “psychic visions,” having dwarfs as friends and being an “angel of death” who could inflict pain on people, especially those he perceived to be corrupt. Undeterred, Floro filed cases against judiciary officials he claimed to have violated the law. In April 2007, he filed administrative charges against what he called the CA’s “Dirty Dozen,” whom he accused of corruption. He said those found guilty should be dismissed from government service and disbarred. With reports from Jerome Aning in Manila; Ma. Cecilia Rodriguez, Inquirer Mindanao
“EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS CHARGING COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO DEMETRIA WITH INTERFERENCE ON BEHALF OF A SUSPECTED DRUG QUEEN: COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA. PER CURIAM:
"Men and women of the courts must conduct themselves with honor, probity, fairness, prudence and discretion. Magistrates of justice must always be fair and impartial. They should avoid not only acts of impropriety, but all appearances of impropriety. Their influence in society must be consciously and conscientiously exercised with utmost prudence and discretion. For, theirs is the assigned role of preserving the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary. (Rule 2.04, Code of Judicial Conduct).
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates a judge to "refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency." The slightest form of interference cannot be countenanced. Once a judge uses his influence to derail or interfere in the regular course of a legal or judicial proceeding for the benefit of one or any of the parties therein, public confidence in the judicial system is diminished, if not totally eroded.
Such is this administrative charge triggered by newspaper accounts which appeared on the 21 July 2000 issues of The Manila Standard, The Manila Times, Malaya, The Philippine Daily Inquirer and Today. The national dailies collectively reported that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk Lai, who went in and out of prison to play in a Manila casino. (21 July 2000 issue of The Philippine Daily Inquirer, p. 20). That same day, 21 July 2000, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., issued a Memorandum to Justice Demetria directing him to comment on the derogatory allegations in the news items.3
3
On 24 July 2000, Justice Demetria submitted his Compliance. Subsequently, Chief State Prosecutor (CSP) Jovencito R. Zuño, who disclosed to the media the name of Justice Demetria, and State Prosecutor (SP) Pablo C. Formaran III, a member of the Task Force on Anti-Narcotics Cases of the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuting the case of the suspected Chinese drug queen, filed their respective Comments on the Compliance of Justice Demetria.
On 8 August 2000, the Court En Banc ordered an investigation and designated Mme. Justice Carolina C. Griño-Aquino as Investigator and Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo as Prosecutor. An investigation then commenced on 22 August 2000 and continued until 16 November 2000.
The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice is circumscribed with the heavy of responsibility. His at all times must be characterized with propriety and must be above suspicion. His must be free of even a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his judicial duties, but also his behavior outside the courtroom and as a private individual. Unfortunately, respondent failed failed to live up to this expectation. Through their indiscretions, they did not only make a mockery of their high offices, but also caused incalculable damage to the entire Judiciary.
The mere mention of their names in the national newspapers, allegedly lawyering for or against any of the parties of the case pending before the Court of Appeals, seriously undermined the integrity of the entire Judiciary. Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness that a seat in the Judiciary. High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in the Judiciary so indispensable in orderly society cannot be preserved. There is simply no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.
(Jereos, Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., AM No. 141, 31 May 1976, 71 SCRA 126; Dia-A onuevo v. Bercacio, AM No. 177-MJ, 27 November 1975, 68 SCRA 81; Candia v. Tagabucba, AM No. 528, MJ, 12 September 1977, 79 SCRA 51; Barja Jr., v. Judge Bercacio, AM No. 561-MJ, 29 December 1976, 74 SCRA 355).
WHEREFORE, we sustain the findings of the Investigating Justice and hold Justice Demetrio G. Demetria GUILTY of violating Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency or instrumentality, including any government owned or controlled corporation or institution.”
4
Moral, Religious Basis: Rule of Law, the cause of sin, and sin, of death.
While this Court can motu proprio investigate, docket administrative or
disbarment cases, and cite in contempt, inter alia, the respondents, still, the
undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this Court, because of the
shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial
system:
CA Justices accusing each other, not in Courts, but in media. This is too much.
This is the darkest hour of the Court of Appeals, since its 1936 creation. Who
else, should file this case, to stop this root cause of extra-judicial killings, and
Divine punishments, as Our Lady of Fatima direly warned us, her children, and
the world, in 1918. I am here, your Honors, asking you to cleanse the entire
Court of Appeals and judiciary. Hear my pleas, your Honors, fail us not.
Critical and Undisputed Facts: Bill of Particulars:
Who are the justices squabbling over the Meralco case?
By PURPLE S. ROMERO abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreakhttp://www.abs-cbnnews.com/storypage.aspx?StoryId=126890
July 24, 2008 Letter of P.J. Conrado Vasquez, Jr. to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/CAdocs.pdf
July 26, 2008 Letter of Justice Jose L. Sabio to P.J. Conrado Vasquez, Jr. http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/images/news/newspics/downloads/Court%20of%20Appeals.pdf
Justice Sabio appeared on TV being interviewed by GMA News reporter Carlo Lorenzo TV in his chambershttp://www.gmanews.tv/video/26500/QTV-CA-justice-says-decision-on-Meralco-GSIS-row-railroadedQTV: CA justice says decision on Meralco-GSIS row railroaded07/31/2008 | 12:07 PM
Instead of submitting their confidential letters/complaints to the OCAD or
Supreme Court, Sabio and Roxas both published their voices, opinions, word
wars, and confidential letters to Philippine broadcast and print media: the Daily
Inquirer and GMA News, internet, TV and internet Video, inter alia.
5
“GSIS-Meralco bribery case”
REPRODUCED, hereunder, is “GSIS-Meralco bribery case” - the
Wikipedia online encyclopedia (the biggest in the whole world) article, created
The GSIS-Meralco bribery case, legally termed criminal obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office, is a political controversy and pending Supreme Court of the Philippines legal case, involving the P 10-million bribery attempt which allegedly involved a Manila Electric Company (Meralco) 'emissary' and Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Jose Sabio. [1]
The "case-switching" scandal originated from Meralco and Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) row, after Sabio - in a letter-complaint against Justices Vicente Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes - complained of the "fishy" circumstances that he was removed from the Meralc-GSIS case, and an alleged bribe attempt by Meralco in consideration for him giving way to Reyes' chairmanship of the CA's Special 9th Division.[2]
It has caught wide media coverage and has achieved political, international and judicial significance because of its very threat to the integrity and credibility of the Philippine judicial system. The corruption scandal forthwith caused the motu proprio assumption of jurisdiction over the issue, by the High Tribunal per its Chief Justice's rare agendum of an En Banc hearing and deliberation on August 6, 2008.[3] The Senate of the Philippines' legislators, inter alia, called for speedy resolution of the issues.[4][5] The scandal engulfs the Judiciary and has uncloaked a dark, transactional periphery of the justice system.
History
It started when, on May 11, 2008, the Government Service Insurance System (Philippines) accused Meralco of unlawful refusal to grant corporate access to documents despite the GSIS’ holding 4 seats in the 11-member Meralco board, amid GSIS' denial of plans to wrest control from the Lopez family.
6
Background
In 1962, Don Eugenio López, Sr. acquired MERALCO and it finally became Filipino-owned, but Ferdinand Marcos, by decree, placed it under a shell company called the Meralco Foundation, Inc., controlled by crony under government controlled Napocor.[6]
In 1978, Meralco was fully controlled by the Marcos administration, but its ownership was finally returned to the Lopez family after the People Power Revolution by President Corazon Aquino. By executive order, she allowed Meralco to directly compete with NAPOCOR.[7]
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on May 2, 2008, announced plans to reduce Luzon high power rates, amid a “tough legal fight” with Meralco before state energy regulators. Accordingly, GSIS, thru its President Winston Garcia, on May 11, stated it "planned not only to buy out the Lopez family and other shareholders in Meralco but also to break up its concession to promote efficiency and transparency." But Meralco chair and CEO Manuel Lopez said he was not selling the utility.
The cases and facts
Oscar Lopez blamed the Arroyo administration's moves to take over Meralco in a “reverse privatization,” because of the Lopez-owned ABS-CBN's negative publicity against the government.[8]
May 27 stockholders’ meeting
During the May 27, 2008 stockholders’ meeting, GSIS' President Winston Garcia obtained a Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) “cease-and-desist order” to stop and defer the counting of proxy votes held by the Lopez group until questions on its validity were resolved. GSIS accused the Lopezes of “rigging” the process.[9] In the end, GSIS failed to gain control of Meralco, since, the SEC order was not honored. Meralco retained its 5 seats, the government its 4, while the 2 others are independent directors Artemio Panganiban and Vicente Panlilio. Aside from Manuel Lopez, the Meralco directors elected are Jesus Francisco, Felipe Alfonso, Christian Monsod and Cesar Virata, while the government board members elected aside from Garcia, are Bernardino Abes, Daisy Arce and Jeremy Parulan.
Lopez, however, obtained, on May 30, a temporary restraining order from the Philippine Court of Appeals, against the SEC order. The Court’s 8th Division chaired by Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, rendered a 57-page judgment, on July 24, affirming Meralco’s stance that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the issue.[10][11]
Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, Special 9th Division member, challenged the Reyes' decision, per letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr., thus: "How can the 8th Division issue an order when it is the 9th that has been
7
hearing the complaint of alleged irregularities in the Meralco election?" It is also the 9th Division that issued the temporary restraining order on the SEC order to Meralco on May 30."
Assistant Clerk of Court, lawyer Manuel Cervantes, said no irregularity had been committed when the 8th division came out with the decision instead of the 9th, simply a result of the reorganization of the court. “Due to the retirement of some justices, Justice Vidal was reassigned to the 6th Division while Reyes became chair of the 8th,” Cervantes said. Roxas was moved to the 8th division, Vidal went to the 6th, and Sabio to the 9th. "The case goes with the ponente(justice assigned to pen the case),” Cervantes explained. “Justice Vicente Roxas is the ponente. Even with the change in division, the case stays with him." And since the rule is that the case goes with the ponente,the 57-page decision was issued by the division of which Justice Roxas was now a part, he said. [12] Permission is not required from the previous division or its justices.He said the RIRCA (Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended in 2205) does not require the justices who issued the TRO be the same justices to render the decision.
The Court of Appeals Reorganization Office Order No. 200-08-CMV was issued by Presiding Justice Vasquez on July 4, three weeks before the decision was released.
Justice Jose L. Sabio, with the encouragement of Justice Vidal (his colleague in the 9th Special Division) broke the bribery attempt news and wrote to P.J. Vasquez, Jr. on July 26.[13] He joined Justice Vidal, initiating further, a media expose of their squabbles, alleging something “stinks” in the Meralco court ruling. Presiding Justice Vasquez released his opinion, also, per his July 24, 2008 Letter to Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes & Vicente Q. Roxas.[14][15][16]
Businessman Francis de Borja surfaces and reveals to the media a notarized and sworn affidavit that it was Justice Sabio who brought up a P50 million price for him to act in favor of Meralco in its dispute with the GSIS. Mr. de Borja asserts that Mr. Sabio had told him a Supreme Court seat was being offered in exchange for a ruling in favor of the GSIS, which is trying to wrest control of Meralco from the Lopezes. Expecting Sabio to answer that he would not be swayed by any offer and would rule according to his conscience, De Borja asked what it would take for him to resist the supposed government offer of a seat on the Supreme Court and money. He was taken aback when Sabio replied "P50 million”, and then left.[17]
Manolo Lopez calls the accusations of Sabio a malicious and a pure fabrication. He vehemently denied the allegations, together with the claim that he (Lopez) was waiting in the car during the meeting. He said he was out of the country for a medical check-up when the incident supposedly happened, and returned only last July 13. As proof, he showed tickets showing his departure dated June 27 and his arrival dated July 13.[18]
The CA Justices in the case
8
ABS-CBN and Philippines Newsbreak Magazine reported on the CA Justices of the case.[19] ABS-CBN researched and published that:[20]
* Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.'s daughters Agnes Rosario and Ruth Almira are currently employed by the GSIS. Agnes Rosario is a dentist in the GSIS medical department while Ruth Almira is with the office of the Company secretary. Vasquez’ sister, Lenny Vasquez de Jesus, was a GSIS trustee from 1998-2004. She is also the ninang (godmother) of the youngest son of GSIS president Winston Garcia. He was presiding Judge of Branch 118, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. * Associate Justice Sabio, Jr., chair of the CA ninth division, graduated from the Ateneo de Manila University College of Law. He is a pre-bar reviewer in Legal Ethics at the Ateneo School of Law where he also teaches, Civil Procedure, Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law I. In 2003, an administrative complaint was filed against him for ignorance of the law and inexcusable negligence, and charging him with deliberately causing the delay of the prosecution in Estafa entitled, “People of the Philippines, Plaintiff versus Ferdinand Santos, Robert John Sobrepeña, Federico Campos, Polo Pantaleon, and Rafael Perez De Tagle, Jr.” The case was dismissed by the SC, signed by 12 of the 14 incumbent Justices. [21] * Associate Justice Vidal was awarded a plaque of recognition as outstanding judge by the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC) in 2001, and in 2004, she was an outstanding judge who received Supreme Court Judicial Excellence awards. * Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is the chairman of the 8th division that promulgated the decision. He obtained his Ll.B Degree from San Beda College and passed the Bar examinations in the same year. Reyes was promoted CA associate justice on August 8, 2000, after serving as RTC Judge, in Br. 74, Malabon City, from 1990. He was was also a finalist in the 1997 Awards for Judicial Excellence.[22][23] * Associate Justice Vicente Roxas is a top ten bar exam topnotcher from the University of the Philippines College of Law. He was En Banc Consultant for the SEC(Securities and Exchange Commission) for eleven years, and taught at the UP college of law. He was a RTC Judge in Quezon City for ten years before his appointment as associate justice of the CA. In 2007, the Manila Times reported that Erlinda Bilder-Ilusurio, president of Philippine Communications Satellite Corp. (Philcomsat) filed an administrative case against him for ‘gross ignorance of the law’ after he ruled on a petition that was withdrawn already by Emmanuel Nieto, a Philcomsat stockholder. The SC unanimously dismissed the case.[24] * Associate Justice Bruselas was a regional trial court judge in Quezon City before being appointed to the court of appeals. He served as a member of the technical working group of the judiciary's action program for judicial reform. He penned the decision in Steel Corp. and Subic rape case.[25]
Name - Position - Date of Appointment - Date of Birth - Date of Retirement
9
Hon. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. - Presiding Justice - March 22, 1994 January 6, 1940 January 6, 2010
Hon. JOSE L. SABIO, JR. - Associate Justice - May 28, 1999 May 25, 1941 May 25, 2011
Hon. BIENVENIDO L. REYES - Associate Justice - August 22, 2000 July 6, 1947 - July 6, 2017
Hon. VICENTE Q. ROXAS - Associate Justice - February 9, 2004 December 8, 1949 December 8, 2019
Hon. MYRNA DIMARANAN-VIDAL - Associate Justice - January 24, 2005 December 20, 1939 - December 20, 2009
Hon. APOLINARIO D. BRUSELAS, JR. - Associate Justice - August 1, 2005 May 6, 1956 - May 6, 2026
Attempted bribery and discipline of Philippine jurists and lawyers
Bribery attempt, in Philippine Jurisprudence, is considered a criminal offense or felony.
Philippine Court of Appeals Justices are under the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, and may be disciplined by Disbarment or dismissal from service, under the Revised Rules of Court (1997 Code of Civil Procedure).
Also, the Philippine Court of Appeals' "Process of Adjudication" is governed by A.M. No. 02-6-13-CA 2005, the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA), Specific Amendments to, 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, February 28, 2005.[26][27][28]
The laws
The Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (RIRCA) regarding the matter are as follows:
Rule I, SEC. 9. Reorganization of Divisions. - (a) Reorganization of Divisions shall be effected whenever a permanent vacancy occurs in the chairmanship of a Division. Assignment of Justices to the Divisions shall be in accordance with the order of seniority. (n)
PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION Rule VI, SEC. 1. Justice Assigned For Study and Report. – Every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a Justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another Division. (Sec. 2, Rule 8, RIRCA [a])
The Revised Penal Code of 1930 now defines the felony of attempted bribery as follows:
Art. 210. Direct bribery. — Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such
10
officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have been committed. If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime,xxxx and if said act shall not have been accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of such gift. In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer the penalty of special temporary disqualification. The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to xxx any other persons performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 872, June 10, 1985).[29] Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — xxx There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly or over acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than this own spontaneous desistance.[30]
The Revised Rules of Court, now also provides for the discipline of jurists and lawyers, as follows:
A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, Amendment to Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, Discipline of Judges and Justices: SECTION 1. How instituted. – Proceedings for the discipline of judges xxx Justices of the Court of Appeals xxx may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person xxx SEC. 8. Serious charges. – Serious charges include: 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019); 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; xxx SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.[31] Rule 139-B, Disbarment and Discipline of Attorneys: Section 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for disbarment, suspension or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of
11
the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts.[32]
Application to this case
Justice Sabio informed Philippine media that he was offered P 10 million (through a Makati businessman, which he rejected) to inhibit himself from the GSIS-Meralco case, which was decided by the 8th Division's Justice Vicente Roxas, the designated ponente, with the concurring opinions of Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Antonio Bruselas. Roxas was transferred from the 9th Division, when the case was pending. Sabio revealed to media that: “It turned out that he was brokering for Meralco.” Sabio appeared on a TV interview by GMA Network reporter Carlo Lorenzo in his chambers.[33]
Cagayan de Oro businessman Francis Roa de Borja, in his July 31, 2008 affidavit, swore that: "when he asked what it would take for him to resist the government offer, Sabio's reply was: “Fifty million (pesos)"; Sabio wanted to remain as acting chairman of the 9th Division because he was up to something; that Sabio consulted his other colleagues in the CA and they told him that he was in the right and should stick to his guns; that was then Sabio told Borja about the offer of unnamed government officials for a promotion at the SC and money for a favorable ruling for GSIS."[34][35]
De Borja accused Sabio of twisting the facts: "No, I never said that. If you know Manolo Lopez -- he is somewhat aristocratic -- he would be the last person to wait for somebody in the car, and they did not know that he was abroad at that time. I said in my affidavit that he told me his wife would be waiting for him in the car and he says now that Manolo was waiting in my car..."
De Borja stated that he was ready to face charge of perjury and to take a lie detector test with Sabio before competent foreign experts and together: "It’s a free county, let him file it and we’ll see. I’m prepared, the moment I signed my affidavit obviously I considered the consequences so I wouldn’t have made up a story. And my third comment is he is a lawyer and a justice. He knows that a lie detector test is not admissible as evidence so why is he asking for it?’’[36] De Borja was interviewed and appeared at ABS-CBN News Channel's (ANC) Dateline Philippines, and he repeated his media statements: "No definitely not...He [Sabio] says that Manolo was waiting for me in my car. I never said it. And if you know Manolo...Can you imagine somebody like Manolo being made to wait in a car? Di ba, yung pagka aristocratic ni Manolo, maghihintay sa kotse? The fact is, he was abroad."[37][38]
Meanwhile, a shadowy group, "Tanglaw ng Bayan," paid an advertisement on a Metro Manila newspaper, appealing "that the CA justices not be subjected to malicious imputations just to advance the agenda of powerful interests, and to allow the CA to "sort out its internal issues." In 2007, it also petitioned the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Senate to probe the Wowowee Willyonaryo controversy.[39]
12
On July 31, 2008, after a rare 3-hour, closed-door En Banc session attended by 64 CA Justices presided by P.J. Vasquez, Jr., the CA Clerk of Court Atty. Teresita Marigomen announced the appellate court's resolution:[40]
* "that they will refer the investigation of the propriety of action of concerned justices to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator"; * "they will leave the matter on the validity of the Meralco decision to the parties, to take whatever steps they may deem necessary after all the allegations"; and, * "they will refer the issue of the conflict on rules to an internal committee within the appellate court."[41][42]
Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered all records of case be delivered forthwith to the high court, and the Supreme Court Public Information Office OIC said all magistrates of the high court would deliberate on the case on August 5.[43]Justice Roxas challenged the En Banc meeting as a “disguised investigation” of the 8th Division’s judgment on the Meralco case, further alleging that under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, a case followed the ponente to whatever division the ponente went: “Besides, all hearings in the Court of Appeals are recorded and the members of the 8th Division only need the transcripts of the hearing or the memoranda, briefs, comments and replies of the parties—which are all written.”[44]
Sabio, however, told media that he has text messages plus phone call records evidence to prove that Francis Roa de Borja bribed him.[45][46][47]
Sabio's former client (1978), Evelyn Clavano, a Cagayan de Oro City resident, gave media, on August 1, an affidavit saying that: "Francis de Borja requested me if I have the cell phone number of Justice Jose L. Sabio Jr. He related that because he is very close to the Lopezes of Meralco, he wanted to call him (Sabio) 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."[48][49]
Meralco chair Manolo lopez, in a press conference on August 2, denied any involvement in the alleged bribery attempt: “I categorically and vehemently deny the allegations of Justice Jose Sabio. Mind you, I do not have the habit of waiting in the car for anybody except my wife. The [allegations are] malicious and pure fabrication. I am a resident of Rockwell. I know Francis but I have not authorized him or anybody to make representations for [me on] any matter that involves cases of Meralco and the Lopez family. We have retainers and lawyers to handle legal matters. I was out of the country when the alleged meeting between Francis and Justice Sabio took place. I was in the United States for a medical checkup and returned on July 13." Lopez’s officials showed media, tickets of his departure, June 27, and his arrival, July 13.[50]
13
The Lopez group led by First Philippine Holdings Corp. has a 33.47% share interest in Meralco, while the Philippine government financial institutions own 33.32%. Other shareholders hold 34.21%. Meralco said, the government share is, to wit: GSIS, 22.05%; Social Security System, 5.52%; Land Bank of the Philippines, 4.41%; Philippine Health Insurance Corp., 0.17%; and the Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG, 0.17%.[51]
CA chambers press conference
Sabio, on August 1, First Friday, held a press conference in his CA chambers, and stated to media:“ ...I expect matters to get worse because I am up against the billions of the Lopezes. But that Mr. de Borja would have the nerve to make these lies, under oath, is utterly disgusting when it was he who came to me with the offer of the bribe. He [de Borja] further said that the Lopezes desire that the same justice, with whom the Lopezes are more comfortable, sit in the division. Mr. de Borja called me, so suddenly, and after having had no contact [with him] for almost a year. At that point, he [de Borja] mentioned the impasse between Justice Bienvenido Reyes and myself. Then he [de Borja] explained that he was there to offer me a win-win situation. He said, Justice, we have P10 million. 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. I cannot in conscience agree to that [offer to bribe me]. The Lopezes will do everything possible using their money and power to discredit me. This is just the beginning. I know that they will not stop at doing everything to discredit my integrity.” ”
[52][53]Jurisdictional issue
The internal strife and open quarrel over signature space on a judgment pushed the appellate court to the edge and is now at the center of a maelstrom.[54] The Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), raised a legal point, challenging the 8th CA Division's judgment dismissing GSIS's petition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Philippines) against Meralco. The certiorari and injunction CA lawsuit was raffled off to the CA’s 9th Division chaired by Justice Bienvenido Reyes (on leave at the time). A special raffle designated Reyes’ replacement, Justice Jose Sabio (as chair). With Justices Vicente Roxas and Myrna Vidal as members, the 9th Division heard the case. (The GSIS moved to inhibit Roxas on account of reports that "he met with Meralco lawyers on the day a temporary restraining order [TRO] was issued by the CA, barring the SEC from taking jurisdiction over the GSIS complaint against Meralco.")
Sabio’s chairmanship issue with Reyes over the Special Ninth Division was overtaken by a July 4, 2008, reorganization at the Court of Appeals. Reyes and Roxas ended up in the 8th Division, which finally resolved the case in favor of the Lopez group on July 23. Sabio was reassigned as chairman of the 6th
14
Division. Sabio later complained that Roxas penned the decision even before either side had submitted their arguments.[55]
Justice Reyes failed to assume the chairmanship of the 9th Division in place of Sabio, and the CA’s 8th Division, chaired by Reyes and with ponente, Justices Roxas and Apolinario Bruselas as members, forthwith promulgated the challenged judgment in favor of Meralco. GSIS called the ruling, a “patent nullity for such dismissal [of the GSIS case before the SEC] was not even prayed for by Meralco in its petition with the Court of Appeals.”[56]
P.J. Vasquez wrote Justices Sabio and Vidal that as members of their newly reconstituted 8th division, they are not very familiar with the case. Vasquez earlier granted Sabio a verbal go-signal to proceed in hearing the June 23 oral argument. Vasquez reiterated that "Sabio’s 9th division, since it issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), and its members heard and participated in the June 23 hearing, should “sign and resolve” the case. To allow the new division of Justice B.L. Reyes as Chairman, Justice Roxas, as ponente, and Justice Bruselas, Jr. as the third member, the resolution of the pending incidents in the case will be participated by two (2) members who were not present and did not hear the arguments during the hearing on the injunctive relief…”[57][58]
Investigation
A.M. No. 08-8-11-C
The Supreme Court, on August 4 created a panel composed of 3 retired Supreme Court justices, to investigate the scandal.[59][60] The High Court's resolution "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" directed chair Associate Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino, and Members Justices Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Jr. to conduct daily hearings from August 7, and submit the final report before August 21.[61] In the docketed adminstrative matter, Reynato Puno, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Antonio Carpio inhibited for legal reasons.[62] The SC PIO officer announced that: "The hearing will be opened to the public and to the media. It's going to be a regular hearing, like the oral argument, except that there will be no cameras inside the hearing room.”[63]
Joker Arroyo criticized the High Court's ruling, saying it should be, as sitting Justices investigate the case instead, since: "Delegating the investigation to a panel of retired justices who in turn will submit their findings to the high court for review and determination [is] akin to a trial by commissioners."[64]
House Resolution 705
Meanwhile, 2 pro-administration congressmen, Masbate Rep. Antonio Kho and Nueva Ecija Rep. Joseph Gilbert Violago, on August 4 called for a House of Representatives probe on the bribery case.[65] Accordingly, House Resolution
15
705 was filed by Manila Representative Bienvenido Abante Jr., petitioning Congress, through the committees on energy and justice, to probe the bribery case.
Judicial corruption
On January 25, 2005, and on December 10, 2006, Philippines Social Weather Stations released the results of its 2 surveys on corruption in the judiciary; it published that: a) like 1995, 1/4 of lawyers said many/very many judges are corrupt. But (49%) stated that a judges received bribes, just 8% of lawyers admitted they reported the bribery, because they could not prove it. [Tables 8-9]; judges, however, said, just 7% call many/very many judges as corrupt[Tables 10-11];b) "Judges see some corruption; proportions who said - many/very many corrupt judges or justices: 17% in reference to RTC judges, 14% to MTC judges, 12% to Court of Appeals justices, 4% i to Shari'a Court judges, 4% to Sandiganbayan justices and 2% in reference to Supreme Court justices [Table 15].[59][60]CA controversies
Created on February 1, 1936, the Philippine Court of Appeals was initially composed of Justice Pedro Concepcion as the first Presiding Judge and 10 Appellate Judges appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments of the National Assembly. In March 1938, the appellate Judges were named Justices and their number increased from 11 to 15, with 3 divisions of 5 under Commonwealth Act No. 259. On December 24, 1941, there were 19 Justices under Executive Order No. 395. On February 23, 1995, R.A. No. 7902 expanding the jurisdiction of the Court effective March 18, 1995. On December 30, 1996, R.A. No. 8246 created six (6) more divisions in the Court, thereby increasing its membership from 51 to 69 Justices (additional divisions - 3 for Visayas and 3 for Mindanao, the court's regionalization).
The Supreme Court of the Philippines on March 21, 2008, upon recommendation of the investigator, Bernardo P. Pardo, dismissed Philippine Court of Appeals Justice Elvi John Asuncion for gross ignorance of the law and delaying motions of considerations.[61] He was only the 2nd Court of Appeals jurist to be dismissed, since the first firing in Philippine judicial history of CA Justice Demetrio G. Demetria, for interceding in theDOJ drug case of Yu Yuk Lai.[62]
The CA, thereafter became the center of controversy after Chief Justice Reynato Puno ordered an investigation of the so-called "Dirty Dozen," particularly on the alleged “sale” of "Temporary Restraining Orders" (Injunction, Restraining order abuse).[63] On August 18, 2007, Atty. Briccio Joseph Boholst, president of IBP — Cebu City Chapter, opposed the abolition of the CA in Cebu City, for it will cause inconvenience for both litigants and lawyers. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruben Reyes was tasked to investigate and submit recommendation to the High Tribunal because of the alleged massive graft and corruption of justices, especially in the issuance of temporary restraining orders (TRO’s).[64]
16
On April 03, 2007, Philippine Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Ruben Reyes (now S.C. Justice) ordered an investigation and a regular auditing and inventory of temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by the 69 CA Justices. Reyes stated: “I will order a monthly or quarterly inventory of TROs, for transparency and to watch the movements of the so-called Dirty Dozen [the 12 most corrupt CA justices].” Reynato Puno said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez had not yet submitted the list and the Supreme Court was waiting for its delivery amid her formal investigation against the “Dirty Dozen.”[65]
On February 1, 2008, the Court celebrated its 72nd Anniversary.[66]
Reactions
* Government Service Insurance System chief Garcia, on July 31,2008, asked Justices Vicente Roxas and Bienvenido Reyes to resign and save the CA institution amid plans to file criminal and administrative lawsuits. Garcia accused both Justices as “Meralco switcheroo" in the case against GSIS: “The sordid details of Meralco’s behind-the-scene maneuverings as narrated by Justice Sabio merely put in public display the contempt the Lopezes have for the law. Lady Justice lies bleeding on the ground, and those who have bloods in their hands must be made to answer for this dastardly crime! I call on all Filipinos, especially my colleagues in the noble practice of law, to rise up in unison to condemn these moves by Meralco to protect its interest at the expense of what is right and just."[67] * Senator Francis Pangilinan, in a statement, asked the High Court to "act swiftly to get to the bottom of the scandal and immediately punish the guilty. The SC must show no hesitation whatsoever in pursuing this controversy. The entire judiciary's reputation is tarnished by this scandal, and the swiftness within which the SC responds will determine whether the damage is temporary and minimal or if it will be massive and irreparable. The SC must respond with clear and convincing resoluteness by dismissing from the service the CA justices involved in the irregularities, if the evidence warrants it." * Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Sabio's distant relative, said "whoever tried to bribe the CA should be made to account for the crime (Kung sino ang nag-offer ng bribe kay Justice Sabio, dapat ihabla kasi krimen yon e. Of course yung sinsabi ng abogado, dapat pakinggan din. Ang sama ng dating sa taongbayan because kumbaga, right at the doorstep na ng Supreme Court ito e. It's not only the national, but also the international reputation of the judiciary could be compromised). No formal investigations have been conducted regarding alleged irregularities in the judiciary, particularly in the Court of Appeals, because witnesses are afraid to testify against the so-called “hoodlums in robes". * Senator Edgardo Angara said: "Of course, my God when you say that the second-highest level of the judiciary in the Philippines is corrupt and bribable, who's going to be safe investing here or even travelling here?" * Senator Francis Escudero said: "there were enough laws to deal with the controversy. Besides, inter-branch courtesy dictates that the Senate would not
17
meddle with the internal affairs of the judiciary. Supreme Court ang may jurisdiction to discipline erring judges and justices." * Senator Loren Legarda, a former broadcaster of Lopez-owned ABS-CBN, said: "the gravity of the accusation raised by Sabio were so damaging to the justice system and that they cannot be left unresolved. Sabio's revelation calls for everyone to have an open mind, and to come to conclusion only after a dispassionate and objective appreciation of evidencer. The appropriate criminal, civil or administrative cases must be filed against whoever will be found to have transgressed the law. The judiciary should be above suspicion if it will be effective in dispensing justice. We cannot have one branch of government being diminished by scandals like this."[68] * The Senators jointly stated that: "Regardless of the outcome of Meralco-GSIS case at the CA, the senators also said it is clear the case can no longer be heard by Sabio since his fairness has already been tarnished by the various allegations."[69] * Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, dean emeritus of the Ateneo School of Law, told the Philippine Daily Inquirer, that:“The allegations will not do the judiciary any good but the investigation of the Supreme Court will. I don't know the facts. I consider (Sabio) to be an honest man.” * Ateneo Law Dean Cesar L. Villanueva vouched for Sabio, saying "the CA justice is one of the well-respected faculty members of the Ateneo Law School."[70] * The Ateneo Law School student body, per by student council president Jess Lopez, stated: "We, his current students, stand as witnesses to his fairness and impartiality, which are beyond reproach, and the genuine manner in which he implores us to stand against all forms of corruption in all aspects of law and governance. The respect we have for Sabio is derived not only from his remarkable skill in teaching, but likewise from his indubitable sense of justice, moral conduct, and service to society. Sabio’s reputation of being a “professor of utmost integrity who will not and cannot be fazed by unjust and wrongful considerations.”[71] * Alberto Lim, executive director of the Makati Business Club (MBC) MBC, said: "if Sabio is telling the truth, the MBC would be dismayed at Meralco's moves to bribe a CA justice. On the other hand, if De Borja is telling the truth about Sabio's P50 million bribe demand, it would be a big setback to the judiciary." Sabio said that De Borja told him "the MBC was happy with his earlier decision to sign a temporary restraining order (TRO) favoring Meralco." Lim, however, clarified that De Borja is not its member.[72] * Jovito Salonga, 88, Bantay Katarungan or Sentinel of Justice chair, said: “It is true that there is bribery in the CA. It should already be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice. The lawyer-members and even the “student monitors” of Bantay Katarungan know who these personalities are and how the corruption works in the appellate court. They know who these people are. We, in Bantay Katarungan... have been exposing and underscoring the need for reforms in our system of justice. We have written to the Judicial and Bar Council and from time to time the appointing power on the need for reforms in specific instances not only in the CA but in the other courts.”
18
* Rufus Rodriguez , Cagayan De Oro Opposition congressman and former law school dean, said: “This may be an initial black eye for the Court of Appeals...but if (Sabio) just remained silent nothing will happen.”[73] * Joker Arroyo said: “This is a very good opportunity to clean the CA because like cancer, this is now a severe case that must not be allowed to worsen. The bribery issue involving CA Associate Justice Jose Sabio and the Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) was a blessing in disguise because people would finally be made aware of what had been going on in the judiciary. We cannot just have remedial measures, we need to cleanse the CA because (corruption) has been vulgar. This is corruption right in their front door. Lawyers know all of these but the people don’t. With this scandal, it’s like a case that only lawyers talked about before had been opened. But nobody wanted to come forward because they were afraid of the justices and if nothing happened to their complaint, they would only suffer along with their cases and their clients. Now that this has been opened, it is now up to the Supreme Court to decide (what to do). Why? Because it has been criticizing corruption in the executive department, it complains against delay in the decisions of lower courts, now we have an actual case, there was an (alleged) offer to a justice. Why does (De Borja) have an unusual interest in this case? There are many who are involved. What happens now is that the SC should decide on it firmly. Once it is within the judiciary, nobody can interfere except the SC, only the SC can discipline them. We (in the Senate) cannot intervene and so (they) must resolve this.” * Camilo Sabio, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman, and elder brother of Justice Jose Sabio said: "The CA justice will have a “good fight. I believe he’s in the right side and I have trust in him. I’ve known him for a long time. He’s my brother. He’s a man of integrity.” * CBCPNews, of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines, said "the Ateneo de Manila Law School found the bribery allegations against Sabio as “incredible.” * Consumer group National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reform (Nasecore), meanwhile, said "Sabio’s revelations affirmed that Meralco does not play by the books on court and regulatory cases it is involved in. There were times in the past that we felt that Meralco had control of the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) because of so many ERC rules that were patently biased in favor of the power company,. So the damning recounting made by no less than a respected justice of the Court of Appeals on how the minions of Meralco operate should give the public a very clear picture of what kind of adversary Nasecore has been facing in our lonesome in the past.” Nasecore won a S.C. case against Meralco for a refund of P827 million, on Aug. 16, 2006.[74]
The ACCUSATION / CHARGES
With Legal Argument and Memorandum of Law / AuthoritiesWith due respect -
Undersigned complainant charges / accuses respondents, with ---
19
a. GraveViolations of - - -
i.) A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC, AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019);
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in
an appropriate proceeding;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order,
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and
SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following
sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.”
ii.) CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT -
“CANON 1 A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF
THE JUDICIARY RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity
and independence. RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without
delay. RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the
independence of the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source
intended to influence the performance of official functions.
CANON 2 - A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
RULE 2.0, 2.04 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
CANON 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH
IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE
ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.
20
RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.
RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should
avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the
courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within
the required periods.”
iii.) Sec. 20 (a), Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court, the Canons, to wit:
Respondents, like all other members of the bar, failed to live up to the
standards embodied in the Code of Professional Responsibility, particularly
the following Canons, viz:
“CANON 10 — A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.Rule 10.01 — A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court;
nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
CANON 1 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote
respect for law and for legal processes.
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
lessening confidence in the legal system.
CANON 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal
profession, and support the activities of the Integrated Bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor should he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner
to the discredit of the legal profession.”
CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY (June 21, 1988)“CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY - CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL PROFESSIONCANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to
practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to
the discredit of the legal profession.
21
CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST OPPOSING COUNSEL.CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or interest, encourage any suit or
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse them to
defeat the ends of justice.
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or
misuse Court processes.”
– in that respondents miserably failed to be the embodiment of competence,
integrity, and independence; (due to their ardent desire and lust for money and
financial gain); they did not behave to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; they failed to follow the strict
mandates of Rules 138, Rules of Court, and the Bill of Rights, RULE OF
LAW, and due process.
b. conducts unbecoming of a lawyer, gross ignorance of the law, gross
misconduct, as an officer of the court and member of the Bar / legal profession;
c. professional indiscretion, violation of oath of office and their duty as attorney
or counselor-at-law, which include the statutory grounds enumerated under Sec.
27 of Rule 138, Revised Rules of Court (Arrieta vs. Llosa, 282 SCRA 248),
including grossly unethical behavior, malice and bad faith in rendering unjust
orders and decision
d. The following civil and criminal laws, inter alia, were also violated by
respondents’ promulgation and rendering of the Partial Judgment of April 15,
2008, causing damages, loss, and utter INJUSTICE to Judge Floro, to wit:
“CHAPTER 2 - HUMAN RELATIONS (n)
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties,
act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.
22
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for
damages and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary
administrative action that may be taken.
Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights
and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law ;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely
separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall
proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be
proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages.
Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and xxx a civil action for damages, entirely separate
and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.
CHAPTER 2 - QUASI-DELICTS
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter. (1902a)
Art. 2177. Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Art. 2180. The obligation imposed by Article 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.”
23
Revised Penal Code: Chapter Two - MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
Section One. — Dereliction of duty
Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. — Any judge who shall knowingly
render an unjust judgment in any case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by
prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification.
Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order. — Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust
interlocutory order or decree shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and suspension; but if he shall have acted by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance
and the interlocutory order or decree be manifestly unjust, the penalty shall be suspension.
Burning issue – Urgent and compelling - chilling effect on litigants' and lawyers' recourse to the Courts – first and foremost cause of extra-judicial killings
Respondents’ acts and omissions have far-reaching consequences,
because every litigant especially the pauper and less privileged have to worry
that he or she may be forced to pay huge sums or bribes to magistrates in the
Court of Appeals’ Dirty Dozen and these fighting in media magistrates.
Petitioner believes in the Supreme Court’s long history of vigilance on this
matter of paramount import. Petitioner cites authority:
Argument
Unethical conduct – Sabio:
Moreover, in his affidavit, Borja said that he paid Sabio P 300,000 for
giving legal advice on a land deal he was brokering. At that time, Sabio was
RTC judge in Cagayan de Oro. According to Sec. 11 of Canon Code of
Judicial Conduct, “Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial
office.” In addition, Section 13, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, “Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for, nor
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be
done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of
judicial duties.” Another count of ethical breach, on Sabio’s part, is his meeting
with Borja, who was interested in a case. The New Code on Judicial Conduct is
clear on safeguarding the integrity of the court: “Judges shall ensure that not
24
only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view
of a reasonable observer.”
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=business5_aug4_2008 Justices on cross-hairs
2 Mystery man identified
Justice Jose Sabio Jr. held an illegal and unethical press conference in
his chambers when the latter was fulminating Friday on national TV against the
Lopezes and Meralco “broker” Francis de Borja. 2 non-Court of Appeals
personnel, stood by his side as seen in TV and news photos. The mystery men
—the balding Chinoy chap clad in short-sleeved barong, happened to be lawyer
Vicente Chuidian, and, the other, mustachioed companion, Chuidian
associate, Romeo Gutierrez—apparently came not only to succor Sabio but
also give counsel to the justice in his trying times.
A corporate lawyer with a checkered and colorful past, Chuidian in his
own right has joined Sabio in his crusade against Vicente Roxas, one of the
Court of Appeals justices implicated by Sabio in the “fishy” transfer of the
Meralco case. Chuidian, according to the grapevine, has a pending
administrative complaint against Roxas, who, despite his Masters of Law
degree from Georgetown University, is being accused by Chuidian for gross
ignorance of the law. Chuidian is steaming from the Roxas order removing the
former from making any claims on the multi-billion inheritance of the late Miss
Philippines and corporate lawyer Pacita de los Reyes-Phillips. Chuidian, who
represents the late estranged American husband of the billionairess, was also
prevented by virtue of the Roxas judgment from even making an entry of
appearance into the testate intestate case now being heard by Makati Regional
Trial Court Judge Ma. Cristina Cornejo. Because of the Chuidian complaint,
Chief Justice Reynato Puno has decided to review the Roxas decision, assigning
the Supreme Court’s Second Division to the task.
Meanwhile, guess who Francis de Borja was seen with after the Manolo
Lopez friend and schoolmate appeared Friday at the ANC cable channel? Why,
none other than De Borja’s good friend, Wilfrido Villarama, the former Gloria
25
Macapagal Arroyo aide and lightning rod who is now with El Shaddai’s Bro.
Mike Velarde. De Borja and Villarama were seen in a huddle with a third man
at the Manila Polo Club, in one of the nipa huts past by the olympic-sized pool
for maximum privacy. What could the three men be discussing over sheafs of
Verified Motion To Intervene & Petition-in-Intervention In: "A.M. No. 08-8-11-C, August 4, 2008 - Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. re: CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 ("Antonio Rosete, et. al vs. SEC, et al.)" – With -
46
Urgent Omnibus Motions
I. For Preventive Suspension, Immediate Docketing and Early Resolution, andII. To appoint a Special Prosecutor, in accordance with “EN BANC, A.M. No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, IN RE: DEROGATORY NEWS ITEMS, JUSTICE DEMETRIO G. DEMETRIA.”
- be duly NOTED, ADMITTED, GIVEN DUE COURSE and GRANTED.
Further, it is respectfully prayed, that - after filing of respondents
COMMENTS / ANSWERS, and after due notice, hearing, and Report of the
Commissioner / Investigator, - judgment be rendered declaring them GUILTY
of all the charges and that supreme penalty of DISBARMENT be imposed
upon them, ordering that their names be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys,
and punished accordingly, under Rule 139-B, and Rule 140, Revised Rules of
Court, inter alia.
Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this pleading - letter-affidavit-complaint, this 5th day of August, 2008, at Malolos City , BULACAN.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,Petitioner/Complainant, on behalf of himself, by himself and as litigant,
123 Dahlia, Alido, Bulihan, Malolos City, 3000 BULACAN, Tel /# (044) 662-82-03; [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300;
ROLL OF ATTORNEY’S NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV].
NOTICE
TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa Villarama / Atty. Felipa Anama,The Clerk of Court, Supreme Court, Manila,
Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
VERIFICATION / CERTIFICATION OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
& AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
47
Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S.
I, Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., under oath, depose/say, that:
I am the complainant in this case. I caused the preparation, signed and read the initial complaint duly filed in this case, and all the contents / allegations thereof are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.\
I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any disbarment action or filed any administrative or other claim against respondents, involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of my knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
I certify that on August 6 th , 2008 , I served copies of this pleading with all annexes in this case “Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., Complainant, - versus – Justice B. Reyes et al ”, A.M. OCA IPI No. _______, upon respondents, thru the Court of Appeals’ Clerk of Court, Atty. Teresita Marigomen, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila, by registered mail with return card and explanation, as evidenced by the attached hereunder registry receipt after it, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.,
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 6th day of August, 2008, here at Malolos City , Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12005 # 21783592, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 2-27, 2007.
DOC. NO. ____, PAGE NO. _____, BOOK NO. 76, SERIES OF 2008. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.31, 2009, PTR NO. 4591703, 1- 2,’08, Atty.’s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 708299, 1-2,’08 Malolos City, Bulacan.
Reservation:
Because of time constraints, undersigned reserves his right to file amended or supplemental pleadings, in due course, if needed, to conform to truth, or justice, and to add respondents if needed.
Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
COPY FURNISHED:(By Personal Service):
Office of the Court Administrator, (Personal Service)OCAD, Supreme Court, Manila,
48
By registered mail with receipt and return card. Explanation: Due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, I served copies of this complaint and annexes to respondents by registered mail with return card as evidenced by the attached receipt, hereunder. Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas,Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal,Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.,and “Jane Doe” & Sahah Doe” (Lawyers, daughters of Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.),Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila,c/o Atty. Teresita Marigomen, Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals, Maria Orosa, Ermita, Manila,Respondents.