Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest in Re Letter PJ Vasquez 2008
Case Digest in Re Letter PJ Vasquez 2008
Case Digest in Re Letter PJ Vasquez 2008
Case: This is a per curiam decision on an administrative matter arising from the Letter of Court of Appeals Presiding Justice
Vasquez which referred to the Supreme Court for appropriate action the charges of impropriety among the CA Justices involved in the
controversial GSIS-Meralco case. Pursuant to the said letter, the SC formed a 3-person Panel of Investigators to look into the matter.
Facts: (The Drama Behind Aforequoted Summary, which transpired before expiration of the issued TRO.)
1. The internal conflict in the CA was, for the most part, centered on the question which division should hear the
GSIS- Meralco case—the special 9th Division (of Acting Chairperson J. Sabio) or the 8th Division (of J. Reyes)?
a. Special 9th Division (Chairperson: J. Sabio; Ponente: J. Roxas)
Original Chairperson J. Reyes, who was on leave at the time, was substituted via raffle by J. Mendoza as Acting
Chairperson. J. Mendoza later inhibited himself since he used to be counsel for Meralco. He was replaced by J. Sabio.
b. 8th Division (Chairperson: J. Reyes; Members: J. Roxas, J. Bruselas)
The 8th Division was among the divisions formed in the middle of the ongoing disorder by order of PJ Vasquez to
accommodate new appointees.
2. Said conflict ensued when Acting Chairperson J. Sabio refused to relinquish post to Chairperson J. Reyes upon
his return from his LOA, despite the latter’s invocation of the Internal Rules of the CA (IRCA).
a. Section 3 (d) Rule IV
“A case can remain with the justices who participated therein only when any of the following actions have been taken:
(a) giving due course; (b) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (c) granting of a new trial; (d) granting of
execution pending appeal.”
None of the above instances apply to J. Sabio. Although he was one of the judges who issued the TRO, the said
issuance is not among the grounds allowing a justice of the CA to remain in the Division.
To J. Sabio, the TRO is tantamount to a motion for a reconsideration.
3. Notwithstanding unresolved internal issues, the CA 8th Division ended up rendering the decision. The CA knew that
the said decision would have repercussions. Thus PJ Vasquez wrote the instant letter to the SC.
4. The investigation of the SC would reveal that each of the involved Justices has his own share in the whole
CA hullabaloo despite some of them being the offended and the victims themselves.
The SC sanctioned said actions which it deemed “detrimental to the proper administration of justice and damaging to the
institutional integrity, independence, and public respect for the Judiciary.”
It also referred the cases of non-CA individuals who have been involved in the alleged bribery of some Justices to rightful
bodies (e.g. DOJ, Bar Confidant).
- SC finds it “suspiscious” and reprehensible that J. Roxas failed to act at all on pending motions
- evidenced by his drafting of decisions even prior to the submission of parties’ memoranda and
his precipate transfer of the case from the Special 9th Division to the 8th Division
- Unusual interest in holding on to the Meralco case may have actually been influenced by
his brother “to help GSIS”
- Evidenced by adamant refusal to yield chairmanship of Special 9th Division to J. Reyes
- SC deems allegation of P10-million bribe against Mr. De Borja as true but remains perplexed
in the fact that the Justice continued to agree on meeting the latter and even initaited a phone
call shortly after the alleged bribe
- Broke the shield of confidentiality that covers disposition of cases in the Court