G.R. No. A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA October 15, 2008
RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 [Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.]

FACTS

This is an administrative matter concerning several motions for reconsideration of a Decision dated September 9, 2008, which sanctioned several justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) for improprieties or irregularities in connection with CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 (the Meralco-GSIS case). The motions for reconsideration were filed by: Justice Vicente Q. Roxas; Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.; Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.; Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal (via a Plea for Compassion and Clemency); and Mr. Francis de Borja. The Court’s Decision found administrative liabilities based on the investigation of a Panel regarding the conduct of the justices in relation to the case.

ISSUE

Whether the motions for reconsideration present substantial grounds to reverse the Court’s September 9, 2008 Decision imposing administrative sanctions on the concerned justices and Mr. Francis de Borja.

RULING

The Court DENIED all the motions for reconsideration, finding no substantial grounds to reverse its previous judgment. The Court discussed each motion in detail:
1. Justice Vicente Q. Roxas: His motion sought a reduction of his penalty from dismissal to, at most, a two-month suspension. The Court rejected his explanations for the haste in promulgating the decision, his actions amidst a chairmanship dispute, his claim that a “Transcript of Deliberation” was merely a draft, and his claim of good faith. The Court held that his actions, taken in context with other suspicious circumstances, showed undue interest in the case. His plea for mercy was noted but could not negate the penalty warranted by his actions to protect the judiciary’s integrity.
2. Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.: His motion sought a review of the finding of guilt for simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming a justice and the removal of his two-month suspension. The Court rejected his arguments, including that he did not violate ethical canons by speaking with his brother (Camilo Sabio) about the case, that he was merely defending his brother’s act, that his refusal to yield chairmanship was justified, and that his conversations were not indiscreet. The Court found his explanations unpersuasive and upheld the penalty.
3. Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.: His motion sought a reconsideration of the finding of impropriety and the admonition imposed on him. The Court rejected his arguments that he acted correctly in not resolving the chairmanship dispute immediately and that his actions were in good faith. The Court found that his failure to act promptly and decisively on the issue contributed to the confusion and upheld the admonition.
4. Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal: Her “Plea for Compassion and Clemency” was treated as a motion for reconsideration. The Court, considering her demonstrated repentance, immediate restitution, and sincere reform efforts, modified her penalty. The Court set aside the penalty of dismissal and instead deemed her resigned from the service (“forced resignation”) with entitlement to leave credits and retirement benefits, without prejudice to reemployment in government service.
5. Mr. Francis de Borja: His motion for reconsideration of the finding of indirect contempt and the P30,000 fine was denied. The Court found no merit in his arguments and upheld the penalty.
The Court stressed that its Decision was fully supported by the facts on record and in accordance with law and jurisprudence. The administrative findings were separate from the merits of the underlying Meralco-GSIS case. The Court emphasized its duty to protect and preserve the integrity and independence of the Court of Appeals and the Judiciary.