A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA September 9, 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 administrative matter arose from a letter dated August 1, 2008, by Court of Appeals Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., referring to the Supreme Court a highly publicized dispute and charges of impropriety among CA justices involved in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692, “Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.” (the Meralco-GSIS case). The Supreme Court constituted a Panel of Investigators. The relevant facts, as found by the Panel, are: On May 29, 2008, Meralco officers filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for a TRO against the SEC and GSIS. Presiding Justice Vasquez granted an urgent motion for a special raffle, and the case was raffled to Justice Vicente Q. Roxas. GSIS, through Atty. Estrella Elamparo, immediately moved for re-raffle. Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes was on leave, and Justice Jose C. Mendoza was designated Acting Chairman of his division but inhibited himself due to a past lawyer-client relationship with Meralco. Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. was then assigned as Acting Chairman of the Special Ninth Division by raffle. On May 30, Justice Sabio received a call from his brother, PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio, who, after being contacted by a GSIS trustee, tried to convince Justice Sabio of the “rightness” of the GSIS’s stand and asked him to help GSIS. Justice Sabio replied he would vote according to his conscience. GSIS also filed an urgent motion to inhibit Justice Roxas. Despite this, a TRO was issued on June 23, 2008, by a division reportedly composed of Justices Roxas, Sabio, and Dimaranan-Vidal. Controversy erupted when Justice Sabio publicly alleged that a businessman, Francis de Borja, offered him P10 million to inhibit himself from the case in favor of Justice Reyes (who was on leave but was reportedly claiming authority to act on the case). Justice Sabio submitted an affidavit detailing this alleged bribe offer. De Borja submitted a counter-affidavit claiming Justice Sabio had solicited the money. The Panel investigated these alleged improprieties and the alleged bribe offer/solicitation.

ISSUE

The primary issue for administrative adjudication is whether the involved justices of the Court of Appeals committed improprieties and violated judicial ethics in their actions concerning CA-G.R. SP No. 103692, including the allegations of a bribe offer and/or solicitation.

RULING

The Supreme Court, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Panel of Investigators, found several justices administratively liable. The Court emphasized the imperative for members of the Judiciary to adhere to the strictest code of ethics and highest standards of propriety. The ruling addressed the conduct of the involved justices individually based on the Panel’s evaluation of their actions in the case and surrounding events, including the conflicting allegations between Justice Sabio and Francis de Borja regarding the P10 million. The Court’s decision imposed disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal from service for the most severe violations, to uphold judicial integrity, independence, and propriety.