CA chief sidelines opinion of Rules Committee on justices' row
By Lala Rimando, abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak | 08/07/2008 9:16 AM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
The Court of Appeals' chief undermined the court's Rules Committee, which issued an opinion that did not confirm to his, in the ongoing controversy over the Meralco case, additional letters obtained by abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak show.
These letters are from the chairman of the CA's Rules Committee, Justice Edgardo Cruz, who noted that his June 19 letter—where he issued a decision on the controversial and high-profile Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) case—was snubbed by CA's Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr.
In another letter, dated August 4, Cruz reminded Vasquez about this decision and attached other correspondences prior to the June 23 oral argument on the Meralco case. Cruz also copy furnished Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno since Cruz said these June letters were not included in the documents that Vasquez submitted to the Supreme Court after the July 31 CA en banc meeting where they discussed the Meralco case.
It was Vasquez, in fact, who asked Cruz to rule on the rift over who among the squabbling divisions should handle the Meralco case. But when Cruz made a decision, in favor of Justice Bienvenido Reys of the 9th Division, Vasquez ignored it.
In an earlier story, we attributed Vasquez's behavior to weak leadership. He allowed the rift among the justice to continue when he could have stood by the Rules Committee decision. We also reported that he appeared to have undue interest in the case since his two daughters work with GSIS, a party to the case.
Cruz’s letter came two days before a Supreme Court panel was to start its investigation on the propriety of the appellate justices' actions.
Cruz wrote, "Under the situation, it is essential that the Supreme Court must have a complete picture of the case, particularly on what precipitated my opinion."
Had Vasquez heeded Cruz's opinion on the handling of the Meralco case in June, the rift among the appellate justices who were involved in the Meralco case would have not built up in the past two months and reached the current state where the Supreme Court had to intervene in the hope of salvaging the CA's integrity.
Unsolicited advice?
Cruz wrote the August 4 letter since he wanted to clarify impressions on his participation in the case.
Earlier, Justice Jose Sabio Jr., who acted as chairman of the old 9th division that originally handled the Meralco case, mentioned Cruz in his documentation of the Meralco-related events to Vasquez. Sabio referred to Cruz as a "junior justice" who was only rendering a "personal opinion" over the issue of who should preside over the oral argument in June 23.
Cruz wrote, "Justice Sabio's letter tends to create the impression that I intruded into his dispute with Justice [Bienvenido] Reyes and gave an unsolicited advice thereon."
Cruz wanted to highlight that his opinion was not personal nor was it unsolicited by attaching copies of the correspondences with Reyes, who was the designated chairman of the old 9th division.
Reyes, in his letter dated June 19, a Thursday, wanted to clarify with the Rules Committee, which Cruz chairs, who between him and Sabio should preside over the oral argument which was scheduled for June 23, the following Monday.
In his letter, Reyes noted that "There is now a dilemma as to whom the case should be properly given, whether to Justice Sabio, Jr. or to me…The case is scheduled for hearing on 23 and 24 June 2008. It is therefore necessary to resolve the issues raised herein before the hearing."
Reyes was on leave when the Meralco case was raffled to the 9th division, which he chairs, but was back to work by June 16, seven days before the scheduled oral argument.
More worthy to note, however, is the copy of Vasquez's letter to Cruz on June 20, a Friday, where the former was even endorsing Reyes's letter.
Vasquez’s endorsement letter to Cruz said: "Attached herewith is the letter of Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes seeking your opinion regarding an IRCA interpretation in the [Meralco] case. There is some urgency involved as the hearing of the case is on Monday, June 23, 2008."
Not exempted
Cruz wrote back also on June 20 that Reyes should chair the oral argument.
He responded that while Sabio acted as the chair of the old 9th division that issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in May, "the issuance of a TRO is not among the instances where 'the justices who participated' in the case share 'remain' therein."
In other words, the TRO, which favored the Lopez family and their allies who were in a legal battle with another Meralco shareholder, the government through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), is not among the exemptions in the CA's internal rules which was exactly what the Rules Committee was interpreting.
Accounts over what transpired between June 20 and right before the June 23 oral argument as documented in the correspondences submitted to the Supreme Court showed that Vasquez ignored Cruz's opinion. Instead, he gave his “personal opinion” favoring Sabio.
Earlier, Sabio sought Vasquez's opinion after getting a copy of Cruz's verdict. He called up Vasquez and mentioned that he "smelled something fishy," considered Cruz's opinion as a "personal opinion," and "wondered why the matter was not openly and deliberately discussed with [Vasquez]."
Instead, before the June 23 oral argument on the Meralco case, Sabio called Justice Martin Villarama whom he considered as "more senior and experienced" than Cruz, and sought his opinion on who should preside that morning.
Villarama then advised Sabio that his stand—based on chairing the division that issued the TRO as a reason to hold on to the case—was correct. He informed Vasquez that Villarama then told him that he "should remain in this case."
It seemed that Vasquez allowed Sabio's and Villarama's opinion to reign over that of the Cruz's of the Rules Committee. Vasquez's July 24 letter to Reyes and Justice Vicente Roxas, the case's ponente, explained why.
Vasquez wrote: " My personal opinion on the matter, for whatever worth it may be, is that the Division that issued the temporary restraining order should continue resolving the injunctive prayer in the petition…"
Vasquez reasoned that before the oral argument, GSIS had a pending motion to lift the TRO so Sabio who headed the 9th division that issued it should continue handling the case.
Rules Committee sidelined
By July 4, the issue of the Meralco case evolved from who among the justices to what division should handle it. Vasquez himself implemented the mandated reorganization at the CA, which resulted in the transfer of Roxas to the new 8th division. The internal rules say that the Meralco case should be handled by the division wherever Roxas is since he is the case's ponente.
Even with the reorganization, Vasquez still held the opinion that since Sabio already presided over the Oral Argument in June 23 where there was a pending motion to replace the 60-day TRO with a more permanent preliminary injunction, Sabio and the former 9th division should continue handling the case.
One month after and with more wrangling among the justices involved in the Meralco case, the new 8th division issued on July 24 not a preliminary injunction but a decision, which favored the Lopezes and their allies.
All throughout July and in the run up to the 8th division's issuance of their decision, the Rules Committee's opinion in June was already sidelined.
The Rules Committee was not tapped again, since according to Vasquez in his July 28 letter to all the 65 CA justices, "Some intervening events and novel situations, which I believe are not covered by our internal Rules…" has prompted him to call for the en banc meeting last July 31 where it was decided that the Supreme Court should already step in.
Cruz, however, had to call the attention of the Supreme Court before the assigned panel starts their investigation to inform them of his committee's position early on.
