CA Justice Roxas ignored advise to inhibit from Meralco case
by ARIES C. RUFO, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 08/19/2008 5:54 PM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
HE was warned against sticking to the Meralco case amid swirling talks that he was on the take. He vowed to take the brotherly advise but did the opposite.
Warned that an inhibition would be the best recourse, Court of Appeals (CA) Justice Vicente Roxas ignored the advise of colleague Justice Martin Villarama Jr. and promulgated the decision favoring the Lopez family over its corporate war with the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Lopez family over Meralco.
Roxas was warned the case could blow on his face and “that’s what happened,” Villarama said.
At the continuation of hearings on the bribery case Tuesday, Villarama related to the Supreme Court committee looking into the attempted bribery scandal that Roxas was wary that Justice Jose Sabio would control the proceedings of the case.
Sabio was the acting chair of the Special Ninth Division that originally heard and issued the temporary restraining order against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from intervening in the Lopez-GSIS corporate squabble. The case was eventually decided by the Eighth Division following a reorganization in the CA. Roxas was the one (ponencia) who penned the decision.
Prior to the promulgation of his ponencia on the Meralco case, Villarama said Roxas had asked for his advise on how to resolve the protracted issue on who between Sabio and Eighth Division chair Bienvenido Reyes should chair the division on the Meralco case. The two talked in Villarama’s office.
Villarama observed that Roxas was “not comfortable” with Sabio continuing to hear the case. “My reading was he was worried of the way things are,” Villarama said.
Villarama suggested that Roxas allow the Special Ninth Division---then composed of acting chair Sabio, Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal, and Roxas—to resolve first the injunctive relief filed by GSIS before resolving the jurisdiction issue.
But Villarama said that in the event that the vote on the injunctive relief would not be unanimous, a division of five would have to be created to resolve the case. In such an event, there is danger that Roxas would no longer the ponencia if he finds himself in the minority.
The justice also said he told Roxas “that there is nothing in the Rule that prohibits you from inhibiting” in the case, after hearing some “reports outside.” It was not clear what these reports that Villarama had heard, but the GSIS has sought for Roxas’ inhibition after it supposedly received reports that the magistrate was seen talking with lawyers of the Lopezes.
“I told him to inhibit…..a problem might arise,” Villarama said.
At that point, Roxas stood up and said: “I think I will follow your suggestion.”
Villarama however was surprised when Roxas pushed through with the promulgation of the case. He sent a text message to Sabio about the turn of events but Sabio did not reply back.
Vasquez and the GSIS
Meanwhile, CA presiding justice Conrado Vasquez took exception to the imputation by Roxas that he has “interests” in the Meralco case since two of his daughters, sister Leonora de Jesus, and a niece are working with the GSIS.
Roxas earlier disclosed to the committee that Vasquez family members and relatives are employed in the GSIS. He said Vasquez did not disclose this to the en banc when they held a meeting to resolve the simmering dispute among CA members over the Meralco case.
Vasquez issued a decision favoring Sabio over Reyes.
Cross-examining Roxas, Vasquez asked the justice if his own daughter is able to influence his decisions. Roxas replied in the negative.
Seeking to disabuse the panel member’s perception, Vasquez informed them that he junked a petition filed by GSIS for a re-raffling of the case. He also said he was not aware that Roxas had already promulgated the decision on the Meralco case when he issued his ruling that it was not Special Ninth Division and not the Eighth Division which has jurisdiction of the case.
Pressed further, Roxas said he got his information on the employment and the salaries of Vasquez’s daughters, sister and niece at the GSIS from the column of Malaya publisher Amado Macasaet and an informant whom he refused to disclose.
The information was presented by Roxas to the panel as evidence.
This prompted Vasquez to raise question on the credibility of the information, saying what Roxas had were hearsay. “It can cost dishonor to my family,” he said.
Vasquez asked the panel to delete from the records Roxas’s testimony on his family members but the panel only noted his request.
