Meralco lawyer: CA did not "unceremoniously exclude" judge
abs-cbnnews.com | 07/28/2008 5:58 AM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
A reorganization within the appellate court and their internal rules on case assignments explain why a seemingly uninvolved associate justice penned a decision on the on-going legal battle between shareholders of Manila Electric Company (Meralco).
This was basically how the statement from Simeon V. Marcelo, a former Ombudsman turned private lawyer representing the Lopez family-dominated Meralco board, explained the circumstances that led to the July 24 Court of Appeals decision, which favored his client.
Marcelo issued the statement in response to the press statements of Estrella Elamparo-Tayag, his counterpart in the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). The Lopez family and management of Meralco are in a legal dispute with GSIS over control of the country’s biggest electricity distributor.
Elamparyo-Tayag said on Friday that the CA justice Jose Sabio, Jr., who presided the June 23 oral argument when Marcelo’s and Elamparo-Tayag’s legal teams each presented their legal grounds, was “unceremoniously excluded.”
It was a hint of devious schemes allegedly employed by Marcelo’s team that the former lead prosecutor of the legal team that prosecuted and secured the conviction of Estrada for plunder would not take sitting down.
The CA decision basically settles the question of jurisdiction on whether or not the Securities and Exchange Commission was the proper body to handle the GSIS' complaint on the proxy votes used in the highly publicized May 27 stockholders' meeting of Meralco.
In effect, the CA decision voided the SEC's show cause and cease and desist orders, which almost resulted in delaying the voting for directors in Meralco’s board last May 27. The CA ruled that the validation of proxies are considered part of “intra-corporate controversies,” which has been transferred from SEC to the regional trial courts already.
CA justice Vicente Roxas penned the decision.
Elamparo-Tayag questioned Roxas’s involvement in the case. Also, other sympathizers of GSIS president and General Manager Winston Garcia, said Sabio is “more impartial.”
Besides the change of personalities in the court involved the Meralco case, Elamparo-Tayag also questioned why their case was transferred to a new division—from the ninth to the eighth division.
Marcelo explained that when the GSIS/Meralco case was filed at the CA in May 29, two days after the eventful shareholders meeting, the CA justices conducted a raffle to determine who among the justices will hear the case.
It went to Roxas, effectively making him the ponente.
At the time, Roxas was still with the ninth division together with justice Myrna Vidal and justice Bienvenido Reyes.
The division chairman—in this case, Reyes—was the supposed to preside over the legal proceedings, but he was on leave during the oral arguments.
Sabio was assigned to take over Reyes’ post and responsibility (as chairman) after the justices raffled the responsibility among themselves.
With the three-man team complete—Roxas (ponente), Reyes (chairman), and Vidal (member)—the ninth division acted on Meralco’s prayer for a temporary restraining order to stop the effectivity of the orders from SEC.
Even if Roxas, the ponente, was in the ninth division, it was Sabio who also presided over as the oral arguments on June 23,
Marcelo cited the internal rules of CA wherein once a ponente for a case has been determined after a raffle, that justice should retain the case even if he is transferred to another division.
Roxas was actually moved to a new division—from the ninth to the eighth division—when in July 4, the CA reorganized following the compulsory retirement of three associate justices.
In the eight division, Reyes, who is still chairman, joined Roxas there. Their third member is justice Apolinario Bruselas.
With the CA’s internal rule on sticky assignments of the cases to justices, Roxas essentially remained as the GSIS/Meralco case’s ponente.
Marcelo also cited that the TRO which the ninth division (excluding Reyes) issued in May is not one of the four events that, based on the appellate court’s internal rules, could result in a situation where the temporarily assigned justice could retain a case. These situations include participating in giving due course to the petition; granting writ of preliminary injunction; granting new trial, and; granting execution pending appeal.
The TRO, Marcelo pointed out, does not qualify as a writ of preliminary injunction.
Marcelo also said that Sabio was not “unceremoniously excluded” because in the first place, Reyes was already back even before the June 23 oral argument. Marcelo said Sabio should have refrained already from acting as the ninth division chairman that time since it gave the wrong impression to GSIS supporters and lawyers on who is in-charge.
