May 29, 2008 – Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) files a petition with the Court of Appeals which questions the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to intervene in the power utility’s contentious proxy validation held on May 27, 2008. Meralo argues that it is the regional trial court which has jurisdiction over the dispute.

The Lopez-owned power distributor also seeks for the nullification of an SEC cease-and-desist order and the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining SEC to implement a show cause order against Anthony Rosete, corporate secretary of Meralco.

Following the temporary leave of Justice Bienvenido Reyes, chair of the 9th Division where Meralco’s petition is initially raffled off, Meralco files an urgent motion for a re-raffle. Aside from Reyes, other members of the 9th Division include Justice Vicente Roxas, the ponente, and Justice Myrna Vidal.

A raffle is conducted for the division’s acting third member, who eventually became Justice Jose Mendoza. However, Mendoza inhibits himself from the case because he is a former legal counsel of the power utility.

Another raffle is held and Justice Jose Sabio is designated acting chairman of the Ninth Division.

The Government Insurance Service System (GSIS) files an urgent ex parte motion which asks for a re-raffle of the case on the ground that the petition was raffled in the absence of a legal representative from the state pension fund.

May 30, 2008 - The 9th Division rules in favor of Meralco and issues the TRO, which would lapse in 60 days, against SEC. Hearings on oral arguments are scheduled on July 23 and 24. GSIS files an urgent motion to lift the TRO. 

Sabio says Roxas, the ponente, personally brought the TRO he prepared to Sabio’s office.

June 16 – Reyes returns from leave.

June 19 – Reyes consults CA Rules Committee chairman Justice Edgardo Cruz on who should hear the oral argument scheduled for June 23.

June 20 – In a letter to Reyes, which Sabio got a copy of, Cruz says Reyes should decide the Meralco case as the designated chair of the 9th Division   
Sabio calls PJ Vasquez, saying Cruz was acting in his personal capacity, and says the letter offends him since Cruz is junior to him in the court. Sabio also wonders why Reyes bypassed and did not openly deliberate and discuss the issue with PJ Vasquez.  

June 23 – Oral argument.

Sabio, in his letter to CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, says he consulted a more senior colleague, Justice Martin Villarama Jr. before the hearing and asked him if he (Sabio) should stay on the case. Villarama advised him to remain with the case. Sabio described Villarama as “a more senior, experienced, and respected member of this court for consultation and guidance.”

The oral argument is held by the 9th Divison, with Sabio still at the helm. The parties are ordered to submit their respective memoranda 15 days after.

According to a motion filed by Meralco, however, they got the impression that Reyes would preside over the hearing after they were initially led to a room where a name plate of Reyes was placed at the table. But they were eventually re-directed to another room where the name plates contained ‘Sabio, Roxas and Vidal.’

Roxas, in his statement to the CA en banc, said that such incident “caused by Sabio was the talk of the Court of Appeals for weeks.”

June 25 – PJ Vasquez issues an order, previously approved by SC, to reorganize the court effective July 4 since three justices retired/were about to retire, while two new justices are about to be appointed.

July 1 – Sabio meets with a businessman allegedly brokering for Meralco and wangles a P10 million-bribe for him to hand over the case to Reyes.
In the account of Sabio, he says the emissary mentioned that other means will be resorted to have Justice Reyes assume the chairmanship.

July 4 – The CA Division is reorganized following the retirement of Associate Justices Lucenito Tagle, Agustin Dizon and Rodrigo Cosico last June.
Reyes and Roxas are transferred to the 8th Division, with Justice Apolinario Bruselas as the third member. Sabio and Vidal move to the 6th Division.

July 8 –Reyes goes to Sabio’s office to discusss, among others, the chairmanship of the 9th division handling the Meralco case.  Sabio informs Reyes of the P10 million-bribe.

July 10 – Meralco files an urgent motion for Reyes to assume the chairmanship of the hearing division. The company argues that according to the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA), a case can remain with the justices only when giving due course, granting a writ of preliminary injunction, a new trial, or of execution pending appeal.   

July 11 – Meralco and GSIS file their respective memoranda. Meralco assails the government for its purported moves to seize the power utility, while GSIS insists Meralco should have taken heed of the SEC order.

Sabio makes a resolution referring the “Urgent Motion for Justice B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship” to the respondents for comment and forwards it to the office of Roxas, but is allegedly not released.

Vidal says she signed the ponencia of Roxas (50 pages) on the same day, but Roxas took the decision from her because he reportedly has to incorporate 10 additional pages.   

July 14 – The 8th Division holds final deliberations. In the transcript of the deliberations, Roxas says that he “deliberately” chooses not to inform Justices Sabio and Vidal that the 8th division would take over the case because he wants to look for “other opportunities” to explain the situation so as not to hurt his colleagues’ feelings.

Sabio and Roxas are in a flag raising ceremony together. Sabio tells Roxas he and Vidal want to discuss the memoranda since Sabio already read them.

The rollo of the case and finalized decision are officially transmitted by Roxas to Bruselas, then by Bruselas to Reyes.

July 17 – Bruselas reportedly signs “corrected” decision.

July 21 – Roxas files an interpleader petition where he asks Vasquez to stop Sabio and Vidal from “clinging” to the case, adding that the two could not argue that they were exempted from the case following the reorganization of the division.

July 22 – Reyes writes PJ Vasquez, referring to conversations during July 17 meeting, and asks  the latter to rule on the impasse.

Between July 14 and 22, Roxas, through various memoranda, urges Reyes to just dissent so that a division of five could be convened in time to decide before the TRO expires on July 30.  

Reyes tells Vasquez that Meralco’s motion for his assumption of the hearing division should be internally resolved (based on the IRCA), and not by private litigants. Reyes also states that the issuance of a TRO is not among one of the instances where the case should stay with the justices in the face of division movements. Reyes stresses that the chairman of the committee on rules and ponente (Roxas) echo his position.

“Again, the PJ has to urgently decide on the matter… Otherwise, deadlock of opinions…”

July 24 – Reyes transmits the rollo of the case and the finalized decision to Roxas.

The 8th Division promulgates its decision, which junks the SEC cease-and-desist order. They also rule that the SEC has no jurisdiction over the questioned proxy validation.  

July 25 – Vasquez issues his reply to the Interpleader-Petition filed by Roxas and the letter sent by Reyes, where he says that the division that issued the TRO should continue hearing the case because of their familiarity with the petition – they were present and participated in the hearing on oral arguments

Vidal writes Vasquez on the “apparent and obvious irregularities in the handling of CA GR SP No. 103692,” adding that she agrees with the decision favoring Meralco and that she already signed a draft decision signed by Roxas (Note: Vidal says Roxas personally presented to her the final decision, which she studied, then signed. But Roxas did not forward to Sabio because he will still add 10 pages). Vidal questions why she is not informed that it was the 8th division that will decide on it, is disappointed that judicial courtesy is not observed—she is taken out of the case after she spent time studying it and signed the draft decision.

GSIS, in a press release, says that Sabio was “unceremoniously excluded” from the case.

Sabio calls Bruselas and Vidal and relays to them the alleged bribery attempt of a Meralco emissary.

Bruselas personally meets with Vasquez to discuss phone call of Sabio. He says this is the first time to hear that “background.” Troubled, Bruselas says he called Reyes that day and asked if he knows of this “background.” Reyes says yes, and when Bruselas asked why missed telling him, Reyes “leaned back and said that he thought he mentioned it to me; that it may have escaped his mind, and that nevertheless, it had no place in the deliberation on the case.”

July 25 – Bruselas files a memorandum for Vasquez where he relays Sabio’s call. He earlier relays this personally to Vasquez July 24. Bruselas mentions the P10 million bribe to Sabio. Bruselas wonders why the information came very late, though joins Sabio in calling for a probe into the matter. Bruselas also recounts that during meeting with PJ Vasquez, Vidal walked in and said she received same phone call from Sabio.

Media starts reports on rift among the justices handling the case.

July 26 – Sabio writes Vasquez and informs him about the bribery attempt. He also pushes for an investigation following the hasty promulgation of the decision and his and Vidal’s ‘unceremonial ouster’ from the case. He questions the timing of the decision, which was handed down days before the TRO lapsed.  

July 28 –Bruselas delivers his July 25 letter to Vasquez. He says he just got a copy of Sabio’s letter that day, so he called Sabio and supported him in the call to investigate the bribery.

Vasquez gives all of the CA justices copies of the correspondences he received from the justices, and calls for an en banc session.

July 30 – The 60-day TRO ends.

July 31 – CA en banc meeting

The 65-member en banc tosses the investigation on the alleged bribery to the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator. They also ask the CA rules committee to settle the different interpretations of the IRCA.

Meanwhile, a businessman named Francis Roa de Borja alleges in his affidavit that Sabio informed him that the government offered the CA justice a Supreme Court seat in return for a pro-GSIS decision. When asked however what would take him to decline such offer, Sabio reportedly answered “P50 million.” Sabio denies Borja’s allegations.

August 1 – Sabio says he will file bribery, perjury and libel charges against de Borja. He also says that Meralco chairman Manuel ‘Manolo’ Lopez was with de Borja, “waiting at the car,” when the businessman offered him the P10 million bribe.

Lopez, in a press conference, denies Sabio’s claim and shows his boarding pass to the media to prove that he was abroad when the alleged bribe attempt was made. Several senators urge for a swift investigation into the matter.