‘The case to me was quite simple except that the parties are not’-Justice Bruselas
Purple S. Romero, Newsbreak, abs-cbnNEWS.com | 08/11/2008 10:01 AM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
Court of Appeals Justice Apolinario Bruselas, one of the three justices who concurred with the decision that favored Meralco in its legal battle versus the Government Service Insurance System, said in his affidavit that there is nothing “irregular” about this.
He signed the July 23 ponencia of Justice Vicente Roxas which junked the Securities and Exchange Commission cease-and-desist order against Meralco because he fulfilled his responsibilities as a member of the 8th division in the light of a prior reorganization.
In the affidavit Bruselas submitted to the Supreme Court committee investigating the alleged attempted bribery in the Court of Appeals, Bruselas said that under Rule 2, Section VI, a temporary restraining order is not one of the exceptions where the case remains with the justice in case of a transfer.
Brusleas wrote in his affidavit submitted August 7 that the general rule in the process of adjudication is: “every case, whether appealed or original, assigned to a justice for study and report shall be retained by him even if he is transferred to another division…”
He explained: “The two other justices who shall participate in the adjudication are necessarily the members of the division where the ponente (Justice for study and report) is assigned.”
“I did not force myself into the case nor replace anyone in a disharmonious way just to take part in the decision-making process. I was simply ‘re-organized’ to the 8th Division where the ponente J. Roxas…had been likewise moved, Bruselas wrote in his six-page affidavit. (See Research for full text of affidavit)
Moreover, Bruselas said he learned about the attempted bribe offer to Justice Jose Sabio Jr. only after the decision on the Meralco case was promulgated. He wrote: “Had I been seasonably informed of the indecent proposal that J. Sabio saw fit to tell me via telephone (on the 24th of July) only after the decision was promulgated, I would have readily recused as it would have been the proper and ethical thing to do by any member of the Court…”
Immediately after Bruselas learned of the incident, he said he brought the matter to Vasquez to Justices Bienvenido Reyes and Vicente Roxas.
Commercial court judge
He also explained in his affidavit that his background as a former judge in a special commercial court in Quezon City helped him resolved the case quickly. “The case to me was quite simple except that the parties are not,” he wrote.
Bruselas served as a judge of the special commercial court for eight years, until 2003 when he was appointed to the Court of Appeals. It was in the same year when he was awarded the judicial excellence award.
In the initial hearing last August 7, Bruselas said he was surprised why he was implicated in the scandal when he only carried out his obligations as a member of the eighth division.
The Supreme Court investigating committee is led by retired Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino. Members are also retired Supreme Court Justices Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo Sr.
Moreover, Bruselas said that changes concerning justices who act on final reports brought about by routine changes in the compositions of the divisions do happen. “One only has to ask a Division Clerk of Court or the chamber staff of justices to know that these sorts of things do happen and they have never been labeled as irregular or unceremonious,” he wrote.
In conclusion, he wrote: “Whatever happens at the end of the investigation, the credibility of the institution, the respectability, reputation of individuals had been affected.”
Background
Justices Roxas and Reyes of the 8th Division, who were accused of “unceremoniously” excluding Justices Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Sabio Jr. from the Meralco-GSIS case, cited in their previous communications to Vasquez the following rule in arguing for their jurisdiction over the case:
“Rule VI Section 2. When in an original action or petition for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course, (2) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall remain with the Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices who participated therein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station.”
They contended that the temporary restraining order issued by the 9th Division under its acting chair Sabio is not one of the exceptions where the case remains with the justice regardless of transfer.
Sabio, Vidal and Roxas issued the temporary restraining order against the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 30 which prohibited them from implementing a show-cause order against Anthony Rosete, corporate secretary of Meralco.
The said rule, however, was followed by revelations of the alleged P10 million-bribe offered by businessman Francis Roa de Borja to Sabio in exchange for dropping the Meralco-GSIS case. Sabio said de Borja was a “Meralco emissary” but this has been denied both by Meralco and de Borja.
Sabio, in his July 26 letter to Vasquez and in the affidavit he submitted last August 27, alleged that since he turned down the bribe offer, the transfer of the Meralco-GSIS case to Reyes et al appeared as another maneuver to ease him out of the case and secure a win for the Lopez-owned power utility.
Bone of contention
Reyes and Roxas invoked the above rule following the reorganization of justices in the Court of Appeals on July 4, where along with their transfer to the 8th Division, the Meralco-GSIS case, which was originally handled by Roxas, Sabio and Vidal, also fell on their lap.
Reyes cited this in his June 19 letter to Vasquez, when he sought clarification on who should properly handle the Meralco-GSIS case after his return from leave. Reyes is the designated chairman of the 9th Division, which Sabio chaired in an acting capacity during his absence.
On the other hand, Roxas filed an interpleader petition on July 21 where he also invoked the above rule to contend the “rightful” jurisdiction of the 8th Division over the Meralco-GSIS case.
Unresolved motions
However, according to Vasquez, what made Rule VI, Section 2 inapt for application, aside from the murky bribery mess, is the fact that two motions are yet to be resolved:
a. A motion filed by GSIS on May 30 to lift the temporary restraining order issued by the Ninth Division, then chaired by Sabio, on the same day.
b. Another motion filed by the government pension system asking Roxas to inhibit himself from the case for he allegedly met with the Meralco lawyers in the morning of the issuance of the TRO.
Along with the above motions which have been reportedly disregarded, an IRCA rule was also purportedly overlooked by the warring justices. According to Vasquez in his July 24 response to Reyes’s letter and Roxas’s interpleader motion, this is Section 7(b) of Rule VI.
The said rule stipulates that “a motion for reconsideration of a decision or other members of the Division, whether of 3 or 5, and whether regular or acting, who participated in the rendition of the decision or resolution sought to be reconsidered, irrespective of whether such members are already in other Divisions at the time the motion for reconsideration is filed or acted upon, provided that they still in the same station, otherwise Section 2, Rule 6 shall apply.”
Rule committee
The body that has the mandate to straighten differing interpretations on IRCA is the Rules Committee, currently chaired by Justice Edgardo Cruz.
Cruz gave an opinion on the jurisdiction dispute between Reyes and Sabio on June 20, where he invoked Rule VI Sec. 2 and stated that Reyes should take over the Meralco-GSIS case following his return from leave.
In the last hearing, however, Cruz said that the rules committee failed to convene on the issue as a body, but he issued an opinion due to the “urgency” of the matter.
The rules committee has only two members. Cruz said that the committee has yet to complete its members following the death of Justice Roberto Barrios last year.
