Business Circuit

Sabio talks, selectively

Jose Sabio, associate justice of the Court of Appeals, is an enigma. He talks selectively to his peers but seeks and gets wide publicity in media. On the surface, his motive is to denounce the alleged bribe allegedly made to him by an emissary of the Lopezes of Meralco.

Justice Sabio claims that he informed Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Martin Villarama, of the offer prior to July 25. The offer, he said, was made on July 1.

It would have been decent and proper for him to inform the Court - the division handling the Meralco case - of what he told Vasquez and Villarama regarding the alleged bribe.

He could have told them that the same offer might be made to the division handling the case, that they should watch out but the decision to refuse or reject the bribe was purely the decision of the division chaired by Justice Bienvenido Reyes.

He refused to disclose anything to the members of the division, probably because he was sure that in spite if the rules, he could usurp the functions of Justice Reyes as chairman, although he took over the latter’s job in a temporary capacity and should have given it up upon the return of the regular chairman.

Informing the justices concerned was a solemn duty since the bribe offer would put in doubt the integrity of the justice system. Sabio seems to have forgotten all that and decided to talk to the Vasquez and Villarama instead. The two are not involved in the Meralco case.

Media blitz

The decision of the Eighth Division in favor of Meralco was made on July 23, 2008. However, he informed Justice Bruselas of the same division for the first time only on July 25.

My source in the Court told me that on the same day, Justice Sabio made a series of phone calls to Justices Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Justice Reyes, chairman of the division, of the alleged attempted bribery.

He went on to say that he would expose the bribe offer to media. And he did with gusto.

What did he seek to accomplish in his media blitz? Cast doubt on the decision made on July 23, make it look dirty and destroy or expose what might be corruption in the Court? Or did he think that by so doing, he strengthened his argument that he should have been the ponente in the case?

In many of the statements that he made to media, he never mentioned that under the internal rules, the temporary nature of the chairmanship of the Eighth Division does not entitle him to stay with the case. The reason is simple. The regular chairman Bienvenido Reyes was back from leave of absence.

He accomplished two things. First, he placed the integrity of the Court in doubt with his media blitz.

Second, he created the impression that the decision is tainted and that he could do it with a more semblance of justice and fairness. But then, the rules prevented him from doing that.

Substituting for Justice Reyes who was on leave, Justice Sabio signed on May 30, 2008, the temporary restraining order sought by Meralco against the Securities and Exchange Commission with Justices Vicente Roxas and Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal. The case was set for hearing on June 23. The 60-day TRO was valid until about the end of July.

Justice Reyes, regular chairman of the division, reported back for work on June 16.

Decency, if not the rules, would have forced Sabio to yield to Reyes since the former was a temporary chairman. He did not do so. He usurped the chairmanship of Reyes without any authority and violated the internal rules.

It must again be stressed that a dirty trick was played on Reyes during the June 23 hearing. Reyes and other witnesses saw his name plate on the table of the hearing room. Reyes thought that Sabio had given up the temporary chairmanship.

By some weird change of events, the parties in the case, including the justices, were ordered to transfer to another hearing room.

Reyes got the surprise of his life. In his place is the name plate of Justice Sabio as chairman with the same members, Justices Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente Roxas, the ponente.

The trick of denying Reyes of the chairmanship that belongs to him is a shameful act.

But then, Sabio succeeded in his obsession to stay with the case without knowing from the presiding justice where Reyes would be transferred to.

We might say the division had two chairmen, the regular one, Justice Reyes and the temporary one, Justice Sabio who substituted for the former while he was on leave but was back in time for the hearing.

On July 26, three days after a decision was made in favor of Meralco, Justice Sabio wrote Conrado Vasquez, presiding justice detailing to him the bribe offer. The following day, Sabio made good his threat to go to media.

Queries were made to the presiding justice by the contending justices. In response, Vasquez declared that he had doubts whether or not he has the authority to rule on the dispute between two divisions in his court.

I thought that the dispute was not between two divisions. It was between two justices, Bienvenido Reyes, the permanent chairman of the division and Justice Sabio who refused to vacate as temporary chairman upon the return of Reyes.

The presiding justice might have added fuel to the fire when he refused or failed to remind Sabio of his court’s internal rules, made as early as 2002, that a justice who is first assigned to the case carries the case with him for resolution wherever he goes.

On June 25, 2008, Vasquez issued a reorganization order approved by Supreme Court. Consequently, the ponente in the case, Justice Vicente Roxas found himself transferred to the Eighth Division with Reyes as chairman and Justice Apolinario Bruselas.

Sabio was assigned as chairman of the Sixth Division where he has Justice Jose Reyes, senior member, and Justice Myrna Dimaranan who signed the TRO with Sabio in the Ninth Division where the case was publicly raffled to.

By insisting that he remained chairman of the division that belongs to Reyes, Sabio in effect had two chairmanships although the other was temporary and violates the rules.

Yet, the Presiding Justice declared that he doubts his authority to resolve the dispute.

That tells a lot.

Justice Vasquez’ relatives in the GSIS

It may be presumed that many, if not all of the justices in the Court of Appeals know that Conrado Vasquez Jr., has two daughters and a first cousin working with the GSIS, opponent of Meralco in the case.

Some of his peers are of the opinion that before he presided over the en banc meeting, he should have officially announced that Maria Ruth Almira G. Vasquez, his daughter, works with office of the corporate secretary in the GSIS. His other daughter, Maria Agnes Rosario G. Vasquez works as a dentist in the Medical Department of the GSIS, and that another relative, Luisa J. Hernandez, daughter of his sister Leny V. de Jesus, a friend of mine, is connected with the office of the vice president, treasury of the GSIS.

If it was his desire to avoid suspicions of impartiality, he would have inhibited himself, not only from the administrative case between two feuding justices Reyes and Sabio but from the Meralco case itself.

He did not officially tell the justices about his relatives working in the office of the opponent of Meralco. Neither did he ever think of inhibiting himself precisely because of having these blood relatives in the GSIS.

Again, this tells a lot.

After the case was brought to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Reynato Puno inhibited himself in the en banc discussion because Sabio’s daughter worked in his office as court attorney.

Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago inhibited herself because she has a daughter working for Meralco. Justice Antonio Carpio did not participate because his former law firm, Carpio Villaraza, was counsel of Meralco.

The three are decent and honorable jurists who avoided any taint of partiality.