BY EVANGELINE DE VERA

THE Court of Appeals’ committee on rules was powerless in deciding which division would hear the Meralco case, Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. yesterday told a three-man panel of the Supreme Court investigating the alleged bribery and irregularities in the CA.

Taking the witness stand for the first time, Vasquez admitted that he tried to mediate between Associate Justices Jose Sabio Jr. and Bienvenido Reyes but to no avail.

Panel member former Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr. quizzed Vasquez on why the impasse between the two justices was not settled before the June 23 oral arguments on the case.

Former SC Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino heads the panel. The other member is Flerida Ruth Romero.

Callejo also asked Vasquez if he took any action after Justice Edgardo Cruz, chair of the committee on rules, issued his opinion that Reyes should preside the Ninth Division that handled the Meralco case.

Vasquez said that he relayed Cruz’ opinion to Reyes and Sabio but Sabio chose to "cling" to his interpretation of the CA’s rules, on the ground that he was more senior to Cruz and that he issued the opinion in his personal capacity and not as chair of the committee, which was non-existent at the time.

Vasquez said Reyes also insisted that he could not relinquish the chairmanship as he could be charged with dereliction of duty for not attending the hearing.

"I did not do anything anymore, your honor," Vasquez said, prompting Callejo to admonish him.

"Would it have been better if the rules committee had been reconstituted, and for the justices to reset the June 23, 2008 hearing to determine who should have the chairmanship? Wouldn’t that have been better? What is important to the CA, seniority or the legality of the opinion?" Callejo said.

Callejo said that the CA would have been better off had its internal and committee on rules been functioning properly.

Vasquez said he had not thought of convening the panel at that time because he was hoping that the justices concerned would resolve the matter among themselves.

He agreed with Callejo’s observation that CA’s internal rules need to be amended to enable its members to address some "gray areas," including the resolution of conflict over chairmanship.

Sabio and Reyes asserted their rights over the chairmanship of the Ninth Division, which issued the temporary restraining order enjoining the Securities and Exchange Commission from enforcing its cease-and-desist order on the counting of proxy votes of the Lopez group during the stockholders meeting last May 28.

Sabio was designated acting chairman of the Ninth Division after Reyes went on leave in the middle of May. He returned to duty on June 10.

Callejo also said that he found it disturbing that Vasquez did nothing when Sabio told him about the alleged P10 million bribe by businessman Francis Roa de Borja in exchange for inhibiting himself from the Meralco case.

He said Vasquez as presiding justice should have found it imperative to coordinate with the National Bureau of Investigation.

"The NBI could have protected your justices from the corrupting influences of persons in the outside," he said.

Vasquez said the CA will take appropriate steps so that a similar event will not be repeated.

Also during the hearing, the SC panel also questioned Associate Justice Vicente Roxas, who penned the July 23 decision, as to why he was in such a hurry to have the decision promulgated when there was a pending opinion that he sought from Vasquez to resolve the impasse over the chairmanship of the Ninth Division.

Grino-Aquino observed that on July 14, 2008, Roxas already had a ponencia or decision ready when in fact on the same date, the parties involved had just submitted their respective memoranda.

She said that the TRO was to expire on June 29, which means that the division still had six days between the issuance of the decision and the TRO expiry. She also asked Roxas why the other justices were kept in the dark regarding the promulgation of the decision.

Citing the CA internal rules, Roxas said that when the justices of a division have already signed the ponencia, "the ponente has no discretion but to immediately promulgate."

"When I saw that Justice Reyes did not dissent, I had no choice but to promulgate. It was already out of my hands," he said.

Roxas explained that on July 14, both he and Justice Apolonio Bruselas had already signed the decision, but Reyes signed it only on the 23rd.

Callejo noted that the action of Roxas to promulgate the decision early preempted the action of Vasquez.

Former SC Justice Romero said that she found it unusual that the justices waited for Reyes for a long time to sign the decision, yet they could not extend the same courtesy to a presiding justice to resolve their conflicts.

"Why did you not give due courtesy accorded to a presiding justice by not informing him that you have come up with a decision?" she said.

Meanwhile, a daughter of Justice Sabio confirmed to the panel the P10 million bribe for her father and at the same time belied reports she was used by her father to curry the sympathy of Chief Justice Reynato Puno.

Atty. Sylvia Jo Sabio, who works for Puno, said it was her own suggestion to her father to write the chief magistrate in light of his efforts to curb corruption in the judiciary and to cleanse its ranks.

During questioning by Rafael Armovit, De Borja’s counsel, Sabio justified the P300,000 payment from the Roa family for legal advice while he was still a trial court judge in Cagayan de Oro City in the sale of a property in 1993.

Sabio claimed that he accepted the amount not as a judge but as a "confidant and family adviser." He added that the amount was a "gift."

Armovit pointed out that by accepting the money Sabio violated certain provisions of the Canon of Judicial Conduct in engaging in private practice of law in his concurrent position as judge; receiving gifts and bequests in his capacity as an officer of the court; and in having financial and business dealings with parties who are likely to come before his court.