Business Circuit

While it appears that the dismissal of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente Roxas and penalties imposed on his four other colleagues were unanimous decisions of the Supreme Court because it was per curiam, meaning no vote was identified as to source, there were actually divisions in the voting.

For example, newly appointed Associate Justice Arturo Brion, former secretary of labor, had argued for a mere reprimand against Justice Jose Sabio instead of the decision to suspend for two months.

He pointed out to his peers that Sabio should even be commended because he was the whistleblower that exposed a bribe attempt on him.

The flaw in this argument is that it assumes that the bribe attempt was true when in fact, nothing has been proven.

Justice Sabio, a professor of judicial ethics in the Ateneo School of Law, made himself look clean by declaring that he denied the bribe. Yes, he denied the bribe. But did he have to proclaim his honesty to the whole world?

Honesty is a virtue that is said of a man by other men, not the man himself. Sometimes, self-proclamation of having the virtues of honesty and integrity is interpreted as hypocrisy.

Associate Justice Presbiterio Velasco objected to the dismissal of Roxas. He told his peers that dismissal is a bit too cruel for the offense of violating judicial ethics by soliciting conformity on a decision he made on Meralco. He wanted a six-month suspension, but Justice Dante Tinga said this was too light. Velasco's s peers went for dismissal despite his arguments. He stood alone for Roxas.

It should not be said that Justice Velasco argued for Justice Roxas because they are both members of the Sigma Rho law fraternity in the University of theMONDAY |SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 | PHILIPPINES.

Neither should it be pointed out that Justice Velasco fought for a six-month suspension because he was the ponente of an administrative case filed against Roxas.

In the pen of Justice Velasco, the justice or judge has the sole discretion to accept or deny motions to dismiss.

That case involved a petition for a temporary restraining order sought by the aging Manuel Nieto. It turned out later that he did not know he signed the petition. He withdrew it pronto.

But Justice Roxas converted the TRO into an injunction. Justice Velasco sustained him in an administrative case.

Strangely, Roxas was fined P15,000 for a much lesser offense of delaying the decision on a case where he was supposed to be the ponente.

I do not personally know Justice Vicente Roxas, but let me say I doubt if he would file a motion for reconsideration on his dismissal from the service by the Supreme Court.

But if he does file the motion, the Court will simply throw it out.

The pattern of his treatment by the Supreme Court virtually dashes all his hopes of returning to the Court of Appeals.

Some of his colleagues whisper to each other that the sins of Roxas finally caught up with him.

If the image of the Court of Appeals has to be restored or refurbished, Justice Roxas simply has to go. He is dead meat, if one asks his colleagues.

And it is more honorable for Justice Roxas not to question his dismissal. Pick up the pieces and move on.

Self-examination might convince Roxas that he should not question his dismissal. In physics, there is such a thing as "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." That may well be the case of Roxas.

The luckiest lawyer in this mess is my friend, Jess Santos, one of the lawyers of the First Gentleman.

He got off without a scratch, although he could also be liable for violation of judicial ethics.

Santos told the panel that he called up Camilo Sabio, chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government, to convince his brother CA Justice Jose Sabio to rule in favor of the GSIS in its fight against Meralco.

Santos has no personality in the Meralco case. He was not anybody's counsel. But his credentials include the all-important fact of being one of the lawyers of the First Gentleman and member of the board of trustees of the GSIS.

But these relationships do not free from any liability in trying to intervene or influence a decision in a case pending in Court. That is a violation of judicial ethics.

The Supreme Court never saw the culpability of Santos. He simply got off unscathed. Lucky lawyer, this friend of mine.

Camilo Sabio must go

The Supreme Court decided to refer the fate of Camilo Sabio to the bar confidante who, I understand, was asked to look into the possibility of disbarment.

That is not enough, if anyone asks me.

He must first be removed as chairman of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. He has done enough harm in the good government body whose duty is to preserve sequestered assets by preventing their dissipation.

Sabio is largely responsible for the suspension of at least two years of the annual meeting of a public corporation, Philcomsat Holdings Corp., which is not even a sequestered company.

He claims that the $43 million recovered from the Marcoses is intact. So why doesn't he turn the money over to the National Treasury or to the Department of Agrarian Reform where it could be used to finance land acquisition for the landless as mandated by the Executive Order of former President Corazon Aquino creating the PCGG?

Sabio has traveled a few times, one or two of these to Washington with officials of the PCGG. The entourage included his wife who was given a travel allowance of $10,000 by the PCGG.