Business Circuit

Circumstantial evidence

If one examines closely what now appears as planned confusion in the Meralco-GSIS controversy, we find ourselves looking at a string of "circumstantial" evidence that indicates the lengths that powerful people will go to grab from the Lopez group the management of Meralco.

There is common agreement in legal circles that the Supreme Court was right in dismissing CA Justice Vicente Roxas. The debate is whether he was fired for the right reasons.

The question variously asked even by us ordinary mortals is whether Roxas would have been dismissed if he had not decided against the GSIS. I hazard the educated guess that he would have kept his seat in the CA if he had obeyed orders from what I earlier described as unseen hands personified by the GSIS.

On the surface, the dismissal of Justice Roxas has nothing to do with the merits of the GSIS case. But the case is itself is the reason Roxas was dismissed. If it was his past record, he would have been dismissed much sooner over a more serious case, not just violation of judicial ethics.

Planned confusion

The case is rather simple, an administrative matter that reached the Supreme Court because CA presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. would not decide who between Justice Bienvenido Reyes and Justice Jose Sabio would finally handle the case.

The fight between the two magistrates would have been considered moot after the GSIS elevated its appeal to the Supreme Court instead of filing a motion for reconsideration against the ruling of Justice Vicente Roxas.

But saucers started flying after Justice Sabio who claims he has a superior right over Reyes in the case, charged that he was offered a P10 million bribe and would allegedly decide in favor of any group which can dish out P50 million.

One thing led to another. Accusations of violations of judicial ethics started flying. The Supreme Court was forced to create a panel of three retired jurists to investigate the matter.

It submitted its report to the en banc finding five CA justices as having violated the code of judicial ethics. Strangely, the panel did not recommend sanctions.

An investigating body almost always submits a report recommending acquittal or indictment or some punishment for those who were investigated.

Why the panel did not is a constant source of wonder although it must be said that the integrity and reputation of the panel headed by former justice Carolina Griño Aquino has never been held in doubt.

It is now extremely difficult to guess what the panel might have recommended to the en banc.

Would it have told the en banc to dismiss Justice Roxas?

Would it have recommended the same or more harsh action than severe reprimand on CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez?

These questions have no answers. The answers are found in what the Supreme Court did, namely dismiss Roxas, suspend Sabio, etc.

The panel did not go beyond fact finding but spared Jess Santos, lawyer of the First Gentleman who declared that he called Camilo Sabio to tell his brother Justice Jose to vote in favor of the GSIS.

The little law I know is that nobody, least of all a lawyer, is allowed to discuss a case with a judge outside his court and if the discussion or debate is between the lawyers of the litigants.

Camilo Sabio took the call. He was recommended for disbarment. Jess Santos made the call. He was set free. Justice Jose Sabio took the call from his brother Camilo. He was suspended for two months.

The National Association of Electricity Consumers for Reform (Nasecore) filed cases of syndicated estafa against officials of Meralco, including its chairman Manolo Lopez.

The allegation is that Meralco booked as income the deposits on electric meters made by the consumers.

A question that one might ask is the timing of the filing. Would Nasecore have filed the estafa cases if the cease and desist order hastily issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission had been obeyed instead of defied by Manolo Lopez.

If Lopez had obeyed the order, the GSIS would have called its own meeting, elected a board of directors and appointed a management team.

This could happen because the CDO had the effect of nullifying or invalidating the Lopez proxies.

If it had gone that way, the directors and officers of Meralco would have been elected by minority number of shares. That would not be considered as hostile takeover. It would have been the most arrogant show of the use of political force and arrogance.

Because it failed to take over by foul means, Meralco officials will be tried for syndicated estafa and rot in jail until acquittal - if they will be acquitted - since the alleged offenders are not entitled to bail.

Meralco's image

The intention of filing syndicated estafa charges after the GSIS failed to effect what might be considered an illegal takeover is clearly to cast doubts on the integrity and honesty of the Meralco management team, particularly its chairman, Manolo Lopez. I have not heard anybody telling me that the Lopezes should spend their lives in jail for syndicated estafa.

On the contrary, the word goes around variously from mouth to mouth is that what appears to be determined takeover of Meralco by the GSIS is worse than what the Marcos regime did to the Lopez family.

Marcos provided a legal cover. The company was returned to the family by the government of Corazon Aquino.

If the present attempt to take over Meralco succeeds, in whose hands will the company finally end up?

We do not know. But whoever they are, they will not return Meralco to the Lopezes even if the family has to pay through the nose to get back their own company.

The powerful people or unseen hand behind the takeover attempt have made heroes of the Lopez family although they are far from being heroes.