Scribd
Upload
541 views2 pages

Meralco Bribery Case Analysis

Justice Reyes believed he should preside over the Meralco case upon returning from absence, but Justice Mendoza had already taken cognizance of the case as Acting Chairman. Justice Cruz opined the case reverted to Justice Reyes. Justice Sabio informed Justice Dimaranan-Vidal that Meralco offered him PHP 10 million to step aside from the case. The Court found Justice Sabio violated the Code of Conduct by discussing the case with his brother and appearing to be influenced by the bribe from Meralco. It also held Justice Roxas was disrespectful by not waiting for a ruling and issuing a decision in the Meralco case without it.

Uploaded by

Stephany Polinar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
541 views2 pages

Meralco Bribery Case Analysis

Justice Reyes believed he should preside over the Meralco case upon returning from absence, but Justice Mendoza had already taken cognizance of the case as Acting Chairman. Justice Cruz opined the case reverted to Justice Reyes. Justice Sabio informed Justice Dimaranan-Vidal that Meralco offered him PHP 10 million to step aside from the case. The Court found Justice Sabio violated the Code of Conduct by discussing the case with his brother and appearing to be influenced by the bribe from Meralco. It also held Justice Roxas was disrespectful by not waiting for a ruling and issuing a decision in the Meralco case without it.

Uploaded by

Stephany Polinar
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

7.

RE LETTER OF JUSTICE CONRADO VASQUEZ

FACTS:
Justice Jose C. Mendoza ,Justice Mendoza as Acting Chairman Of the Ninth Division during the
absence of Justice Reyes. Justice Mendoza was authorized to take cognizance of the cases filed
submitted before the ninth division.
Upon return of Justice Reyes, he believed that it is proper that he should be the one presiding
Over the case. Justice Reyes wrote Presiding Justice Vasquez a letter calling the attention of
Justice Edgardo P. Cruz ,Justice Cruz,, Chairperson of the Committee on Rules, is in the
dilemma` as to who between him and Justice Sabio should receive the Meralco case. Justice
Cruz opined that the case reverted to the regular Chairman ,Justice Reyes upon his return. A certain
Mr. de Borja confronted Justice Sabio asking the latter to give away for Justice Reyes in exchange for
10 milllion pesos. Justice Dimaranan-Vidal received a call from Justice Sabio, informing her that
Meralco had offered him a bribe of P10 million in exchange for his voluntary stepping out from the
Meralco case.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA Justice acted with impropriety in taking cognizance of the MELRALCO case

HELD: Yes. The Court agrees with the Panel of Investigators that by ignoring or refusing to act
on the motion íor his inhibition, Justice Roxas violated Rule V, Section 3, third paragraph of the IRCA,
which provides that he should resolve such motion in writing with copies furnished the other
members

Roxas was disrespectful to Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. whose ruling on his Interpleader
Petition` he sought on July 21, 2008, but he promulgated the Meralco decision two ,2, days later, on
July 23, 2008, without waiting íor Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr.`s ruling which came out on July 24,
2008.
There is a violation of Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Ethics íor lawyers, which provides that:
A lawyer shall refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance
of influencing the Court. As they were both members of the Bar, it is incomprehensible to this
Court how the brothers can justify the improper conversation regarding the Meralco case.

Justice Sabio violated Sections 1, 4, and 5, Canon 1 of the New Judicial Code of Conduct which
provides That:
Sec. 1 Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently x x x free from extraneous
influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or
for any reason.

Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct
or judgment. 1he prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special
position to influence the judge.

Sec. S. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by,
the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer.

You might also like