MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court yesterday denied with finality the motions for reconsideration filed by four justices of the Court of Appeals who had earlier been sanctioned for irregularities committed in the handling of the Meralco board election case.
In a 33-page per curiam resolution, the Court also denied with finality the motion for reconsideration of businessman Francis de Borja.
In its decision, the Court held that its Sept. 9, 2008 decision remains unchanged.
The Court explained that the decision was fully supported by the facts on record and is in accordance with the law and prevailing jurisprudence. It added that there are no substantial grounds to reverse its previous judgment.
The motions for reconsideration were filed by dismissed CA Justice Vicente Roxas, suspended CA Justice Jose Sabio, CA Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez.
In its Sept. 9 decision, the Court ordered the dismissal of Justice Roxas for “violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with forfeiture of all benefits.”
The Court also ordered the two-month suspension of Justice Sabio after he was found guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming a CA justice.
Presiding Justice Vasquez was reprimanded “for his failure to act promptly and decisively in order to avert the incidents that damaged the image of the CA, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty.”
CA Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes Jr. was also reprimanded after being found guilty of simple misconduct with mitigating circumstance.
CA Justice Vidal, meanwhile, was admonished after she was found guilty of conduct unbecoming a justice of the CA.
The Court also warned Vidal to be “more circumspect in the discharge of her judicial duties.”
The accusation of bribery on De Borja, on the other hand, was referred to the Justice Department for investigation.
In dismissing Roxas’ motion, the Court said it was not insensitive to his situation after pleading for suspension instead of dismissal. However, it stressed that it has the duty to protect and preserve the integrity and independence of the CA and the whole Judiciary.
“We must emphasize that where the finding of administrative guilt is well supported by the evidence on record, as in this case, this Court must impose the penalty warranted under the law and prevailing jurisprudence,” the Court said.