|
THE
clerk of court of the Court of Appeals’ (CA) Eight
Division on Wednesday admitted before the Supreme
Court’s (SC) three-man panel that she was kept in the
dark by the division justices on their supposed
deliberations conducted prior to the promulgation of the
Manila Electric Co. (Meralco) case on June 23.
During
his second day of appearance before the panel
investigating the alleged bribery attempt and
irregularities surrounding the Meralco case decision,
lawyer Teresita Custodio disclosed that there were no
records that would support the claim of Eighth Division
Presiding Justice Bienvenido Reyes, one of those who
signed the ruling, that there were deliberations made
prior to the final deliberation on July 14.
Custodio
made the admission when she was questioned by retired SC
Associate Justice Romeo Callejo Sr., on whether Reyes’s
claim in his affidavit that there were deliberations
conducted among the members of the Eighth Division prior
to the July 14 final deliberations was true.
Aside
from Reyes, the other members of the Eighth Division are
Associate Justices Apolinario Bruselas and Vicente Roxas,
the ponente of the Meralco decision.
Callejo
questioned Reyes’s claim after noticing that there were
no transcripts or stenographic records of the said
deliberations that were attached to the rollo of the
case that was submitted to the panel.
The
division clerk of court confessed that she could not
find any transcript or stenographic records of the
supposed deliberations attached to the rollo of the
case.
She
added that neither she nor any of the division’s staff
members was not asked to be present to record the
deliberations.
“I
wasn’t there when they deliberated. I was never informed
of any deliberation … I cannot find any transcript of
the deliberations prior to the final deliberation,”
Custodio told the panel.
Callejo
noted that the July 14 transcript of the deliberations
of Reyes and the two other members of the Eight
Division—Associate Justices Apolinario Bruselas and
Vicente Roxes, the ponente of the Meralco decision—was
the only transcript attached to the rollo.
Without
the transcripts, Callejo said Reyes’s claim in his
affidavit that there were prior deliberations made on
the Meralco case may be considered “a falsification.”
The
panel was also notified by Presiding Justice Conrado
Vasquez, Associate Justices Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and
Jose Sabio that the copies of the July 14 transcript
attached to the affidavit of Roxas that was provided to
them has no initials as compared to the one attached to
the rollo.
Vasquez,
Vidal and Sabio were among those invited by the panel to
shed light on the controversies surrounding the June 23
Meralco decision.
After
verification, Callejo agreed that there seems to be two
copies of the July 14 transcript, the one attached to
the rollo and the other one attached to Roxas’s
affidavit which bears no initial at all.
“That’s
another mystery,” Callejo remarked.
Earlier,
Callejo branded as “strange” the admission of Custodio
that Roxas kept the rollo of the Meralco case throughout
the proceedings of the case.
Custodio
told the panel that all the pleadings, motions and
manifestations were forwarded to the office of Roxas
since the rollo was with him.
The
division clerk of court added that the only time she got
hold of the rollo was when the resolution granting the
issuance of the temporary restraining order (TRO) in
favor of the Lopez-bloc of Meralco was promulgated.
“Since
that time I did not see the rollo anymore,” Custodio
narrated.
The
rollo, Custodio said, was returned to her only after the
July 23 decision with the July 14 transcript of the
deliberations and other pleadings attached as loose
leaf.
“It
appears to me the rollo had always been with Justice
Roxas. It was never returned to you…Isn’t that
strange…,” Callejo said.
Meanwhile, panel chairman retired Associate Justice
Carolina Griño-Aquino, castigated Custodio for keeping a
“messy” records of the cases being handled by the
division.
Aquino,
during the interpolation noticed that the dates when the
pleadings were filed and the dates on the logbook did
not match.
Custodio
testified that the urgent manifestation with attached
memorandum and memorandum of authorities of the
petitioner were filed allegedly on July 10, 2008 but as
noted by Aquino the log book showed that it was filed on
the July 7, 2008.
“It
seems that the record keeping of your receiving section
on special cases is a mess,” the exasperated Aquino
said.
When
asked about the memoranda that were not stitched to the
court’s rollo, Custodio replied that she could not
locate the same and it seemed that it was “lost in
transit.”
Aquino
reminded Custodio that under the Internal Rules of the
CA, the said stitching should have been done by the
receiving section of the judicial records and within two
working days the same should have been forwarded to the
office of the division clerk of court.
“Apparently this was not followed,” Aquino said.
Aside
from Custodio, Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz, head of
the CA Committee on Rules also took the witness stand
and insisted that Sabio has no right to preside over the
June 23 Meralco hearing following the return of Reyes,
then its regular chairman, from leave of absence. |
