Lopez ‘broker,’ GSIS lawyer deny influencing CA justices on Meralco case

August 21, 2008

Alleged broker for the Lopezes, businessman Francis Roa de Borja and Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) chief counsel Estrella Elamparo took the witness stand yesterday at the ongoing probe over bribery allegations within the Court of Appeals with each denying to have made underhanded moves to influence justices deliberating on the GSIS-Manila Electric Co (Meralco) board dispute case.

On cross examination, Elamparo was thoroughly questioned by CA Justice Vicente Roxas, the ponente of the Meralco case with the former denying the magistrate’s continued claim that she attempted to barge into Roxas’ chambers last May 29.

Elamparo said she was there only to personally furnish the case ponente with a copy of the GSIS’ motion asking the court to defer action on the Meralco case.

Elamparo told the panel she had already filed the motion at the office of the division clerk of court and had merely wanted Roxas to be personally furnished with a copy of the motion, stressing that she only wanted to be sure that Roxas got a copy of the motion as the GSIS “could not rely on a regular procedure.”

“We just wanted to make sure that he (Roxas) gets a copy of the motion that we had filed, immediately,” she said.

“I think there is no legal impediment for us in being diligent in furnishing him with a copy of our motion,” Elamparo added.

Probe panel member, retired Justice Romeo Callejo however criticized the move and said Elamparo should have just instructed the clerk of court to make sure that the GSIS motion is attached to the records of the case instead of going directly to Roxas’ chambers.

Callejo was also irked by Elamparo’s admission that the information GSIS got regarding Roxas’ alleged meeting with the Meralco lawyers came from a telephone call made by an unidentified woman informant.

Elamparo added that the woman caller also did not identify who the Meralco lawyers were.

“Is hearsay evidence competent evidence? Would you anchor your motion to inhibit on an information given by an unidentified woman who could not even identify the names of the Meralco lawyers? As a lawyer, you should have been candid that the report came from an unidentified source,” he said.

“You swallowed (this) hook, line and sinker. Be careful because you are attacking the Judiciary. Next time, before you file a motion, it must be based on facts. When you file a motion, do so with candidness and specificity. You should be sure of the facts of your motion,” added Callejo.

Callejo also criticized Elamparo when she admitted that she did not bother to verify the status of the administrative cases filed against Roxas at the SC, which she also said formed part of the basis of the GSIS’s motion to inhibit against him.

According to Elamparo, she only heard from Roxas that these cases have already been dismissed by the Supreme Court. “You did not bother to check these administrative cases and you use information from an unidentified source. Is this the way the chief legal officer of the GSIS works?” asked Callejo.

“What about the presumption of innocence? What happened to these?” Callejo asked.

During Borja’s turn, Associate Justice Jose Sabio inquired if the former (Borja) had a case at the Sandiganbayan in connection with a bank loan. De Borja denied it. Sabio then asked De Borja if he is connected with government and is called a “commissioner.”

De Borja answered that he is not connected with government. “How come some people call you a commissioner?” asked Sabio. “Could Justice Sabio tell me who called me a commissioner?” retorted De Borja.

Sabio then said that when he was in a mall, he was approached by some people who said they knew De Borja.

De Borja then said that he too was approached by some people who said they know Sabio and called him “dirty.” Sabio fell silent upon hearing this.

Sabio then quizzed De Borja on his business dealings and on his alleged friendship with Meralco chairman Manuel “Manolo” Lopez. De Borja admitted knowing Lopez but denied that they were childhood friends. He also denied Sabio’s allegation that he was heavy into cockfight gambling.

“I have not set foot in any cockpit in the last 10 years,” De Borja said.

Under questioning by Sabio, De Borja admitted having met the CA justice at the Ateneo Law School on the invitation of Sabio. De Borja also said he and Sabio are friends.

Sabio was quick to deny that he and De Borja are friends. He said that he never invited De Borja to any of his family’s social gatherings. He added that De Borja has not even stepped into the Sabio residence.

De Borja however said that although he has not been invited into the Sabio residence, Sabio had set foot inside his house.

“You have not invited me to your house but you have been to my house,” he told Sabio. De Borja also denied offering Sabio the reported P10 million bribe and stressed that he only became curious about the Meralco case as he is a businessman.

De Borja also told the panel that the Roa family and Sabio have long been close and that he would often invite the CA justice to Roa family gatherings.

“The Roas who are his longtime clients are related to me. At that time, we liked each other,” he said.

The panel will resume its hearing on Tuesday with the head of the GSIS administration division and Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) chairman Camilo Sabio expected to take the witness stand.

The three-person Supreme Court panel tasked to look into the alleged bribe try will have until Sept. 4 to wrap-up its probe.

The panel composed of retired SC Justices Carolina Griño-Aquino, Flerida Ruth Romero and Romeo Callejo, was supposed to finish its probe today.The panel however asked Chief Justice Reynato Puno for an extension.

“They must finish the investigation at least one week before Sept. 4 and then submit their findings and recommendations to the Chief Justice,” said Assistant Court Administrator Midas Marquez.

Elamparo, meanwhile, in a statement, said CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez had not shown bias against Meralco or partiality in favor of GSIS in their case that had been the subject of a tug-of-war between two CA divisions.

Elamparo said she issued the statement in reaction to the allegation made by Roxas that Vasquez had shown undue interest in the Meralco-GSIS case.

“Granting that Presiding Justice Vasquez had relatives working in GSIS, it does not mean that he favored GSIS in any way,” Elamparo said.

She pointed out that Vasquez even denied a petition by the GSIS to have the case re-raffled after this was assigned to Roxas.

Elamparo said the GSIS felt that the credibility of Roxas was placed under a cloud of doubt because of the two administrative cases filed against him before the Supreme Court, including one for “gross ignorance of the law.”

Bookmark to: