GSIS–Meralco bribery case

The GSIS–Meralco bribery case (G.R. Nos. 183905 and 184275; A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA) was a landmark case heard by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. This complex case began with a complaint filed by the Philippines' Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines (SEC) questioning the unvalidated proxy votes used by the Lopez family in a board election of the Manila Electric Company (Meralco). The SEC issued a cease and desist order (CDO) against Meralco, which was ignored by the latter. A show cause order (SCO) was then issued by the SEC, whereupon Meralco petitioned the Court of Appeals, questioning the jurisdiction of the SEC. The Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to the SEC while the Special 9th Division composed of Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas, Jose L. Sabio Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal heard the case. Roxas was assigned as the ponente while Sabio was the acting chairman. Later, Sabio called a press conference and alleged that an emissary of Meralco tried to bribe him with ₱10 million to have a case transferred to another appeals court justice. The criminal charges are obstruction of justice and malfeasance in office. Sabio did not mention any names, but businessman Francis de Borja stepped forward and claimed that he was the alleged emissary, accusing Sabio of asking for a ₱50 million bribe to side with Meralco, in response to De Borja's question “What will it take for you to resist the government’s offer?” The alleged government offer was a Supreme Court position. In the latter course of the investigation, Sabio let slip that his brother, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman Camilo Sabio, called him up twice to urge him to side favorably with the government. The late admission of the allegedly unethical and criminal action called into doubt the innocence of Sabio in coming forward with his expose and the veracity of his entire story. These acts are alleged to be punishable under Article 208 and 243 of the Revised Penal Code respectively.