Sabio banned from holding public office

The Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling by the Court of Appeals that perpetually banned former Presidential Commission on Good Government chairman Camilo Sabio from holding any public office. 

The ruling also carries the forfeiture of Sabio's retirement benefits after finding him guilty of grave misconduct for trying to influence his brother, then a CA magistrate,  to side with the Government Service Insurance System in its ownership dispute with Manila Electric Company.    

The court, in an 18-page ruling, denied the petition for review filed by Sabio seeking the reversal of the said CA ruling issued on 31 March 2015 which affirmed the Ombudsman's resolution which found him guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.     

The Ombudsman held that Sabio's attempt to influence the judicial discretion of  his brother was a "flagrant disregard of well-known legal and more importantly, ethical rules" which "unduly prejudiced and compromised the image and independence of the judiciary, and government service in general."    

It said Sabio's acts made it appear that he "could sway, manipulate or control members of the appellate court in the resolution of cases before them."      

 Based on the records, the former PCGG chief called his younger brother, then CA Justice Jose Sabio Jr., to inform him that he had been named third member of the division in which the Meralco-GSIS ownership case had been raffled.     

He likewise informed his brother that a temporary restraining order had been prepared, thus, tried to convince him of the rightness of the stand of the GSIS and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the case and asked his brother to help the GSIS, which "represents the interest of the poor people."  

Justice Sabio was surprised as he had not yet been "officially informed" about the matter.   

Justice Sabio told his brother that he would "vote according to [his] conscience" and that the most that he could do was "to have the issuance of the TRO and the injunctive relief scheduled for oral arguments," at which the respondents "must be able to convince" him that the TRO indeed had no legal basis.    

In dismissing Sabio's petition, the Court maintained that the Ombudsman and CA ruled correctly, did not abuse their jurisdiction, and acted within their respective jurisdictions" in deciding the case.     

"Being at the helm of a very important government agency, petitioner is by all means aware that the power, influence, and responsibility he wields are immense, potent and fragile.  He openly disregarded this knowledge and admittedly used his position, not just to achieve his unprofessional objectives, but to wittingly create this undue impression that justice is not at all blind, but can easily be distorted and manipulated at the will of the powerful and the 'connected'," the Court said.