A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055 - Heirs of Aspiras vs. Ganay

The case arose from an unsigned letter-complaint dated June 6, 2005, filed by the heirs of the late Rev. Fr. Jose O. Aspiras.
The complaint was addressed to the Court Administrator, alleging abuse of authority by Judge Clifton U. Ganay in Special Proceeding Case No. A-1026, “In the Matter of the Guardianship of Rev. Fr. Jose O. Aspiras.”
The heirs contended that Judge Ganay improperly ordered the withdrawal of funds from the deceased priest’s bank account, notably P50,000.00 for the purchase of law books, without the written consent of the property guardians.
Additional orders were noted where funds were withdrawn to purchase cellular phone prepaid cards and cellular phones, with checks drawn in favor of OIC-Clerk of Court Precilla Olympia P. Eslao, among others, allegedly without proper authorization.

The OCA conducted a surprise investigation and examined the records of Special Proceeding Case No. A-1026 from August 30 to September 2, 2005.
The investigation verified that the order dated December 17, 2004, for P50,000.00 was indeed issued by Judge Ganay and was followed by an Acknowledgement Receipt dated December 22, 2004.
Subsequent orders by the judge directed the bank manager of Philippine National Bank (PNB), Agoo, La Union Branch, to release funds in various amounts for purchasing cellular phone prepaid cards and cellular phones.
Additional documentary evidence included multiple orders, acknowledgment receipts, and expense reports, which collectively suggested a pattern of unauthorized financial withdrawals and questionable transactions.

Judge Ganay maintained that his actions were merely the implementation of the orders given by the property guardians of the late Rev. Fr. Aspiras.
He explained that the withdrawal for the purchase of law books was performed in an effort to enhance the appearance of his office, and that the subsequent orders for cellular phones and prepaid cards were for improving communication and networking for the ward.
The judge filed several motions and manifestations, including a Motion to Furnish Copies and multiple Advance and Extended Comments, arguing his actions were appropriate and that he had not received the documents necessary for a proper comment.

The OCA eventually furnished the requested copies of complaint and investigation reports to Judge Ganay and OIC-Clerk Eslao after several delays and motions.
OIC-Clerk Eslao submitted her comment, asserting that the purchases of prepaid cards and cellular phones were made in accordance with Judge Ganay’s orders and with the approval of the property guardians.
The case included a detailed account of the appointment and composition of the guardians of the ward, noting that the guardians were divided between warring camps and that a special system was devised to ensure joint authorization for any withdrawal from the ward’s account.
The investigation and subsequent judicial actions highlighted significant procedural irregularities and a failure to adhere to the requisite safeguards regarding the handling of the ward’s funds.

Whether Judge Ganay abused his authority by issuing orders for withdrawing funds from the bank account of the late Rev. Fr. Aspiras without unanimous prior consent by the property guardians.
Whether the receipt of gifts in the form of law books, cellular phones, and prepaid cards constitutes an actual violation of the ethical standards imposed on judges.

Whether Judge Ganay’s conduct violated Sections 13, 14, and 15 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
Whether his explanations that his acts were merely implementation of the guardians’ orders sufficiently absolve him of the appearance of impropriety.

Whether the administrative process, including the handling of motions and the furnishing of documentary copies, complied with the required judicial protocols and due process.
Whether the disciplinary actions proposed and eventually imposed were commensurate with the gravity of the infractions committed.