Case Digest (A.M. No. SB-14-21-J)
Facts:
A.M. No. SB-14-21-J [Formerly A.M. No. 13-10-06-SB], September 23, 2014, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The Court En Banc initiated a motu proprio administrative investigation under its constitutional supervisory powers (Art. VIII, Secs. 6 and 11, 1987 Constitution) after testimonies at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearings and a news report raised allegations against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong of the Sandiganbayan.In mid-2013 the PDAF/pork-barrel scandal exploded in the media. Two former employees of Janet Lim‑Napoles, Benhur Luy and Marina Sula, testified before the Senate (September 26, 2013) that Napoles had told them she had a “connect” at the Sandiganbayan who would “fix” the Kevlar helmet cases; they identified Justice Ong as that contact. Rappler published a photograph (Aries Rufo) of Justice Ong beside Senator Jinggoy Estrada and Napoles; Rufo interviewed Ong, who denied knowing Napoles during the pendency of the Kevlar cases and downplayed the picture.
Chief Justice Sereno referred the matter to the Court En Banc and, by resolution dated October 17, 2013 and further order of January 21, 2014, the Court assigned retired Justice Angelina Sandoval‑Gutierrez to investigate. The Court required Ong to file a comment and directed the NBI to supply affidavits of witnesses. Ong submitted a comment (Nov. 21, 2013) denying impropriety and explaining two visits to Napoles’ office in 2012 as gratitude for a religious favor (arranging access to the Black Nazarene robe).
The Investigating Justice conducted hearings, heard Luy, Sula and Rufo, and evaluated documentary and testimonial matter (including the Rappler article and the Kevlar case records). She recommended that Ong be found guilty of gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety and be dismissed with forfeiture of retirement benefits. The majority of the Court adopted her Report, finding: Ong met Napoles after the 2010 Kevlar decision; Luy and Sula were credible; Luy prepared eleven checks (P282,000 each) that Napoles allegedly handed to Ong as advanced interest related to a P25.5M check; and Ong’s nondisclosure and conduct violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court imposed dismissal with forfeiture (except accrued leave) and made the decision immediately executory.
Several Members filed separate opinions: Justice Brion (concurring; argued for admitting and giving probative value to hearsay in disciplinary proceedings), Justice Leonen (concurring; urged dismissal and detailed analysis of impropriety and dishonesty), Justice Jardeleza (concurring; emphasized PD 46/Art. 211), Justice Bersamin (concurring in part and dissenting — fa...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- In this administrative proceeding, may the Court rely on the hearsay testimony of Napoles’ employees and the investigating magistrate’s credibility findings as substantial evidence to establish a judge’s administrative liability?
- Did the evidence establish that Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong committed gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety under the New Code of Judicial Conduct? ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)