A.M. No. SB-14-21-J - IN RE: Ong

Case Summary (A.M. No. SB-14-21-J)

Triggering publicity: photograph and media report

A Rappler piece published a photograph showing Senator Jinggoy Estrada, Janet Napoles, and respondent together at a social function. The article quoted the reporter’s concerns about the propriety of a Sandiganbayan justice being pictured with a person who had been an accused in a case handled by his division and asked respondent for comment. Respondent initially denied knowing Napoles during the pendency of the Kevlar case and explained the photograph by reference to a party hosted by Senator Estrada.

Whistleblower testimony before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee

At public Senate hearings (September 26, 2013) two former JLN employees testified: Benhur Luy (a cousin and former assistant to Napoles) and Marina Sula. Both stated, under oath, that Napoles told them she had a “contact” in the Sandiganbayan and identified respondent by name; Sula also said she personally saw respondent visit Napoles’ office. Luy described a ledger of large expenses related to the Sandiganbayan matter and recounted that, in 2012, he prepared eleven checks (approx. P282,000 each, total ~P3.1M) in connection with an arrangement involving a P25.5M BDO check that Napoles was alleged to have handled for respondent and an AFPSLAI investment scheme. Luy said Napoles told him she had given money to respondent, although he could not state precise amounts and did not personally witness delivery of cash to respondent.

Court motu proprio investigation and respondent’s explanation

The Supreme Court initiated a motu proprio administrative inquiry. Respondent submitted a letter and a formal Comment in which he: (a) denied socializing with or advising Napoles while the Kevlar cases were pending; (b) admitted meeting Napoles on two occasions in 2012 but explained the meetings as a personal, religious matter — Napoles allegedly arranged for him, as a Black Nazarene devotee suffering from prostate cancer, to be allowed briefly to wear the robe and to receive a fragrant cotton ball; (c) said he visited Napoles afterward to thank her and later acceded to a second social visit; and (d) denied issuing a P25.5M BDO check or otherwise receiving the eleven checks Luy described, maintaining he had no deposits with AFPSLAI as alleged.

Investigating Justice’s findings and recommendation

Retired Justice Angelina Sandoval‑Gutierrez conducted hearings and concluded that Luy and Sula were credible, citing the consistency of their Senate and investigatory statements and their direct employment relationship with Napoles. The Investigating Justice found that: respondent had been Napoles’ “contact” in the Sandiganbayan; respondent had received an undetermined sum from Napoles and accepted eleven checks as advanced interest for an alleged P25.5M check; respondent visited Napoles’ office twice and socialized with her (including being photographed with Napoles and Senator Estrada); and respondent had not been candid in early communications to the Chief Justice. On these bases the Investigating Justice recommended findings of gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and recommended dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave) and permanent disqualification from government employment.

Supreme Court En Banc adoption of findings, legal standard applied

The Court En Banc adopted the Investigating Justice’s findings and recommendations. It applied the administrative standard of substantial evidence (the amount of evidence a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion) appropriate to disciplinary proceedings under the Constitution (Supreme Court administrative supervision and disciplinary authority) and Rule 140. The Court emphasized that an administrative finding does not require the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt; nevertheless, it carefully distinguished the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a criminal bribery conviction from the sufficiency required to support an administrative sanction.

Hearsay, credibility, and evaluative reasoning by the Court

The Court acknowledged that much of Luy’s and Sula’s testimony derived from statements Napoles made to them (formal hearsay), but gave their testimony significant weight because: they were close, long‑time employees and thus had reasons to speak candidly; their Senate testimony had been public and demonstrated consistency; their investigative testimony was described as instantaneous, unequivocal, and unretracted under cross‑examination; and the Investigating Justice—who observed witness demeanor—found them credible. The Court explained that in administrative disciplinary proceedings the findings of investigating magistrates on credibility are generally afforded deference given their opportunity to observe witnesses. The Court nonetheless stated the evidence was insufficient to sustain criminal bribery and corruption charges (no direct proof that respondent actually took money in exchange for judicial action), but concluded that the totality of credible evidence established improprieties and indicia of corruption sufficient for severe administrative discipline.

Violations identified: gross misconduct, dishonesty, and impropriety

The Court found respondent guilty of: (a) gross misconduct — for conduct that, cumulatively, showed a disposition inconsistent with judicial office and suggested corruption or corrupt inclination (association with a former litigant of his division and circumstances suggesting financial accommodation); (b) dishonesty — for failing to be truthful in early communications to the Chief Justice and for limiting disclosure about his contacts with Napoles until confronted by witness testimony; and (c) impropriety — for fraternizing and socializing with a former litigant in a manner that created an appearance of bias and compromised the dignity of the judicial office, contrary to Canon 4 (Propriety) and Canon 2 (Integrity) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Penalty imposed and immediate executory effect

For the foregoing administrative violations, the Court imposed the most severe disciplinary sanction available under Rule 140: dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch, agency, instrumentality or GOCC. The Decision was declared immediately executory.

Dissenting and concurring positions summarized

Partial dissents and concurrences reflect sharply divergent views on evidentiary rules and penalty proportionality:
- Justices Bersamin, Perez and Reyes would have found only simple misconduct (impropriety by fraternization) and imposed a lighter penalty (suspension up to three months), stressing hearsay limitations, absence of direct proof of bribery, and that respondent’s admitted visits occurred after the Kevlar decision. They urged adherence to ordinary hearsay exclusion and questioned whether the record supported findings of gross misconduct or dishonesty.
- Justice Arturo Brion (concurring) supported dismissal but urged the Court to clarify evidentiary approach in disciplinary proceedings: he argued for allowing probative hearsay in judicial discipline when corroborated by
...continue reading

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. SB-14-21-J)

Case Caption, Citation and Docket

Reported at 743 Phil. 622, En Banc; docketed A.M. No. SB-14-21-J (formerly A.M. No. 13-10-06-SB).
Decision dated September 23, 2014; decision per curiam.
Matter originated from allegations made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing of September 26, 2013; investigation conducted motu proprio by the Supreme Court En Banc under its power of administrative supervision (Sections 6 and 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution cited in the record).

Nature, Scope and Source of the Administrative Proceeding

Proceeding was an administrative investigation initiated by the Court En Banc (motu proprio) into alleged violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct by Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong.
Investigation assignment: retired Supreme Court Justice Angelina Sandoval‑Gutierrez was designated to investigate, report and recommend within sixty (60) days.
Evidence sources included: sworn statements/affidavits furnished to the NBI, testimonies given before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee (September 26, 2013), Rappler publication and photograph, witnesses examined during the administrative investigation (Benhur Luy, Marina Sula, Aries Rufo), respondent’s letter to the Chief Justice (Sept. 26, 2013) and respondent’s Comment (received Nov. 21, 2013).

Factual Background — The Pork Barrel Controversy and the Kevlar Case

In mid‑2013 Philippine media exposed massive diversion of PDAF funds through NGOs — dubbed the “pork barrel scam” — triggering Senate Blue Ribbon hearings and widespread public outcry.
Janet Lim‑Napoles (Mrs. Napoles) was central to the scandal; several former employees (whistleblowers) provided sworn statements alleging Napoles’s transactions and contacts with public officials.
The “Kevlar” cases (Criminal Case Nos. 26768 and 26769) concerned alleged anomalous purchase of 500 Kevlar helmets by the Philippine Marine Corps (approx. P3.8 million). Proceedings in the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division resulted in acquittal of Napoles (decision promulgated October 28, 2010) while some co‑accused (Napoles’s mother, brother and sister‑in‑law) were convicted of falsification and given probation.
Whistleblowers alleged Napoles told them she had a “connect” or “contact” in the Sandiganbayan who would help afix or fix the Kevlar case; those identified included Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong.

Material Witness Statements and Documentary Context

Marina Sula (Sworn Statement to NBI, Aug. 29, 2013; testimony before Senate Sept. 26, 2013; Karagdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay):
- Sula’s sworn statement (Aug. 29, 2013) listed personalities seen at Napoles parties and events; she included “Justice Gregory Ong” among visitors.
- In her Senate testimony (Sept. 26, 2013) she identified Mr. Ong as the Sandiganbayan judge Napoles referenced as having a connection in the Court.
- In a supplemental sworn statement, Sula stated she personally saw Justice Ong visit Napoles’s office at Discovery Suites (unit 2501) and observed him conversing with Napoles in the conference room.
Benhur Luy (cousin of Napoles; former JLN Corporation employee; testimony before Senate and before Investigating Justice):
- Testified that Napoles told him she had a contact in the Sandiganbayan identified as Justice Gregory Ong and that Napoles said she gave money to that contact (amount not disclosed).
- Alleged Napoles maintained a ledger of Sandiganbayan‑related expenses allegedly totaling about P100 million over the decade‑long pendency of the Kevlar case.
- Testified that in 2012 Justice Ong visited Napoles’s office twice (she in unit 2501; Luy and Napoles staff in 2502). On the first visit Napoles allegedly arranged to advance interest for a purported P25.5 million BDO check said to belong to Justice Ong, preparing eleven (11) checks (approx. P282,000 each) as advanced monthly interest (totaling P3,102,000); Luy said he prepared the eleven checks at Napoles’s instruction and that Napoles later told Luy to make the checks “pay to cash.”
- Luy acknowledged he did not personally see the handing‑over to Justice Ong nor could he later produce return checks or documentary proof (he testified many office documents had been shredded).
Aries Rufo (Rappler reporter):
- Published (Aug. 30, 2013) the article “Exclusive: Napoles parties with anti‑graft court justice” showing a photograph of Senator Jinggoy Estrada, Janet Lim‑Napoles and respondent Ong together.
- Reported he interviewed respondent, who disclaimed knowing Napoles during the pendency of the Kevlar case and explained the photo could have been taken at an Estrada party.
- Reporter refused to disclose his source for the photograph, citing journalistic privilege.

Respondent’s Explanations, Admissions and Defenses

Respondent Gregory S. Ong:
- Denied being Napoles’s contact during the pendency of the Kevlar case; asserted he never partied with the Napoleses and never attended events hosted by them.
- Acknowledged being photographed with Senator Jinggoy Estrada and the woman later identified as Napoles; explained the photo was likely taken at an Estrada birthday party (Feb. 17, 2012) and he was posing with Senator Estrada as a friend; said it would have been rude to prevent guests from posing with them.
- Admitted visiting Napoles’s office twice in 2012 (after the 2010 Kevlar decision): first visit to thank her personally for arranging access to the robe of the Black Nazarene and to receive fragrant cotton balls; second visit, two weeks later, was to accede to repeated invitations and amounted to small talk and coffee.
- Explained the robe access: Napoles arranged for the respondent to meet Msgr. Ramirez of Quiapo Church and for respondent, a Black Nazarene devotee undergoing prostate cancer treatment, to briefly wear the robe and receive fragrant cotton balls which he kept.
- Denied issuing any P25.5 million BDO check or depositing funds in AFPSLAI; denied receiving the eleven (11) checks as advanced interest and asserted he had no such investment there. Denied advising Napoles on Kevlar case strategy; stressed the kevlar cases were decided by a collegial Sandiganbayan division and he was not the ponente.
- Asserted whistleblowers’ allegations were hearsay (based on what Napoles told them), offered voluntary explanation to defend his reputation and protect the Sandiganbayan.

Investigating Justice — Findings, Analysis and Recommendation (Justice Angelina Sandoval‑Gutierrez)

Investigating Justice convened hearings (Feb. 12, Mar. 7 and Mar. 21, 2014), examined witnesses and documents, and made detailed factual findings.
Credibility: found Benhur Luy and Marina Sula credible — described their testimony as candid, straightforward, categorical, instantaneous, clear and consistent with their Senate testimony; concluded their testimony carried the ring of truth.
On the ledger and expenditure: accepted Luy’s account that Napoles kept a ledger of Sandiganbayan‑related expenses allegedly approximating P100 million during the decade‑long pendency of the Kevlar case.
On the alleged financial transactions: credited Luy’s testimony that Napoles deposited a P25.5 million check into her account and issued eleven (11) checks purportedly representing monthly interest (P282,000 each) to be delivered as advanced interest; concluded those eleven checks amounted to P3,102,000 and were handed to respondent as consideration.
On improper association: concluded that respondent’s acts of allowing himself to be Napoles’s contact, accepting money or accommodation from her, and visiting her private office constituted gross misconduct, dishonesty and impropriety in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
On hearsay: addressed respondent’s objection that whistleblowers’ statements were hearsay and inadmissible; nonetheless, found substantial evidence standard applicable in disciplinary proceedings and determined that the whistleblowers’ testimony — though