A.M. No. RTJ-15-2413, RTJ-15-2414, RTJ-15-2415, RTJ-15-2416 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Aquino

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2413, RTJ-15-2414, RTJ-15-2415, RTJ-15-2416)

Factual Background

The news reports referred to the alleged “fixer” through articles published in 2013. Louie Logarta wrote in his Daily Tribune column on September 12, 2013 that a person named Arlene was a widely known fixer among judges and justices, allegedly using an influence network and an alleged “pink book.” Ramon Tulfo’s later articles on the same theme reiterated that Arlene L. was known among judiciary personnel for fixing cases and wielding influence. Jarius Bondoc likewise described “Ma’am Arlene” as the judiciary’s “Napoles,” alleging that she sponsored lavish events and gifts for judges and justices and maintained connections beyond the courts.

In parallel, the OCA concluded that the allegations were linked to the controversial 2013 PJA elections, when reports of campaigning and alleged support surfaced. The Court en banc had earlier created an ad hoc investigating committee through a Resolution dated October 17, 2013 in A.M. No. 13-10-07-SC, directing it to investigate the matter and mandating that “all other investigations shall cease.” The ad hoc committee’s eventual report identified four RTC judges—Aquino, Lee, Baybay, and Rubia—as candidates in the 2013 elections who allegedly engaged in acts that might violate election guidelines and the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

The committee’s summary of probable violations included (among others) improper distribution of campaign materials, provision of accommodations in hotels during the election period, and use of court personnel for campaign distribution. It also suggested that Aquino may have used personal ties to enable her transfer to Branch 24 of RTC Manila, where cases involving Arlene Lerma were pending. On July 22, 2014, the Court en banc referred A.M. No. 13-10-07-SC to the Court of Appeals for further investigation, and it further ordered immediate suspension of recognition of PJA officers and deferred action on the PJA pending dialogue. The investigations of each RTC judge were raffled to separate Court of Appeals justices.

Court of Appeals Investigations and Separate Reports

Following the referral, each assigned Court of Appeals justice conducted hearings and evaluated judicial affidavits and testimonies. The Court then considered the reports and recommendations and rendered separate rulings on each respondent’s administrative liability.

Administrative Liability of Judge Aquino (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2413)

The allegations against Judge Aquino were threefold: first, the booking of accommodations at Century Park Hotel for PJA participants for the 2013 convention, alleged to have been paid by only one person; second, the alleged use of close ties with then Deputy Court Administrator Antonio Eugenio to secure her transfer from Tuguegarao to Manila, where a case involving “Ma’am Arlene” (identified as Arlene Lerma) was pending; and third, her win in a Chery car raffle during a 2009 PJA raffle, coupled with claims that the vehicle was already registered in her name in 2008.

Judge Aquino denied any violation. She explained that her role in booking Century Park Hotel rooms was part of her PJA duties as Secretary-General, performed with knowledge and consent of the PJA board. She asserted that the hotel bookings were for the convenience of PJA members, that members paid their own accommodations evidenced by individual receipts, and that she did not personally pay for accommodations. She further denied closeness with Eugenio influencing her transfer, and she described her transfer requests as based on her family’s residence in Manila and her official PJA position. As to the Chery car, she disputed the allegation that it was registered in her name prior to the 2009 raffle and claimed she learned of the allegedly earlier sales invoice only later through the investigation.

The assigned Court of Appeals justice found Aquino guilty of violating Canons 4 (Propriety), 1 (Independence), and 2 (Integrity) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, and recommended admonition, stern warnings, a fine, and return of the car. The report emphasized that Aquino, while acting in a role long practiced by prior secretaries-general, nonetheless encouraged judges to book through her and made personal bookings despite her reelection campaign, creating a risk of undue influence and a perception of impropriety. It also noted suspicions surrounding her appointment to Branch 24 of RTC Manila, previously presided over by Eugenio, where Arlene Lerma was a party, and criticized Aquino’s handling of a motion for execution implementation in the RII Builders case.

Upon review, the Court appreciated the factual context differently. It held that Aquino did not violate Section 4(d) of the election guidelines because she did not provide free of charge accommodations to PJA members. It found insufficient evidence to negate her good faith, particularly because hotel booking for convention participants was shown to be a longstanding practice among PJA secretaries-general. The Court recognized, however, that Aquino’s conduct could be misconstrued during the election period because she was herself a candidate, and that her actions in making personal bookings and encouraging course-through-a-person arrangements should have reflected greater circumspection. For this, it imposed an admonition rather than a finding of liability.

On the alleged failure to inhibit in the RII Builders case, the Court rejected the recommendation for administrative liability. It reasoned that mandatory disqualification under Rule 137, Sec. 1 did not apply because Aquino had neither pecuniary interest nor disqualification grounds, and her participation was limited to the implementation of a writ issued by Eugenio. It further held that voluntary inhibition requires just and valid causes and that mere knowledge of a social relationship with a party, without extrinsic evidence of malice, bad faith, or corrupt purpose, was not sufficient. It stressed that there was no proof of closeness so substantial that it would weigh on Aquino’s judgment, and that the implementation order was not shown to be palpably wrong or rendered with grave abuse.

As to the Chery car, the Court likewise declined to impose administrative sanctions. It found that the record did not prove irregularity in the raffle itself, which was conducted in the presence of all PJA members and guests, and it held that the irregularities in the papers were not attributable to Aquino. While it acknowledged possible negligence in not verifying documents more thoroughly, it found no professional implication rising to an administrative offense.

Administrative Liability of Judge Lee (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2414)

Judge Ralph Lee challenged the Ad Hoc Investigating Committee’s summary for allegedly lacking specific details and evidentiary support. He denied giving away cellular phones as raffle prizes and asserted that even if he distributed mugs with his name and image after the election, the distribution could not be considered electioneering since it was after his proclamation. He also denied facilitating hotel reservations for judges and denied paying for rooms as a means of securing votes.

In the further investigation, the Court of Appeals justice conducting hearings reported that there was no evidence to sustain probable violations for the cellular-phone and mug issues. It also found no substantial evidence linking Lee to hotel accommodations. Nonetheless, it discussed suspicious circumstances about hotel receipts and noted the unusual uniformity of dates appearing on photocopies of receipts submitted by the hotel sales manager. It also recounted testimonial inconsistencies and the existence of multiple circumstances suggesting that payment could have been arranged in advance by someone else. The Court, however, applied the requirement of substantial evidence in administrative cases and held that suspicions were not enough to attribute wrongdoing to Lee.

The Court ultimately absolved Lee from charges relating to cellular phones, mugs, and hotel accommodations because it found no substantial evidence directly connecting him to those alleged acts. However, it found Lee guilty of violating Section 4(a) of the Guidelines for his distribution and dissemination of prohibited election campaign materials, specifically desk calendars, posters, and tarpaulins, which the guidelines prohibit as election campaign paraphernalia except for specified materials such as biodata/curricula vitae and flyers. The Court relied on testimony from witnesses who stated they saw or received these materials bearing Lee’s name, branch information, positions, and campaign slogan.

The Court rejected Lee’s claim of due process violations, noting that administrative proceedings focus on the opportunity to be heard, and that Lee was given an opportunity to address the evidence when it was developed during hearings. It further held that no authorization by PHILJA could validate distribution of prohibited materials contrary to the Court’s own en banc election guidelines.

Finally, it addressed Section 5 of the guidelines regarding court and OCA officials and held that it could not be applied to Lee as a candidate because it was directed at officials of the courts and the OCA, not election candidates. It also observed that even assuming he approached a Court of Appeals justice for help, there was no showing that the justice actually campaigned for him among judges in the Visayas.

Administrative Liability of Judge Baybay (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2415)

The allegations against Judge Rommel Baybay centered on his alleged donation of cellular phones as raffle prizes during a PWJA convention in Palo, Leyte, his alleged provision of discounted or free hotel rooms at The Pearl Manila Hotel to judges during the PJA convention and election, and other related acts. The Court of Appeals justice concluded that there was sufficient evidence, including circumstantial evidence, to find violations of Section 4(a) and Section 4(d) of the

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2413, RTJ-15-2414, RTJ-15-2415, RTJ-15-2416)

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) filed separate administrative matters against four Regional Trial Court judges—Judge Lyliha A. Aquino, Judge Ralph Lee, Judge Rommel O. Baybay, and Judge Marino Rubia—arising from allegations widely circulated through media reports involving a purported “fixer” in the Judiciary known as “Ma’am Arlene.”
The Court consolidated and resolved the administrative complaints under multiple docket numbers (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2413, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2414, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2415, and A.M. No. RTJ-15-2416) through a Decision per curiam of the Court en banc.
The Court held that the allegations concerning “Ma’am Arlene” were connected to the 2013 Philippine Judges Association (PJA) elections, and it proceeded to determine the respective administrative liabilities of the four respondent judges under the Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of Judges’ Associations and the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Court ultimately imposed admonition on Judge Aquino and ordered fines on Judge Lee, Judge Baybay, and Judge Rubia for defined violations of the election guidelines.

Background Media Reports

Media reports in 2013 described a person named “Arlene” and alleged that she acted as a well-known fixer among judges and appellate justices, with influence over pending cases.
The reports also portrayed “Arlene” as a participant in lavish affairs connected to persons described as judicial “assets,” and they further tied her alleged activities to the election climate in the Judiciary.
The Court recounted that the name “Arlene” reappeared in articles by Louie Logarta and Ramon Tulfo, and it also appeared in an article by Jarius Bondoc describing “Ma’am Arlene” as the Judiciary’s Napoles.
The Court noted that the OCA deduced that the write-ups stemmed from controversy during the 2013 PJA elections, and it triggered internal scrutiny by court authorities.

OCA Investigation Initiation

The OCA received reports from several judges about intense campaigning in the 2013 PJA elections and allegations that “Ma’am Arlene” supported a particular candidate.
In a letter dated October 8, 2013, the OCA required PJA election candidates to comment on the reports involving “Ma’am Arlene.”
Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. of the Court of Appeals conducted a separate inquiry based on allegations that a Court of Appeals clerk was among the three women suspected to be “Ma’am Arlene.”
The Court en banc issued an October 17, 2013 resolution (A.M. No. 13-10-07-SC) creating an ad hoc investigating committee to investigate the reports about “Ma’am Arlene.”
The ad hoc resolution empowered the committee to access information, receive and evaluate data from any source, and summon witnesses, while simultaneously ordering that “all other investigations shall cease.”

Ad Hoc Committee Findings

The ad hoc committee submitted findings identifying four RTC judges—Baybay, Lee, Rubia, and Aquino—as candidates in the 2013 PJA elections who committed acts that might violate the Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of Judges’ Associations and the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
The committee’s proposed probable violations included:
For Judge Rubia, providing campaign materials in a kit bearing his name and candidacy, with widespread distribution to RTC judges, supported by alleged financing by clubs and private donors.
For Judge Baybay, donating cellular phones as raffle prizes to be used to promote his candidacy as PJA president.
For Judge Lee, similarly allegedly donating cellular phones as raffle prizes, and distributing mugs after proclamation, with claims that campaign funds supported the mugs.
For accommodation-related allegations, the committee found probable violations involving offers or reservations of hotel rooms for judges during the election period, including offers tied to specific hotels and the handling of reservations through the judges’ control.
For electioneering conduct involving personnel, the committee alleged that Judge Rubia used court personnel in distribution of campaign-related items and involved court employees as poll watchers.
As to Judge Aquino, the committee found probable direct breaches of the New Code of Judicial Conduct tied to alleged misuse of personal ties and actions that created the appearance of impropriety.

Court Referral and Separate Raffle

On July 22, 2014, the Court en banc referred A.M. No. 13-10-07-SC to the Court of Appeals for further investigation and directed that the investigation of each named RTC judge be raffled separately to an associate justice.
The Court ordered immediate consequences affecting participation in the PJA:
It immediately suspended recognition of Judges Lee and Aquino as PJA officers.
It deferred action on the PJA pending dialogue among remaining officers and an associate justice.
It recalled Judge Aquino’s designation as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Manila, Branch 24, and ordered her return to her station.
The Court proceeded with separate reports by assigned Court of Appeals justices on each respondent judge’s administrative liability.

Aquino Allegations and Defenses

Judge Aquino was the PJA Secretary-General candidate for re-election in 2013.
The Court recorded three major allegations against her:
Her booking of hotel accommodations at Century Park Hotel for PJA members during the 2013 convention and election, where the accommodations were allegedly paid for by only one person.
Alleged use of close personal ties with then Deputy Court Administrator Antonio M. Eugenio, Jr. to effect her transfer from RTC-Tuguegarao City, Branch 4 to RTC-Manila, Branch 24, with a purported connection to a case in which “Ma’am Arlene” was a party.
Winning a Chery car in a 2009 PJA raffle sponsored by “Ma’am Arlene,” with the added allegation that the car had been registered in Aquino’s name months before the raffle.
Judge Aquino denied committing violations, asserting that:
Her role in hotel bookings was connected to her duties in organizing the PJA convention, with express knowledge and consent of the PJA Board.
The judges who stayed at Century Park paid their own accommodations, evidenced by individual receipts.
She did not handle payment before, during, or after the event.
She did not have close ties with DCA Eugenio and did not use personal relations to secure her transfer.
She claimed she was designated Acting Presiding Judge in a full-time capacity through Administrative Order No. 53-2012 and that she did not know the case specifics associated with “Arlene.”
On the Chery car, she asserted that she first saw the car during the PJA convention in October 2009, received it in November 2009, and challenged the alleged 2008 sales invoice by claiming wrong address, wrong TIN, and indications of correction fluid and possible superimposition.

Aquino Findings by Investigating Justice

The assigned Investigating Court of Appeals justice found that Judge Aquino acted with impropriety in booking hotel accommodations for PJA members during the 2013 convention while she was running for re-election.
The Investigating Justice highlighted evidence that Aquino personally directed judges to coordinate with her and personally accepted or coursed arrangements for hotel reservations.
The Investigating Justice reasoned that booking assistance gave Aquino undue advantage because judges who benefited could feel gratitude or indebtedness, and the conduct could be misconstrued as herding judges to her slate.
The Investigating Justice also addressed the transfer issue, noting suspicion arising from the Branch 24 connection and the prior presence of DCA Eugenio and a case involving “Arlene Lerma.”
On the Chery car, the Investigating Justice concluded it did not originate from the PJA and that questionable documentation undermined Aquino’s explanation, recommending return of the vehicle and monetary sanctions.

Court’s Aquino Ruling: Admonition Only

The Court reassessed the evidence and “appreciated some factual background and evidence differently,” arriving at a disparate conclusion as to administrative liability.
The Court agreed that Judge Aquino had a role in ensuring the venue and hotel arrangements for the PJA convention, including scouting and recommending accommodations.
The Court found that although Aquino’s booking assistance did not strictly violate the text of the Guidelines, her conduct could easily be misconstrued during a period of election as intended to advance her candidacy.
The Court specifically examined Section 4(d) of the Guidelines on the Conduct of Elections of Judges’ Associations, which prohibits providing or giving free of charge accommodations for the purpose of influencing votes.
The Court held that Aquino did not provide or give free accommodations and that the evidence was insufficient to refute her good faith, especially because hotel booking assistance was a long-practiced PJA custom for secretaries-general.
The Court nevertheless held that Aquino should have limited her assistance to providing information and should have reevaluated propriety given that she was running for re-election, because her conduct created an appearance of impropriety.
On the alleged failure to inhibit in the RII Builders case, the Court declined to impose administrative liability.
The Court explained that:
No mandatory inhibition applied under Rule 137, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court, because the listed grounds for disqualification were not shown to exist.
Voluntary inhibition under Rule 137, Sec. 1 requires just and valid causes, and mere suspicion was not enough.
The Court emphasized the requirement of evidence of bias, partiality, malice, or bad faith, supported by extrinsic evidence.
The Court found no proof that Aquino’s issuance of an order granting implementation of the writ of execution previously issued by DCA Eugenio was palpably wrong, arbitrary, baseless, or motivat