8/11/2019 Gregory Ong

1/3

In Re: Allegations made under oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee against Associate Gregory S.

Ong of the Sandiganbayan

Sept. 23, 2014

Per Curiam

Facts:

The Pork Barrel Scam Happened. While it was being investigated, one of the whistleblowers, Marina Sula executed

a Sworn Statement implicating Justice Gregory Ong of the Sandiganbayan in the Napoles Pork Barrel Scam. Before

the warrant of arrest was issued against Napoles, she told Sula and her coworkers that the case would take 4-5 yearsto clear because she had connections in the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan.

The following day an article was posted on Rappler with a picture with Jinggoy Estrada, Janet Napoles, and

Ong. The reporter Aries Rufo had interviewed Ong , who denied knowing Napoles. He insisted that he had

untainted servie in the judiciary, and denied that he was the one advising Napoles on the Kevlar helmet cases where

she was acquitted by an SB division headed by him.

Sula then executed a sworn statement where she gave details regarding the persons she named whom she

alleged to have visited their office or attended their events. Inter alia, she said that Ong had visited their office and

had a private meeting with Napoles. She then confirmed her statement before the Blue Ribbon Committee.

In a letter addressed to CJ Sereno, Ong explained the controversial photograph, claiming that it was taken

on Estradas birthday. He claimed that it would have been rude for him to prevent any guest from posing with himand Estrada during the party. He categorically stated that he had never attended an event hosted by Napoles, and

had not advised Napoles of the case before theSB. He then submitted himself to the discretion of the Chief Justice.

CJ Sereno wrote the members fo the SC citing the testimonies of Luy and Sula before the Blue Ribbon

Committee telling them that the malversation case involving Napoles was fixed through the intervention of Ong.

She then requested the Court en banc to conduct an investigation motu proprio over the power of administrative

supervision ofver members of the judiciary.

In his comment, Ong once more denied any participation in the scheme. He claimed that Sulas testimony

was purely hearsay. He also said that Napoles misrepresented her connections with him to assure her associates as

the heat was being turned up on them.

As to the allegation that he had a private conversation with Napoles, he claimed that it was merely so he

could drape the Black Nazarenes robe or clothing for a brief moment over his body and receive a fragrant ball of

cotton exposed to the holy image in order to help him heal from prostate cancer. Because of such favor, he went to

see Napoles to personally thank her. He maintained that there was nothing improper or irregular with him seeing

her to thank her.

SC, upon evaluation of the factual circumstances, found possible transgressions of the Code of Judicial

Conduct committed by Ong. Thus, they issued a resolution redocketing the case and assigning it to retired SC

Justice SandovalGutierrez.

Sandoval Gutierrez recounted the facts, specifically Luys testimony that Ong received P25.5 Million

through Napoles personal account coursed through AFPSLAI. As to the visit to Sandoval-Gutierrez, she ordered

Chinese food for him, which is Benhurs favorite. Then she recounted Sulas testimony, and the Rappler article. It

was claimed that Napoles did not want to approach Ong because his talent fee is too high, but both whistleblowers

claimed that Ong was Napoles SB contact.

Sandoval-Gutierrez evaluation was that Sula and Benhur were telling the truth and thus that Ong was part

of the Scam. Napoles natural instinct was self preservation. Hence, she would avail of every possible means to be

exonerated. The conclusion is inevitable that in fixing the Kevlar helmet case, money was the consideration. He also

failed to present Napoles to rebut the supposed hearsay testimonies of Benhur and Sula. Sandoval-Gutierrez also

said his own testimony was hearsay. Touche. She concluded that his acts of allowing himself to be Napoles contact

8/11/2019 Gregory Ong

2/3

in the SB, resulting in the fixing of the Kevlar case, and of accepting money from her constitute gross misconduct

and a violation of the New Code of Judiical Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

Even if Ongs Black Nazarene storywas true, it still does not explain why Napoles paid him advanced

interest of P3.102M with her own money.

His transgressions pertain to his personal life and have no direct relation to his judicial functions. They are

not misconduct but plain dishonesty. The acts are unquestionably disgraceful and render him morally unfit as a

member of the judiciary and unworthy of the privileges the law confers on him. His conduct supports the assertion

that he received money from Napoles.His two visits to Napoles also constitute gross misconduct in violation of Canon 4 on Propriety. Section 1

thereof provides that judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance thereof in all of their activities. He should

have just thanked her over the phone. He visited her again because she may think he is an unworthy person. Which

is dumb.

This is also not the first time Ong has been charged administratively. He had been found guilty of non-

observance of collegiality in hearing cses in the Hall of Justice in Davao City. Gutierrez also had doubts as to the

propriety of Napoles acquittal, as it had been found that Napoles was following up on the processing of the

documents, was in charge of delivery of the helemtns, and the checks were deposited and cleared in her bank

account.

Thus, Gutierrez recommended that Ong be found guilty and be dismissed.Issue:

WON Ong should be dismissed. (Yes)

Ratio:

The Court adopted the findiings of the retired Justice.

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action. Ongs association with

Napoles during and afer the decision in the Kevlar case was gross misconduct notwithstanding lack of diret

evidence of corruption or bribery in the rendition of the judgment.

In admin. Proceedigns, only substantial evidence is required. Luy and Sulas testimonies were substantial

evidence. They were not hearsay. An accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and hard to disprove. Thus, there is

here insufficient evidence to prove bribery and corruption charges. However, the totality of circusmtances of his

association with Napoles strongly indictes his corrupt inclinatiosn that only heightened the public perception of

anomaly in his decision making.

That he was not the ponente in the assailed decision is of no moment, as proven by the disgust of the public

The testimonies have already tainted the image of the Judiciary. The challenging and difficult setting of the

testimonies makes it unlikely that the whistleblowers would testify against Ong.

According to the testimonies, whenever Napoles would update them about the case in the SB, it was

understood to be Ong. His acts violated the Canon cited above as o impropriety. A judicial office traces a lien

around his official as well as personal conduct, a price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the

judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture.

That rule does not cover only pending and prospective litigations. It covers ALL activities of the judge. It

does not matter that the case was no longer pending when the improper acts were committed. Magistrates are under

constant public scrutiny and so the termination of the case will not deter public criticism. Ongs acts havedefinitely

dragged the Judiciary into the pork barrel scandal. In his testimony before Gutierrez, Ong even admitted that he

made a mistake.

Ong is also guilty of dishonesty for several instances of not being truthful on crucial matters even before the

admin. Complaint was filed. Under the ROC, a judge found guilty of a serious charge may be punished with

dismissal, suspension, or a fine. Because Ong is not a first time offernder, and the charges of gross misconduct and

dishonesty are both grave offenses, he should be dimissed.

8/11/2019 Gregory Ong

3/3

Ong Guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Impropriety, in violation of the New Code of Judicial

Conduct. Dismissed from the service.