Supreme Court finds 3 Sandigan justices guilty of simple misconduct

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has penalized three associate justices of the Sandiganbayan for hearing two cases simultaneously in Davao City in April 2006.

In a 28-page decision, the SC found Associate Justices Gregory Ong, Jose Hernandez and Rodolfo Ponferrada, chairman and members of the anti-graft court’s Fourth Division, respectively, guilty of simple misconduct.

Voting 8-4 with three justices taking no part, the SC justices ordered Ong to pay a fine of P15,000 and warned him that a “repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.”

The SC admonished Hernandez and issued a warning to Ponferrada “to be more cautious about the proper procedure to be taken in proceedings.”

The SC acted on a complaint filed by assistant prosecutor Rohermia Jamsani-Rodriguez of the Office of the Special Prosecutor, the prosecutorial arm of the Office of the Ombudsman.

It ruled that the manner by which the three Sandiganbayan justices conducted the provincial hearings for several cases in Davao City from April 24 to 28, 2006 violated the rules under Presidential Decree 1606, the law creating the anti-graft court.

‘Irregular procedure’

Saying that judges are “not common individuals whose gross errors men forgive and time forgets,” the SC threw out the argument of the Sandiganbayan justices that their adoption of the “irregular procedure” was a mere deficiency in prudence or a lapse in judgment on their part.

In her complaint, Rodriguez questioned the procedure adopted by the Fourth Division in Davao City of hearing two cases simultaneously, with the chairman hearing one case by himself and the two members sitting together to hear another case.

She said the justices did not sit together and acted as a collegial body as required by law.

The SC, however, said the three Sandiganbayan justices were liable only for simple misconduct, not gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.

It said there was no evidence to support Rodriguez’s allegation that Ong and Hernandez uttered “improper and intemperate statements” during the provincial hearings by allegedly randomly asking the counsels from which schools they had graduated.

Still, the SC admonished Ong and Hernandez for publicizing their professional qualifications and manifesting “lack of requisite humility demanded of public magistrates.”

“They should not exchange banter or engage in playful teasing of each other during trial proceedings (no matter how good-natured or even if meant to ease tension, as they want us to believe). Judicial decorum demands that they behave with dignity and act with courtesy towards all who appear before their court,” it added.