You are on page 1of 8

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1600
**
February 1, 2011
VIVIAN T. A!U, A""#"$a%$ Pro&#%'#a( Pro"e'u$or, Complainant,
vs.
EUARO ROEN E. )APUNAN, Pre"#*#%+ Ju*+e, !ra%', -1 a%* A'$#%+ Ju*+e, !ra%', -2,
*
MA. T.ERESA CORTE/, 0EI0A O. 1A0O, !o$, Cour$ S$e%o+ra2,er", SU/ETTE O.
TION1CO, 0e+a( Re"ear',er, A(( o3 Re+#o%a( Tr#a( Cour$, !ra%', -1, 1ua+ua, Pa42a%+a,
Respondents.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
A.M. No. 01-5-156-RTC
RE7 EVA0UATION OF T.E REPORT AN INVENTOR8 SU!MITTE !8 E9ECUTIVE
JU1E RO1E0IO C. 1ON/A0ES, RTC, 1ua+ua, Pa42a%+a, ON ANNU0MENT OF
MARRIA1E CASES IN !RANC.ES :;, -0, -1, -2 a%* -5 OF T.E 1UA1UA RE1IONA0
TRIA0 COURT
D E C ! " N
PER CURIAM:
Pu#suant to the po$e#s vested in the Cou#t unde# !ection %, A#ticle & of the '()* Constitution,
'
the
Cou#t acts upon these t$o consolidated administ#ative cases a+ainst ,'- .ud+e Edua#do Roden E.
/apunan 0.ud+e /apunan1, then p#esidin+ 2ud+e of B#anch 3' and actin+ 2ud+e of B#anch 34, Re+ional
5#ial Cou#t of 6ua+ua, Pampan+a 0R5C17 ,4- steno+#aphe# Ma. 5he#esa Co#te8 0Co#te817 ,9-
steno+#aphe# :eila ". 6alo 06alo17 and ,;- :e+al Resea#che# !u8ette 5ion+co 05ion+co1, all of B#anch
3', R5C, 6ua+ua, Pampan+a.
n A.M. No. RTJ-00-1600, complainant &ivian 5. Dabu (Dabu) claimed that she $as appointed ;th
Assistant P#ovincial P#osecuto# fo# Pampan+a sometime in .une '(((. n "ctobe# of the same <ea#,
f#om he# station in !an =e#nando, Pampan+a, she $as t#ansfe##ed and #e-assi+ned to 6ua+ua,
Pampan+a, to se#ve B#anches 3>, 3' and 34 of the R5C the#ein.
Acco#din+ to Dabu, 2ust a fe$ months into he# assi+nment, she noticed that unli?e in B#anch 3>, she
$as not bein+ called upon to inte#vene o# investi+ate cases involvin+ annulment of ma##ia+es in
B#anches 3' and 34, both p#esided b< .ud+e /apunan, despite the fact that the cases fo# annulment of
ma##ia+e $e#e bein+ #affled e@uall< amon+ the five 031 b#anches of the R5C, in 6ua+ua, Pampan+a.
Cu#ious on $hat appea#ed to he# as an oddit<, and havin+ p#eviousl< lea#ned that cases fo# annulment
of ma##ia+e $e#e bein+ AfixedA in the said station, Dabu $ent to the "ffice of the Cle#? of Cou#t and
+ot f#om its doc?et the list of annulment cases #affled to B#anches 3' and 34 pe#tainin+ to the pe#iod
f#om Au+ust ', '((( to Ma#ch 4>>>. !he then $ent to each b#anch and #e@uested the #eco#ds of the
cases in the list. !he then found out that the #eco#ds $e#e bein+ falsified and made to appea# that a
p#osecuto# appea#ed du#in+ the supposed hea#in+s of the annulment cases, $hen, in t#uth, the
p#osecuto#s $ho supposedl< appea#ed $e#e eithe# on leave o# had al#ead< been #e-assi+ned to anothe#
station.
5he othe# case, A.M. No. 01-5-156, stemmed f#om an a#ticle $#itten b< Att<. Emil P. .u#ado (Atty.
Jurado) in the Novembe# ', 4>>> issue of the Manila !tanda#d. t #epo#ted that an R5C b#anch in
6ua+ua, Pampan+a, had been imp#ope#l< disposin+ cases fo# annulment of ma##ia+e in As<ndicated
effo#ts involvin+ cou#t pe#sonnel and a public assistance office la$<e#.A
Dete#mined to asce#tain the t#uth of the alle+ations made in the a#ticle, then Chief .ustice Bila#io 6.
Davide, .#. inst#ucted Executive .ud+e Ro+elio C. 6on8ales (Judge Gonzales) of R5C, 6ua+ua,
Pampan+a to submit invento#ies of ma##ia+e annulment cases filed in the five 031 b#anches of the R5C,
6ua+ua, Pampan+a, f#om .anua#< '((* to Novembe# 4>>>.
n the evaluation
4
of the #epo#t and invento#< submitted b< .ud+e 6on8ales, then Deput< Cou#t
Administ#ato# .ose P. Pe#e8
9
#ecommended that the matte# be 2oined $ith the p#oceedin+s in A.M. No.
RTJ-00-1600 so that Aa complete pictu#e and histo#< of the anomalous t#eatment b< B#anches 3' and
34 of annulment of ma##ia+e casesA $ould be made.
n its Resolution
;
dated Ma#ch '9, 4>>', the Cou#t o#de#ed the consolidation of A.M. No. '-9-'9)-R5C
and A.M. "CA P No. >>-'>4)-R5..
Du#in+ the hea#in+ of these cases, onl< .ud+e /apunan and 5ion+co pa#ticipated. Co#te8 manifested
that she $ould not adduce evidence in he# behalf and $ould submit the case fo#
dispositionC#ecommendation on the basis of the #eco#ds and evidence adduced du#in+ the investi+ation.
Respondent 6alo, on the othe# hand, neithe# appea#ed no# filed an< comment o# pleadin+.
5he #esult of the investi+ation #evealed somethin+ not expected of a p#ope# 2udicial office. As #epo#ted
in detail b< the nvesti+atin+ .ustice Elie8e# R. De :os !antos
3
(Investigating Justice) of the Cou#t of
AppealsD
"n Au+ust 4;, 4>>>, Complainant Assistant P#ovincial P#osecuto# &ivian 5. Dabu executed an
Affidavit citin+ seve#al incidents $he#ein the cou#t #eco#ds of cases fo# annulment of ma##ia+e, lost
titles and decla#ation of p#esumptive death $e#e bein+ falsified. 5he Affidavit $as t#eated as a
Complaint fo# falsification of cou#t #eco#ds a+ainst .ud+e Edua#do Roden E. /apunan and cou#t
steno+#aphe#s Ma. 5he#esa Co#te8 and :eila ". 6alo. Respondent !u8ette 5ion+co $as not included in
the cha#+e of falsification of cou#t #eco#ds as complainant ha,d- no evidence lin?in+ he# the#eto but the
"ffice of the Cou#t Administ#ato# included he# $ith the cha#+e of conduct p#e2udicial to the best
inte#est of the se#vice.
Complainant alle+ed that du#in+ the pe#iod bet$een Novembe# '((( and Au+ust 4>>>, #espondent
.ud+e $as the p#esidin+ 2ud+e of B#anch 3' and the actin+ 2ud+e of B#anch 34, both of the Re+ional
5#ial Cou#t of 6ua+ua, Pampan+a, $ith th#ee 091 of the pe#sonnel of B#anch 3', namel<D :eila 6alo,
Ma. 5he#esa Co#te8 and !u8ette 5ion+co.
Respondent .ud+e and 6alo $e#e detailed to the Re+ional 5#ial Cou#t of Manila, B#anch ;), at the
same time and $e#e #etu#ned to thei# o#i+inal assi+nment at the Re+ional 5#ial Cou#t of 6ua+ua,
Pampan+a also at the same time x x x.
Respondents 6alo and Co#te8 $e#e appointed to the position of cou#t steno+#aphe#s fo# B#anch 3' x x
x. Bo$eve#, #espondent 6alo, du#in+ the said pe#iod, did not pe#fo#m the duties of a steno+#aphe# but
acted as a sec#eta#< fo# #espondent .ud+e x x x. !he #eceived all communications pe#tainin+ to
#espondent .ud+e o# to cases pendin+ befo#e B#anches 3' and 34 x x x. Respondent .ud+e +ave specific
inst#uction on this matte# to the Cou#tEs pe#sonnel x x x.
5he othe# staff of B#anch 3' 0sic1 holds office at the 9#d floo# of 6oseco hall, $hich is located ac#oss
the municipal hall of 6ua+ua, Pampan+a. "n the othe# hand, all of the staff of B#anch 34 0sic1 is
holdin+ office at the 4nd floo# of 6oseco Ball.
All the #eco#ds of B#anches 3' and 34 a#e bein+ ?ept at the 6oseco Ball except fo# the #eco#ds of cases
$hich have pendin+ incidents to be #esolved, o# an "#de#CDecision fo# si+natu#e, o# to be hea#d, o# is
needed b< #espondent .ud+e $hich a#e in the office of the #espondents at the municipal hall x x x.
P#io# to Novembe# '(((, the assi+ned p#osecuto# fo# B#anch 3' is Asst. P#ovincial P#osecuto# Domin+o
C. Pineda and fo# B#anch 34 is fo#me# Asst. P#ovincial P#osecuto# Re<es D. Manalo. Be+innin+ '>
Novembe# '((( up to 9' Au+ust 4>>>, he#ein complainant $as the assi+ned p#osecuto# fo# B#anches
3' and 34.
As evidence fo# the cha#+e of falsification of cou#t #eco#ds, complainant p#esented the follo$in+ casesD
'. Civil Case No. 6-9%33
Nonito &itu+ vs. 6#acita !an+an
=o#D Annulment of Ma##ia+e
R5C-34, 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
"n 9 Novembe# '(((, the#e $as alle+edl< a hea#in+ $hich $as held in the p#esence of fo#me# Asst.
P#ovincial P#osecuto# Re<es D. Manalo, $he#ein the plaintiff and the ps<cholo+ist testified and,
the#eafte#, the counsel of #eco#d, Att<. Ponciano C. :obo, offe#ed his evidence, and, $ithout the
ob2ection of the public p#osecuto#, the case $as deemed submitted fo# decision x x x. 5he minutes and
t#ansc#ipt of steno+#aphic notes $e#e p#epa#ed b< #espondent Co#te8.
"n ( Novembe# '(((, a Decision $as #ende#ed, $hich states on pa#a+#aph 9, pa+e ', the#eof that
AP#osecuto# Re<es Manalo on Novembe# 9, '((( submitted his Repo#t that no collusion exists bet$een
the pa#tiesA but no such Repo#t is attached to the #eco#ds of the case x x x.
=o#me# P#osecuto# Re<es D. Manalo testified that as ea#l< as 43 "ctobe# '(((, $hen he filed his
Application fo# :eave fo# the month of Novembe#, he $as al#ead< on leave and, f#om then on, has
neve# appea#ed befo#e B#anch 34 of the Re+ional 5#ial Cou#t of 6ua+ua, Pampan+a until his #eti#ement
in .une 4>>> x x x. 5his $as co##obo#ated b< the steno+#aphe# of said Cou#t, Fenaida A.C. Ca#aan x x
x.
n the c#iminal cases hea#d on 9 Novembe# '(((, #espondent .ud+e issued "#de#s decla#in+ the hea#in+
on said date cancelled and #esettin+ the same to anothe# date in vie$ of the absence of the public
p#osecuto# x x x.
Att<. Ponciano C. :obo, on the othe# hand, testified that none of the pa#ties is his client and that he
neve# appea#ed in the said case x x x.
4. Civil Case No. 6-9%*3
Me#iam &itu+ vs. Ed+a# =aeldon
=o#D Annulment of Ma##ia+e
R5C-3', 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
"n '4 Novembe# '(((, Asst. P#ovincial P#osecuto# Domin+o C. Pineda alle+edl< issued a
Manifestation findin+ no collusion bet$een the pa#ties x x x. Be, ho$eve#, testified that he did not
issue an< AManifestationA in connection $ith this case x x x.
"n '3 Novembe# '(((, a hea#in+ $as alle+edl< conducted in the p#esence of the said public p#osecuto#
$he#ein the plaintiff testified and the case $as #e-set on 4( Decembe# '((( fo# the p#esentation of the
ps<cholo+ist x x x. 5he minutes and t#ansc#ipt of steno+#aphic notes $e#e both p#epa#ed b< #espondent
Co#te8 x x x.
Bo$eve#, the "#de#s in the c#iminal cases hea#d on the same date, '3 Novembe# '(((, $hich $e#e also
p#epa#ed b< #espondent Co#te8 and si+ned b< #espondent 2ud+e, stated that the hea#in+ $as cancelled in
vie$ of the absence of the public p#osecuto# x x x.
Asst. P#ovincial P#osecuto# Domin+o C. Pineda testified that he $as, as of ) Novembe# '(((, assi+ned
to B#anches 3; and 33 of the Re+ional ,5-#ial Cou#t of Macabebe, Pampan+a, and f#om then on, neve#
appea#ed befo#e B#anch 3' of the Re+ional 5#ial Cou#t of 6ua+ua, Pampan+a x x x. 5his $as
co##obo#ated b< the "C-B#anch Cle#? of Cou#t of the said Cou#t, Edua#do P. Ca#los x x x.
Att<. Ponciano C. :obo a+ain testified that none of the pa#ties is his client and he neve# appea#ed in
such case x x x.
5he Decision in this case $as included in the cases #epo#ted as havin+ been decided o# disposed of fo#
the month of Ma#ch 4>>> x x x.
9. Civil Case No. 6-9%3(
Rica#do :a<u+ vs. Fe#lina A#teta
=o#D Annulment of Ma##ia+e
R5C-34, 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
"n 9 Novembe# '(((, a Manifestation $as alle+edl< issued b< fo#me# Asst. P#ovincial P#osecuto#
Re<es D. Manalo x x x but he testified that he did not issue the same x x x.
"n 3 Novembe# '(((, a hea#in+ $as alle+edl< held in the p#esence of the said public p#osecuto#
$he#ein the plaintiff and a ps<cholo+ist testified, the counsel on #eco#d, Att<. Ponciano C. :obo,
offe#ed his evidence and $ithout the ob2ection of the public p#osecuto#, the case $as submitted fo#
#esolution x x x.
A+ain fo#me# Asst. P#ovincial P#osecuto# Re<es D. Manalo and Att<. Ponciano C. :obo denied an<
pa#ticipation in the case.
;. :RC Case No. 6-*9
n #eD Petition fo# ssuance of
"$ne#Es Duplicate Cop< of
5C5 No. 4'*;'%-R,
Rev. =#. =#ancisco R. :ansan+,
Petitione#,
R5C-3', 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
3. :RC Case No. 6-*;
n #eD Petition fo# ssuance of
"$ne#Es Duplicate Cop< of
5C5 Nos. ;;'>*;-R to ;;'>)(-R,
Beat#i8 :ansan+, Petitione#.
R5C-3', 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
"n 43 Novembe# '(((, a hea#in+ $as alle+edl< held $he#ein the petitione#s $e#e p#esented, the
counsel on #eco#d, Att<. Ponciano C. :obo offe#ed his evidence, and, the#eafte#, these cases $e#e
deemed submitted fo# #esolution x x x. 5he minutes of hea#in+ and t#ansc#ipt of steno+#aphic notes
$e#e p#epa#ed b< #espondent Co#te8 x x x.
"n Decembe# %, '((( sepa#ate "#de#s $e#e issued +#antin+ the petitions favo#abl< x x x. 5hese cases
$e#e #epo#ted in .une 4>>> to have been decided o# disposed of x x x.
Att<. Ponciano C. :obo p#offe#ed the same testimon< x x x.
%. Civil Case No. 6-43*(
Benito !amia, .#. vs. .osephine :. :o#en8o-!amia
=o#D Annulment of Ma##ia+e
R5C-3', 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
"n 4' =eb#ua#< 4>>>, a Decision $as #ende#ed statin+ the#ein that a Ps<cholo+ical Evaluation Repo#t
$as submitted but none appea#s on the #eco#d x x x.
:i?e$ise, bet$een '9 Decembe# '((( and 4' =eb#ua#< 4>>>, no othe# hea#in+ $as conducted despite
the fact that the "#de# dated '9 Decembe# '((( indicated the next hea#in+ on '* .anua#< 4>>> and the
do#sal side of pa+e ''' of the #eco#d states AReset 4C4'C>>A x x x. 5he#e $as also no #eco#d that
plaintiff offe#ed his evidence, #ested his case, o# submitted the case fo# #esolution x x x.
5he said Decision $as included in the monthl< #epo#t of cases disposed of in .une 4>>> x x x.
*. Civil Case No. 6-9*'*
5omas 5ama<o vs. Ado#acion !ampan+
=o#D Annulment of Ma##ia+e
R5C-34, 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
5he plaintiff, 5omas 5ama<o, testified that the case $as filed b< #espondent Co#te8 befo#e the Re+ional
5#ial Cou#t of 6ua+ua, Pampan+a, afte# the latte# a+#eed to help him in the Ap#ocessin+A of the
annulment of his ma##ia+e7 that he neve# appea#ed befo#e an< la$<e# fo# the nota#i8ation of his &e#ified
Petition7 that he $as initiall< told that the#e $ould be no hea#in+ in his annulment case and it $ill be
+#anted $ithin th#ee 091 months7 that he +ave the amount of Php '3,>>>.>> in connection the#eto $hich
$as #etu#ned to him afte# he $ithd#e$ his case7 that #espondent 6alo too? f#om him Php;>>>.>> in
pa<ment of the Aps<cholo+ist feeA $hich amount $as not #etu#ned to him7 that he +ave the amount to
#espondent 6alo afte# she identified he#self as a cou#t emplo<ee and even p#esented an identification
ca#d of #espondent .ud+e x x x.
n his testimon<, Att<. Ponciano C. :obo stated that the plaintiff is not his client x x x.
). Civil Case No. 6-9%**
.oseph &oltai#e Datu vs. Ma#issa !. 5ama#e8
=o#D Annulment of Ma##ia+e
R5C-34, 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
"n '' Ap#il 4>>>, a Manifestation and Motion $as filed b< Att<. Ponciano C. :obo den<in+ his
si+natu#e appea#in+ on the said Complaint and claimin+ it to be a fo#+e#< x x x.
"n the $itness stand, Att<. Ponciano C. :obo #eite#ated that none of the pa#ties is his client and that the
si+natu#e appea#in+ in the Complaint is not his x x x.
(. !um. P#oc. No. 6-'4>3
n #eD Petition fo# !umma#< P#oceedin+
=o# Decla#ation of P#esumptive Death of
Absentee =elicitas .abilona,
.oselito =lo#es, Petitione#.
R5C-3', 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
"n 4* .ul< 4>>>, a hea#in+ $as alle+edl< held $he#ein the counsel on #eco#d, Att<. Romeo B. 5o#no
offe#ed his evidence x x x.
Att<. Romeo B. 5o#no, ho$eve#, testified that he did not appea# befo#e the said Cou#t on the said time
and date as he $as then appea#in+ befo#e B#anch 3>7 that afte# his ex pa#te p#esentation of evidence, the
next hea#in+ $as scheduled on 4* .ul< 4>>> at 9D9> oEcloc? in the afte#noon but the same $as
cancelled since he has no $itness to p#esent7 and that, the#eafte#, the#e $as no othe# hea#in+ held o#
conducted in this case x x x.
"n Au+ust *, 4>>>, an "#de# $as issued +#antin+ the Petition x x x.
Att<. 5o#no suspected that #espondent Co#te8 p#epa#ed the same and $hen he conf#onted he#, she
#eplied that Aeve#<thin+ is o?a<A x x x.
'>. Civil Case No. 6-9*9>
"felia Enal vs. =#ancisco Enal .#.
=o#D Annulment of Ma##ia+e
R5C-3', 6ua+ua, Pampan+a
"n 9> .une 4>>>, an "#de# $as issued statin+ that a hea#in+ $as alle+edl< held $he#ein the plaintiff
testified, the Ps<cholo+ical Evaluation Repo#t filed, and the case deemed submitted fo# #esolution x x x.
5he #eco#ds of the case, ho$eve#, bea# an "#de# dated ( .une 4>>> $ith the same contents x x x.
"n even date, ( .une 4>>>, a Decision $as issued in favo# of the plaintiff x x x.
Refutin+ the cha#+es a+ainst him, #espondent .ud+e ave##ed in his Comment
%
thatD
a1 his si+natu#es appea#in+ in the #eco#ds of A"felia Enal vs. =#ancisco Enal, .#., doc?eted as
Civil Case Nos. 6-9*9>, and AMe#iam &itu+ vs. Ed+a# =aeldon,A doc?eted as Civil Case No. 6-
9%*3, $e#e fo#+e#ies7
b1 afte# the said cases $e#e made ?no$n to him du#in+ the latte# pa#t of .ul< 4>>> and since he
#eceived complaints ,f#om- liti+ants about the AactivitiesA of #espondent 6alo, he conducted a
disc#eet investi+ation, but stopped the same upon the filin+ of this complaint7
c1 he is a victim of falsification and did not conspi#e o# connive $ith the othe# #espondents in
the commission the#eof.
"n Ma< 4), 4>>', .ud+e /apunan suffe#ed f#om ca#dio-pulmona#< a##est and died at the a+e of fift<-
fou#. Acco#din+ to his hei#s, the evidence of the complainant $as insufficient to suppo#t the cha#+es
a+ainst thei# late fathe# and, thus, sou+ht the dismissal of the complaint.
=#om a me#e examination of the si+natu#es of .ud+e /apunan on the @uestioned cou#t #eco#ds, it is
clea# that his si+natu#es $e#e not fo#+ed. As co##ectl< pointed out b< the complainant and the
nvesti+atin+ .ustice, except fo# the abovementioned cases of Enal and &itu+, .ud+e /apunan failed to
specificall< den< unde# oath his pa#ticipation in the anomalous cases o# to challen+e the +enuineness of
his si+natu#e appea#in+ in the cou#t #eco#ds of the @uestioned cases enume#ated b< Dabu. 5hus,
follo$in+ !ection ), Rule ) of the '((* Rules of Civil P#ocedu#e,
*
this amounts to an admission b<
.ud+e /apunan that he indeed si+ned the @uestioned o#de#s, decisions and cou#t #eco#ds.
Also, in all the @uestioned cases pointed out b< Dabu, includin+ the cases of Enal and &itu+, .ud+e
/apunan failed to offe# an< evidence to suppo#t his defense that his si+natu#es the#ein $e#e fo#+ed. 5he
#ule is that he $ho disavo$s the authenticit< of his si+natu#e on a public document bea#s the
#esponsibilit< of p#esentin+ evidence to that effect.
)
Me#e disclaime# is not sufficient. Gnde# !ection
44, Rule '94 of the Rules of Cou#t,
(
the +enuineness of hand$#itin+ ma< be p#oved in the follo$in+
manne#D ,'- b< an< $itness $ho believes it to be the hand$#itin+ of such pe#son because he has seen
the pe#son $#ite7 o# he has seen $#itin+ pu#po#tin+ to be his upon $hich the $itness has acted on o#
been cha#+ed7 ,4- b< a compa#ison, made b< a $itness o# the cou#t, $ith $#itin+s admitted o# t#eated as
+enuine b< the pa#t< a+ainst $hom the evidence is offe#ed, o# p#oved to be +enuine to the satisfaction
of the 2ud+e. At the ve#< least, he should p#esent co##obo#atin+ $itnesses to p#ove his asse#tion. At best,
he should p#esent an expe#t $itness.
'>
As a #ule, fo#+e#< cannot be p#esumed and must be p#oved b<
clea#, positive and convincin+ evidence and the bu#den of p#oof lies on the pa#t< alle+in+ fo#+e#<.
''
5his, unfo#tunatel<, .ud+e /apunan failed to do.
At an< #ate, cont#a#< to the asse#tions of .ud+e /apunan, in the case of &itu+, the #eco#ds sho$ that as
ea#l< as Ma< 9', 4>>>, he al#ead< issued an o#de# +#antin+ the appeal of the !olicito# 6ene#al. Be
could not, the#efo#e, claim that he $as onl< made a$a#e of the anomalies in &itu+ afte# it $as decided.
=u#the#, as noted b< the nvesti+atin+ .ustice, .ud+e /apunan himself confi#med in his .une 4>>>
#epo#t of decided cases that the cases of :ansan+ and !amia $e#e amon+ those he had decided. 5hus,
he could not claim that his si+natu#es in the decisions of those cases $e#e fo#+ed.
5he Cou#t finds specious the alle+ation of .ud+e /apunan that the Ap#ocessin+A of cases $e#e
committed b< 6alo all b< he#self, and that he conducted a Adisc#eet investi+ationA $hen he lea#ned of
he# activities. .ud+e /apunan offe#ed no plausible #eason $h< he failed to finish his investi+ation othe#
than the lame excuse that he stopped his investi+ation due to the filin+ of the complaint. 5he #eason is
clea#. 5he#e $as no investi+ation conducted. As opined b< the nvesti+atin+ .ustice,
'4
had the#e been an
investi+ation, .ud+e /apunan should have completed it, found the culp#it, filed the app#op#iate cha#+es,
and clea#ed his name.
Hith #espect to 6alo, she failed to appea# in the p#oceedin+s belo$ o# file an< comment, o# an<
pleadin+. 5he p#oceedin+s belo$ established that she #eceived pa<ments f#om liti+ants as Aps<cholo+ist
fee.A !he even admitted to Dabu on at least t$o occasions that she had Ap#ocessedA ce#tain cases
involvin+ annulment of ma##ia+e $ith the A+o si+nalA of .ud+e /apunan. n fact, she admitted to Dabu
that she $as Ap#ocessin+A one case $he#e one of the pa#ties $as a f#iend of .ud+e /apunan, upon
o#de#s of the latte#.
"n the othe# hand, Co#te8 admitted p#epa#in+ the @uestioned o#de#s, decisions, minutes of hea#in+s, and
t#ansc#ipts. !he t#ied to 2ustif< he# actions b< claimin+ that she onl< acted upon the inst#uctions of
6alo. Gnfo#tunatel<, these ci#cumstances do not 2ustif< he# acts at all.
5a?in+ all these into conside#ation, it is undeniable that .ud+e /apunan, 6alo and Co#te8 acted to+ethe#
in issuin+ @uestionable o#de#s and decisions th#ou+h falsification of public documents.
Hith #e+a#d to 5ion+co, ho$eve#, the#e is no evidence a+ainst he#. 5he inclusion of 5ion+co in this case
$as onl< upon the initiative of the "ffice of the Cou#t Administ#ato#. As the #eco#d is be#eft of an<
evidence to hold he# liable, he# exone#ation is in o#de#.
Cou#t emplo<ees, f#om the p#esidin+ 2ud+e to the lo$liest cle#?, bein+ public se#vants in an office
dispensin+ 2ustice, should al$a<s act $ith a hi+h de+#ee of p#ofessionalism and #esponsibilit<. 5hei#
conduct must not onl< be cha#acte#i8ed b< p#op#iet< and deco#um, but must also be in acco#dance $ith
the la$ and cou#t #e+ulations. No position demands +#eate# mo#al #i+hteousness and up#i+htness f#om
its holde# than an office in the 2udicia#<. Cou#t emplo<ees should be models of up#i+htness, fai#ness and
honest< to maintain the peopleIs #espect and faith in the 2udicia#<. 5he< should avoid an< act o# conduct
that $ould diminish public t#ust and confidence in the cou#ts. ndeed, those connected $ith dispensin+
2ustice bea# a heav< bu#den of #esponsibilit<.
'9
=alsification of an official document such as cou#t #eco#ds is conside#ed a +#ave offense. t also
amounts to dishonest<. Gnde# !ection 49, Rule J& of the Administ#ative Code of '()*, dishonest<
0pa#. a1 and falsification 0pa#. f1 a#e conside#ed +#ave offenses $a##antin+ the penalt< of dismissal f#om
se#vice upon commission of the fi#st offense.
=u#the#mo#e, falsification of an official document is punishable as a c#iminal offense unde# A#ticle '*'
of the Revised Penal Code and dishonest< is an impious act that has no place in the 2udicia#<.
5he penalt< of dismissal, ho$eve#, can no lon+e# be imposed and ca##ied out $ith #espect to the late
.ud+e /apunan. 5he administ#ative complaints a+ainst him have become moot and academic and the
case should be deemed closed and te#minated follo$in+ ou# #ulin+ in :o<ao, .#. v. Caube
';
and Apia+
v. Cante#o.
'3
<.EREFORE, findin+ #espondents, Ma. 5he#esa Co#te8 and :eila ". 6alo, 1UI0T8 of falsification
of official documents and dishonest<, the Cou#t he#eb< o#de#s thei# ISMISSA0 f#om the se#vice, $ith
fo#feitu#e of all #eti#ement benefits and p#ivile+es, except acc#ued leave c#edits, if an<, $ith p#e2udice to
#eemplo<ment in an< b#anch o# inst#umentalit< of the +ove#nment, includin+ +ove#nment-o$ned o#
cont#olled co#po#ations.1avvphi1
5he case a+ainst #espondent .ud+e Edua#do Roden E. /apunan is he#eb< dismissed fo# bein+ moot and
academic due to his untimel< demise.
Respondent !u8ette ". 5ion+co is E9ONERATE of the cha#+es.
SO ORERE.

You might also like