G.R. No. RTJ-00-1600 and A.M. No. 01-3-138-RTC. February 1, 2011.
VIVIAN T. DABU, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, Complainant, vs. EDUARDO RODEN E. KAPUNAN, Presiding Judge, Branch 51 and Acting Judge, Branch 52, MA. THERESA CORTEZ, LEILA O. GALO, Both Court Stenographers, SUZETTE O. TIONGCO, Legal Researcher, All of Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Guagua, Pampanga, Respondents.

RE: EVALUATION OF THE REPORT AND INVENTORY SUBMITTED BY EXECUTIVE JUDGE ROGELIO C. GONZALES, RTC, Guagua, Pampanga, ON ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE CASES IN BRANCHES 49, 50, 51, 52 and 53 OF THE GUAGUA REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

FACTS

These are two consolidated administrative cases. In A.M. No. RTJ-00-1600, complainant Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vivian T. Dabu alleged that after her reassignment to Guagua, Pampanga in October 1999, she noticed she was not called to intervene in annulment of marriage cases raffled to Branches 51 and 52, both presided by respondent Judge Eduardo Roden E. Kapunan, unlike in Branch 50. Suspecting anomalies, she obtained a list of annulment cases from August 1, 1999 to March 2000 and examined the records. She discovered that court records were falsified to make it appear that a prosecutor appeared during hearings when, in truth, the named prosecutors were either on leave or reassigned. She cited specific cases, including Civil Case No. G-3655 (Nonito Vitug vs. Gracita Sangan) where a hearing on November 3, 1999, allegedly had former Prosecutor Reyes D. Manalo present, but he testified he was on leave starting October 25, 1999, and never appeared. The decision referenced a report from him that was not in the records. In Civil Case No. G-3675 (Meriam Vitug vs. Edgar Faeldon), a Manifestation was attributed to Prosecutor Domingo C. Pineda on November 12, 1999, but he testified he did not issue it and had been reassigned to another station as of November 8, 1999. The minutes and transcripts for these hearings were prepared by respondent stenographer Ma. Theresa Cortez. Respondent stenographer Leila O. Galo acted as Judge Kapunan’s secretary, handling all communications. Respondent Legal Researcher Suzette Tiongco was included for conduct prejudicial to the service. A.M. No. 01-3-138-RTC stemmed from a newspaper article alleging syndicated irregularities in annulment cases in a Guagua RTC branch. The Supreme Court directed an inventory, which was consolidated with the first case. During the investigation, only Judge Kapunan and Tiongco participated; Cortez submitted without evidence, and Galo did not appear or file any comment.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Eduardo Roden E. Kapunan, Ma. Theresa Cortez, Leila O. Galo, and Suzette Tiongco are administratively liable for falsification of court records and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in relation to the anomalous processing of annulment of marriage cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the respondents administratively liable. The investigation revealed a scheme where court records of annulment cases were falsified to simulate prosecutor participation and compliance with legal requirements, facilitating the improper disposition of cases. Judge Kapunan, as the presiding and acting judge, bore responsibility for the integrity of court records and proceedings. His failure to ensure proper procedures and his tolerance of the falsifications constituted gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, warranting dismissal from service. The falsified minutes and transcripts prepared by Cortez, and the central role of Galo in managing communications for the judge in these anomalous cases, demonstrated their direct participation in the irregularities, making them liable for grave misconduct and dishonesty. Tiongco, as a legal researcher, was complicit through her inaction and failure to report the anomalies, constituting conduct prejudicial to the service. The Court emphasized that the conduct of all respondents severely undermined public confidence in the judiciary. Accordingly, the Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and disqualification from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.