G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087; June 7, 2011
Case Title: Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Judge Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Burgos, Pangasinan, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from: (1) an undated letter from Ramon Ona-Ligaya to then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban and the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), protesting the appointment of Ma. Ellen Aguilar as RTC Judge due to pending criminal charges against her; and (2) an Indorsement from the Office of the City Legal Officer of Olongapo City, referring to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a decision by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon in OMB-L-A-03-0718-G which fined Atty. Aguilar (then City Legal Officer) an amount equivalent to one month’s salary for misconduct.
The factual background, as found by the investigating Court of Appeals Justice, is as follows: On July 2, 1998, while serving as Olongapo City Legal Officer, Atty. Aguilar notarized a real estate mortgage contract for a ₱120,000 loan between Lourdes Sison and Angelina Cuevas. The parties later returned with a revised contract for ₱140,000, which Atty. Aguilar also notarized, using the same notarial details as the first, deeming the first cancelled. Both documents were inadvertently kept together. In 2002, Arnel Sison (Lourdes’s son) discovered the two documents and filed complaints for Falsification of Public Document, Perjury, and Estafa against Atty. Aguilar and Cuevas before the Regional State Prosecutor and the Ombudsman. The prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaints for lack of probable cause in 2004.
The Ombudsman case (OMB-L-A-03-0718-G) for Dishonesty and Misconduct proceeded. After retiring as City Legal Officer on December 13, 2003, Atty. Aguilar applied for a judgeship in September 2004. In her Personal Data Sheet (PDS), she answered “None” to Question No. 23, which asked about any pending civil, criminal, or administrative cases. She was appointed RTC Judge on October 15, 2005.
On November 29, 2005, the Deputy Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding her guilty of misconduct (not dishonesty) for notarizing the documents in 1998 when she was not yet a commissioned notary public, noting that her ex-officio notarial powers were limited to documents connected with her official functions. The penalty was one month suspension. Upon her motion for reconsideration, the Ombudsman, in an Order dated January 31, 2006, denied the motion but modified the penalty to a fine of one month’s pay.
Judge Aguilar assumed her judicial post on February 8, 2006. On March 6, 2006, she submitted another PDS to the Supreme Court, answering “No” to questions asking if she had ever been formally charged, found guilty of an administrative offense, or convicted of any crime.
The OCA required Judge Aguilar to comment on her failure to disclose the Ombudsman case in her PDS. In her Comment, she stated she only learned of the Ombudsman’s denial order when the OCA furnished her a copy in June 2007, after which she paid the fine. She explained her notarization was an act of free legal service and apologized for the inaccuracies in her PDS.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar is administratively liable for dishonesty for failing to disclose the pending administrative case before the Ombudsman and the subsequent finding of misconduct against her in her Personal Data Sheets submitted to the JBC and the Supreme Court.

RULING

Yes, Judge Aguilar is administratively liable for dishonesty.
The Supreme Court found Judge Aguilar guilty of dishonesty for making an untruthful statement in her PDS. When she accomplished her PDS in September 2004 for her JBC application, the Ombudsman case (OMB-L-A-03-0718-G) was already pending, and she had even filed her counter-affidavit in October 2003. Her answer of “None” to Question No. 23 was therefore a deliberate falsehood. Furthermore, in her March 2006 PDS submitted to the Supreme Court after her appointment, she again answered “No” to questions about prior charges or administrative offenses, despite the Ombudsman having already rendered a Decision on November 29, 2005, finding her guilty of misconduct. Her claim of lack of knowledge of the Ombudsman’s ruling was untenable, as the decision was promulgated before she assumed office and the implementing office had been furnished a copy.
The Court emphasized that a PDS is a vital document under oath required for employment in the government. Concealing information in a PDS constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense that undermines integrity and erodes public trust, especially for a member of the judiciary who must be the embodiment of competence and moral uprightness. Her explanation that the notarization was an act of charity did not excuse the falsity.
Considering her otherwise unblemished record, her contributions to legal scholarship, and the fact that the underlying misconduct (unauthorized notarization) did not involve moral turpitude or corruption, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.