G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452. March 09, 2016.
IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4th PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR).

FACTS

An anonymous complaint charged Judge Jaime E. Contreras of the RTC of Naga City, Branch 25, with Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Perjury. The complaint alleged that when Judge Contreras applied for a position in the judiciary, he failed to disclose in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) a previous administrative case filed against him while he was a Provincial Prosecutor. In that case, docketed as OMB-ADM-1-94-1040 (Carlito I. Nudo v. Jaime Contreras), the Office of the Ombudsman found him guilty of simple misconduct and meted out the penalty of admonition. In his Comment, Judge Contreras surmised the complaint was filed by a former sheriff he had dismissed. He could not categorically deny or affirm the charge due to the complainant’s failure to attach the questioned PDS but maintained he had been disclosing such information during Judicial and Bar Council interviews. He also claimed admonition is not a penalty but merely advice. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended finding him guilty of dishonesty and dismissing him from service. A Certification from the Ombudsman confirmed four resolved cases against him, including OMB-ADM-1-94-1040 where he was admonished for simple misconduct for exerting undue influence in an arrest. Examination of his PDS forms revealed that in an April 16, 2007 PDS, he answered “NO” to a question about being charged with or found guilty of a violation. In later PDS forms (January 24, 2010 and September 28, 2013), he answered “YES” to a similar question but only listed two dismissed cases from 1997, omitting the 1994 case where he was sanctioned.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Jaime E. Contreras is guilty of dishonesty for failing to disclose a previous administrative offense in his Personal Data Sheet.

RULING

Yes, Judge Jaime E. Contreras is guilty of dishonesty. The Court agreed with the OCA’s finding but modified the penalty. The truthful completion of a PDS is a mandatory requirement for government employment, serving as a repository of an official’s information. The Ombudsman’s finding of simple misconduct and imposition of admonition in OMB-ADM-1-94-1040 constituted an administrative offense that he was obligated to declare. His failure to disclose this in his 2007 PDS, and his subsequent incomplete disclosures in 2010 and 2013 where he only mentioned dismissed cases but omitted the case where he was sanctioned, constituted dishonesty. As a judge and former prosecutor, he had a duty to follow laws and rules meticulously. His act demonstrated a lack of integrity fundamental to the judiciary. While dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal, the Court considered mitigating factors: his more than 30 years of government service and this being his first offense as a member of the bench. Consequently, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from service for one (1) year without pay, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.