AM 11 7 76 METC; (July, 2020) (Digest)
A.M. No. 11-7-76-MeTC, July 14, 2020
RE: ALLEGATION OF FALSIFICATION AGAINST PROCESS SERVERS MAXIMO D. LEGASPI AND DESIDERIO S. TESIORNA, BRANCH 43 AND OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, RESPECTIVELY, BOTH OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY
FACTS
This administrative case originated from an investigation by Atty. Jose R. Ortiz, Jr. of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, regarding the falsification of the signature of Judge Augustus C. Diaz on a marriage certificate. The investigation was prompted by a letter-complaint from Nathaniel Jonathan Springael. Springael alleged that in early April 2011, he went to Quezon City Hall to apply for marriage papers and met a certain “Derio” (later identified as Process Server Desiderio S. Tesiorna), who offered to assist him. Springael gave Tesiorna P5,000.00, and after Holy Week, he received a signed marriage certificate indicating his marriage was solemnized by Judge Diaz on April 18, 2011. On June 1, 2011, Springael visited Judge Diaz to express gratitude and discovered the judge did not sign the certificate. Judge Diaz confirmed he was on official leave and in the United States on April 18, 2011, and disavowed the signature. During the investigation, Springael positively identified Tesiorna. In a sworn statement, Tesiorna admitted giving Springael a blank marriage certificate, typing the entries, and then giving it to a certain “Max” (identified as Process Server Maximo D. Legaspi from Branch 43) who caused the affixing of Judge Diaz’s signature. Legaspi denied any involvement.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Desiderio S. Tesiorna and Maximo D. Legaspi are administratively liable for dishonesty and falsification of an official document.
RULING
The Supreme Court found respondent Desiderio S. Tesiorna GUILTY of dishonesty and falsification of an official document. The Court ruled that substantial evidence, including Tesiorna’s own admission in his sworn statement that he gave a blank marriage certificate to Springael, established his administrative culpability. His actions constituted dishonesty, as he misrepresented his capacity to secure a marriage certificate—a function outside his duties as a process server—and falsification, as the forged signature made it appear Judge Diaz officiated a marriage when he was abroad. Under the Uniform Rules, both are grave offenses punishable by dismissal. Tesiorna was dismissed from service with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government.
The administrative case against respondent Maximo D. Legaspi was DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence. The Court found no evidence, aside from Tesiorna’s bare allegation, implicating Legaspi. Springael consistently testified he only dealt with Tesiorna and had never met or transacted with Legaspi.