G.R. No. A.M. No. 19-03-16-SC August 14, 2019
Case Parties:

RE: INVESTIGATION RELATIVE TO THE FAKE DECISION IN G.R. NO. 211483 (MANUEL TAMBIO v. ALBERTO LUMBAYAN, ET AL.)

FACTS

1. On July 19, 2016, Atty. Vincent Paul L. Montejo, counsel for respondents in G.R. No. 211483, sought certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Third Division, Supreme Court, regarding the authenticity of a purported Decision dated March 14, 2016, in the case of Manuel Tambio v. Alberto Lumbayan, et al., allegedly penned by Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza and received by mail in Davao City.
2. The Records Division of the OCC Third Division informed Atty. Montejo that no such decision existed, as the case had already been decided by the First Division via a Minute Resolution dated June 18, 2014, denying the petition for review on certiorari, with an entry of judgment made on March 17, 2015. An undated omnibus motion by the petitioner was also denied by the Third Division in a Resolution dated November 9, 2015.
3. Atty. Wilfredo V. Lapitan, Third Division Clerk of Court, examined the document and declared it fake for several reasons: (a) it was not promulgated or released by the OCC Third Division; (b) it lacked an accompanying Notice of Judgment certified by the Division Clerk of Court; (c) it was not duly certified; (d) it was improperly formatted (short-size bond paper instead of long-size); (e) the signatures of the Associate Justices and the Division Clerk of Court appeared superimposed and photocopied; (f) the brown envelope bore the name of the Judicial Records Office (JRO) instead of the OCC Third Division; and (g) the envelope indicated a postage payment of ₱79.00 instead of being sent under franking privilege.
4. On July 12, 2016, the OCC Third Division received a letter from Judge Jose T. Tabosares of the RTC, Branch 23, Kidapawan City, expressing suspicion about the same fake Decision he received by registered mail, noting the absence of the Court’s logo and a certified Notice of Judgment.
5. The Third Division referred the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for investigation via a Resolution dated June 5, 2017.
6. The NBI investigation revealed that Lorna G. Abadies, a Clerk II at the Supreme Court’s Judicial Records Office, assisted petitioner Manuel Tambio in securing updates on his case. Tambio admitted to giving Abadies money for her assistance. Abadies facilitated the creation and mailing of the fake Decision, which was prepared by a certain “Lilia” (or Lilia Balatucan), a utility worker at the Court of Appeals, using a computer at the CA. The fake Decision was then mailed using Supreme Court envelopes Abadies provided.
7. Abadies admitted her involvement during the NBI investigation, stating she acted out of compassion for Tambio, whom she met through a churchmate. She received ₱500.00 from Tambio for her assistance.
8. The NBI recommended the filing of criminal charges against Abadies for Indirect Bribery under Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code and violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). The NBI found no evidence implicating Manuel Tambio in the fabrication, noting he acted in good faith and was cooperative.

ISSUE

Whether Lorna G. Abadies, Clerk II of the Judicial Records Office, Supreme Court, should be held administratively liable for her involvement in the creation and dissemination of a fake Supreme Court Decision, and what penalties are appropriate.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED Lorna G. Abadies from service, with the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch, instrumentality, or government-owned/controlled corporation. The Court ADOPTED the NBI’s recommendations and DIRECTED the Chief of the Office of Administrative Services to file the following criminal cases against her:
1. Indirect Bribery under Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code; and
2. Violation of Section 7(d) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
The Court found Abadies guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Her actions—facilitating the creation of a fake decision, using Supreme Court property (envelopes), and accepting money in connection with her office—constituted a severe breach of integrity, undermined the administration of justice, and eroded public confidence in the judiciary. The Court emphasized that no less than the highest degree of integrity is expected from all court personnel. The dismissal and criminal prosecution are warranted to preserve the judiciary’s sanctity and serve as a deterrent.