G.R. No. 72306 . October 5, 1988
EMILIA P. FORNILDA-OLILI, complainant, vs. ATTY. SERGIO I. AMONOY, ATTY. JOSE S. BALAJADIA, and ATTY. JOSE F. TIBURCIO, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Emilia P. Fornilda-Olili sought the disbarment of respondents Attys. Sergio I. Amonoy, Jose S. Balajadia, and Jose F. Tiburcio. She alleged they conspired to fabricate a decision in Civil Case No. 12726, a foreclosure case, by making it appear to have been rendered by a non-existent “Judge Bonifacio Aquino.” The case involved six parcels of land inherited by complainant and her co-heirs, which were mortgaged to respondent Amonoy for attorney’s fees. After the mortgagors died, Amonoy foreclosed on the properties. Complainant later joined an action to annul the foreclosure judgment. Her administrative complaint hinges on a plain typewritten copy of the foreclosure decision, attached to the annulment complaint and reproduced in the Record on Appeal, which listed “Judge Bonifacio Aquino” as the ponente.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents should be administratively disciplined for allegedly conspiring to fabricate a court decision by using the name of a non-existent judge.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic is anchored on the conclusive establishment that the reference to “Judge Bonifacio Aquino” was a mere clerical error, not evidence of a fabricated decision or conspiracy. First, a certified true copy of the foreclosure decision from the court records shows the actual ponente was Judge Benjamin H. Aquino, the legitimate presiding judge of Branch VIII. Second, the complainant’s own allegations in the annulment case admitted that Branch VIII, which decided the foreclosure case, was presided over by Judge Benjamin H. Aquino. Third, other official documents from the foreclosure proceedings, including the writ of execution, consistently identified Judge Benjamin H. Aquino as the author. The Court found no evidence that respondents faked the decision or engaged in fictitious proceedings. The authenticity of the underlying mortgage and partition documents had been upheld in the foreclosure, annulment, and appellate proceedings. Therefore, no disciplinary sanction was warranted as the core allegation of conspiracy to fabricate a judicial decision was unsubstantiated.