A.M. No. P-91-538 November 25, 1993
Office of the Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Edilberto N. Cruz, Stenographer Reporter, Branch 9, Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case originated from a letter by Executive Judge Jesus O. Angeles of the RTC of Dipolog City to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), reporting an NBI investigation into at least three incidents involving the falsification of court orders and forgery of signatures of Judges Pelagio R. Lachica (Branch 8), Daniel B. Bernaldez (Branch 9), Wilfredo C. Martinez (Branch 10), and Branch Clerk of Court Eyahiya S. Malon (Branch 10) by respondent Edilberto N. Cruz, a Stenographic Reporter of Branch 9. The NBI found sufficient basis to hold respondent criminally and administratively liable. The OCA filed a complaint charging respondent with three acts of falsification: 1) Making it appear that an Order dated July 6, 1990, was issued by Judge Lachica in Civil Case No. 2184 by forging his signature; 2) Making it appear that an Order dated November 20, 1989, was issued by Judge Martinez in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 6812 by falsely representing his signature and forging the signature of Branch Clerk of Court Malon; and 3) Making it appear that an Order dated August 30, 1985, was issued by Judge Bernaldez in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 6713 by falsely representing his signature. Respondent denied the charges, claiming the documents were non-existent and he had no participation. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotorena.
The investigation established the following: For the first count, respondent issued a “Certificate of Finality” on September 24, 1990, below a purported Order of Judge Lachica dated July 6, 1990, in Civil Case No. 2184. Evidence showed the case pertained to Branch 8, not Branch 9; the Order was never issued; Judge Lachica had retired on June 30, 1990; and respondent presented the document to the Register of Deeds, paid the fees, and had it registered before its cancellation after verification revealed it was non-existent. For the second count, a purported Order of Judge Martinez dated November 20, 1989, in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 6812 contained a falsified “Certificate of Finality and Certification” allegedly signed by Branch Clerk of Court Malon. Malon testified the signature was forged, the case did not exist in Branch 10, and no hearing was conducted. For the third count, a purported Order of Judge Bernaldez dated August 30, 1985, in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 6713 was presented. Evidence showed no such case existed in Branch 9, and the signature was forged.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Edilberto N. Cruz is administratively liable for grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice based on the evidence of falsification of court orders and forgery of signatures.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The proven acts of falsifying court orders and forging signatures of judges and a court employee constitute grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and the best interests of the public service. Respondent displayed moral turpitude, making him unfit for public trust. The Court emphasized that every employee of the judiciary must be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty, and respondent was unfaithful to this trust. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent Edilberto N. Cruz from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.