G.R. No. A.M. No. P-93-958. October 14, 1993.
HERMINIO VILLAMAYOR, complainant, vs. TOMAS VERA CRUZ, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case stems from a letter-complaint by Herminio Villamayor, Executive Vice-President of Philippine Phoenix Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., requesting an investigation into an alleged falsification of a public document. The complaint involves Tomas Vera Cruz, Jr., a Process Server of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna. In September 1983, the surety company posted a bailbond for the provisional liberty of an accused, Frederick Doromal, in a homicide case. When the accused jumped bail, the court ordered the forfeiture of the bond, requiring the surety company to pay P6,000. The company, through its employee Augusto C. Cabardo, paid the amount on October 17, 1988, and was issued Official Receipt (O.R.) No. 1700900. However, the court later denied the company’s motion for cancellation of the bond after discovering that O.R. No. 1700900 was stolen and the signature of the issuer was forged. An investigation revealed that the receipt was a genuine official form but had been ripped from its booklet, and three authorized court employees denied issuing it. Cabardo testified that he paid the P6,000 to respondent “Totoy” Vera Cruz, who issued the questioned receipt outside his office, and later identified respondent in the presence of then Presiding Judge Minita Chico-Nazario. Respondent denied ever meeting Cabardo or receiving the money, claiming the complaint was meant to harass him. He submitted his case for resolution without presenting further evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Tomas Vera Cruz, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in connection with the receipt of P6,000 and the issuance of a forged official receipt.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The investigation found a preponderance of evidence showing that respondent committed an act of dishonesty by receiving the P6,000 from Cabardo and issuing a forged receipt, knowing he was not authorized to do so, thereby prejudicing the surety company. The positive testimonies of disinterested witnesses, including Cabardo and court employees, were given greater credence over respondent’s denial. The Office of the Court Administrator concluded that respondent committed grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED Tomas Vera Cruz, Jr. from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or corporation. The Court emphasized that every judiciary employee must be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty, and respondent’s conduct warranted dismissal.