A.M. No. P-08-2587 December 18, 2008
Dominga C. Menor, complainant, vs. Teodora P. Guillermo, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cauayan, Isabela, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dominga C. Menor, widow of Pedro Menor, filed an administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct against respondent Teodora Palting Guillermo, a Stenographer III of the RTC, Branch 20, Cauayan, Isabela. Complainant alleged that she and her late husband had occupied a parcel of land since 1946. In 1998, she discovered that respondent had secured title over the land through a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 6, 1975, which purportedly showed the sale of the land by her husband, with her consent, to respondent and her spouse. Complainant claimed the document was fabricated, her husband’s signature was forged, and she never signed it as she is illiterate and only uses her thumbprint. She surmised the fraudulent document was prepared by respondent using her court position.
Respondent denied the allegations, citing a previously dismissed criminal case for Falsification (Criminal Case No. 3624) on the ground of prescription and a civil case for annulment of title (Civil Case No. 1080, later refiled as Civil Case No. 1134) which was eventually dismissed on technical grounds (failure to allege the assessed value of the property for jurisdictional purposes). Respondent claimed the deed was lawful and executed in her private capacity, and that as a mere stenographer, she had no power or influence to commit the imputed act.
The Court initially held the administrative case in abeyance pending the civil case. After the civil case was dismissed and considering respondent’s retirement on September 17, 2003, the Court lifted the hold order and evaluated the case on its merits.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Teodora P. Guillermo is administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found substantial evidence to hold respondent guilty of Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Administrative proceedings require only substantial evidence, which is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Complainant submitted the disputed deed, her marriage contract bearing her thumbmark and her husband’s signature, and other documents showing her husband’s genuine signatures. There were perceivable differences between the genuine signatures and the one on the deed. Respondent failed to sufficiently rebut complainant’s assertion that her signature was forged, given complainant’s illiteracy and consistent use of a thumbmark. It was logical to conclude respondent perpetrated or was responsible for the falsification, as she and her husband benefited from it. The dismissal of the related criminal and civil cases on technical grounds did not absolve her from administrative liability.
The offense is classified as grave and punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year. However, as respondent had already retired, the penalty of suspension could no longer be imposed. Consequently, the Court ordered that the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) previously withheld from her retirement benefits be applied as a fine.