AM P 09 2636; (December, 2009) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-09-2636 December 4, 2009
ATTY. EDUARDO E. FRANCISCO, in his capacity of Attorney-in-Fact of LAMBERTO LANDICHO, Complainant, vs. LIZA O. GALVEZ, Officer-in-Charge, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 73, Pateros, Metro Manila, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant, as attorney-in-fact for Lamberto Landicho, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Liza O. Galvez, OIC-Clerk of Court, for grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming a court employee. The complaint arose from respondent’s issuance of a certified photocopy of a decision dated December 16, 1974, and an undated certificate of finality for that decision, which was later declared null and void by a Regional Trial Court. The spurious decision pertained to the annulment of marriage of Evelyn Carandang, Landicho’s wife, and was presented by Carandang in a foreign proceeding to prove her capacity to marry Landicho. Respondent admitted to certifying the decision and issuing the certificate of finality despite the absence of any court records to support them, relying instead on her familiarity with the signature of the late judge who purportedly issued the decision and on the assurances of a non-court employee who accompanied the requesting party.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Liza O. Galvez is administratively liable for her actions in certifying a spurious decision and issuing a certificate of finality without any supporting court records.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court found that respondent’s actions demonstrated a severe lack of diligence and prudence. She certified documents despite knowing no records existed, failed to verify the issuing court’s jurisdiction or the document’s authenticity, relied merely on signature familiarity and external assurances, and ignored the document’s suspicious age. Her actions, performed under the court’s seal, jeopardized the integrity of the judiciary. The Court rejected her defense of good faith and the investigating judge’s finding of simple negligence, ruling that the neglect was gross due to its serious character and threat to public welfare. The penalty for gross neglect of duty (first offense) is dismissal from service. The Court also noted that her acts may constitute falsification of public documents under the Revised Penal Code.