A.M. No. RTJ-06-2015; December 15, 2010
Atty. Norlinda R. Amante-Descallar, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a counter-complaint filed by Atty. Norlinda R. Amante-Descallar, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, Pagadian City, against Presiding Judge Reinerio B. Ramas. Atty. Descallar was initially charged with grave misconduct for allegedly showing unopened ballot boxes to an unauthorized person. In her defense, she countercharged Judge Ramas with several offenses, including bringing home a computer set submitted as evidence in criminal cases and, pertinent to this decision, dishonesty for failing to reflect his absences in his Certificates of Service for May and June 2005.
The Supreme Court referred the specific charges of absenteeism and falsification of certificates of service to Court of Appeals Justice Renato C. Dacudao for investigation. During the hearings, evidence was presented showing Judge Ramas was absent on multiple days, including May 12, 13, 24, 27-30, and from June 1 to 21, 2005. An Omnibus Order dated May 23, 2005, issued by Judge Ramas himself, stated his “momentary desistance from performing judicial functions” due to a perceived threat to his life. Despite this, these absences were not declared in his corresponding monthly Certificates of Service.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Reinerio B. Ramas is administratively liable for making untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service for May and June 2005.

RULING

Yes, Judge Ramas is administratively liable. The Court found the evidence, including his own Omnibus Order and testimonies, sufficient to establish that he was absent on the days alleged. By certifying that he had rendered service on all working days for those months, he made untruthful declarations. The Court emphasized that a Certificate of Service is not merely a payroll requirement but a crucial instrument to ensure the judiciary fulfills its constitutional duty of speedy case disposition. Making false statements therein directly undermines public trust in judicial integrity.
The act constitutes a less serious offense under the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, punishable by suspension or a fine. Considering Judge Ramas’ nearly 12 years of service and that this was his second offense, the Court deemed a fine appropriate. Judge Reinerio B. Ramas was found GUILTY and FINED Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.