G.R. No. RTJ-08-2107. February 29, 2008
Hanjin Heavy Industries and Construction Co., Ltd., represented by Atty. Mario Aguinaldo, complainant, vs. Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro and Sheriff IV Neri G. Loy, both of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 222, respondents.

FACTS

This administrative matter originated from Civil Case No. Q-02-47707. Respondent Judge Rogelio Pizarro dismissed the case on August 6, 2003, but later granted a Motion for Reconsideration and reinstated it by an Order dated October 22, 2003. In that same reinstatement order, the judge also restored Notices of Garnishment and a Writ of Attachment against Hanjin and recalled Hanjin’s counterbond. Subsequently, a Notice of Garnishment was implemented against Hanjin’s bank deposit with RCBC based on an alleged Order dated March 17, 2004, leading to the withdrawal of funds. Hanjin complained that the March 17, 2004 Order was baseless and issued without a corresponding motion, and further alleged that the October 22, 2003 Order reinstating the case was void as the underlying motion was signed by a suspended lawyer.
Hanjin filed an administrative complaint. In his comment, Judge Pizarro disowned the March 17, 2004 Order, claiming it was fake and his signature was forged. The Court initially dismissed the case against the respondents for insufficiency of evidence but referred the matter concerning the plaintiff’s counsel to the Office of the Bar Confidant. Hanjin filed a Motion for Reconsideration and later a “Motion to Direct the NBI to Inquire Further,” citing a pre-trial order in a related civil case where RCBC admitted possession of the duplicate original of the contested March 17, 2004 Order.

ISSUE

Whether the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) should be directed to conduct a further investigation, including securing the document from RCBC, to determine the authenticity of Judge Pizarro’s signature on the March 17, 2004 Order.

RULING

Yes. The Court granted Hanjin’s Urgent Motion for Production and Inspection of Document. The legal logic proceeds from the Court’s inherent power to control its processes and ensure a complete investigation in administrative matters. A prior Resolution dated November 13, 2006, had already granted Hanjin’s motion to direct the NBI to conduct a further investigation to assess whether the judge’s signature was forged. However, the records showed no compliance from the NBI.
The new factual development—RCBC’s judicial admission in a separate civil case that it possessed the duplicate original of the questioned Order—provided a concrete basis to compel action. To properly resolve the administrative complaint and the pending Motion for Reconsideration, it was essential to conclusively determine the authenticity of the contested signature. This could only be achieved through a forensic examination of the original document. Therefore, the Court ordered the NBI to determine the genuineness of the signature and, for that purpose, directed it to secure the duplicate original Order from RCBC. This directive ensures the investigation is thorough and based on the best evidence available, upholding the integrity of the fact-finding process.