G.R. No. RTJ-11-2261. July 26, 2011.
ATTY. JOSE VICENTE D. FERNANDEZ, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ANGELES S. VASQUEZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Jose Vicente D. Fernandez filed an administrative complaint against Judge Angeles S. Vasquez of the RTC, Branch 13, Ligao City, for gross dishonesty and falsification of an official document. The complainant was counsel for Dr. Maria Susan L. Rañola in several cases against Spouses Fernando and Maria Concepcion Rañola, all raffled to respondent’s court. Complainant alleged manifest bias and partiality by respondent in favor of the Spouses Rañola, citing undue insistence on an unfavorable compromise, delays in proceedings, improper imposition of docket fees, and a requirement for a ₱5,000.00 witness fee. Respondent denied the allegations of partiality, explaining his actions were in accordance with procedure and sensitivity to a witness’s circumstances.
The core administrative charge involved respondent’s Personal Data Sheet (PDS) submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). Complainant alleged respondent dishonestly answered “No” to Question No. 24, which asked if he had ever been charged with or convicted of any violation of law, and Question No. 25, which asked if he had ever been forced to resign from employment. Complainant presented evidence that respondent had been criminally charged for indirect bribery in Criminal Case No. 7911 in 1974 and had resigned from his position as clerk of court. In his defense, respondent did not deny the indirect bribery charge but claimed it was a trumped-up case due to his “leftist” leanings during the Marcos regime, of which he was acquitted. He claimed he had forgotten the incident due to its traumatic nature, leading him to answer “No” on his PDS. He also asserted his resignation as clerk of court in 1973 preceded the criminal charge and was not forced but done out of disgust with the government.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Angeles S. Vasquez is administratively liable for gross dishonesty and falsification of an official document for providing false answers in his Personal Data Sheet submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for gross dishonesty. The Court found that respondent’s claim of having forgotten the indirect bribery case was not credible. The charge was a significant event, and his detailed explanation in his Comment demonstrated clear recollection, negating any claim of amnesia. By answering “No” to Question No. 24, he concealed a material fact relevant to his fitness for judicial office. Dishonesty in the PDS is a grave offense that undermines the integrity of the judicial appointment process. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be beyond reproach. Citing jurisprudence, the Court stated that dishonesty is a serious charge punishable by dismissal, even for a first offense. However, considering mitigating factors such as respondent’s length of service, the fact that the concealed charge was dismissed, and that he had no prior administrative record, the Court imposed the penalty of FINE in the amount of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱40,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. The charge of manifest bias and partiality in the handling of cases was dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.