G.R. No. RTJ-15-2417 July 22, 2015
ELADIO D. PERFECTO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO D. ESIDERA, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Eladio D. Perfecto filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera for falsification of public document and dishonesty. Perfecto alleged that Judge Desales-Esidera was first married to Richard Tang Tepace on May 7, 1987. On October 3, 1990, she gave birth to a daughter with Renato Verano Esidera. Her first marriage was declared void on January 27, 1992. Based on a certification, she married Renato Verano Esidera on June 3, 1992. Perfecto further alleged that Judge Desales-Esidera falsified her daughter’s birth certificate to make it appear that she and Renato Verano Esidera were married on March 18, 1990, and that their daughter was legitimate, citing a certification of no marriage from Paranaque City for that date. He prayed for her dismissal.
In her Comment, Judge Desales-Esidera argued that Perfecto’s complaint was based on hearsay and lacked personal knowledge. She claimed the documents were obtained maliciously through connivance with court employees and parties from other administrative cases who wanted her removed. She asserted the charges were personal, not judicial, and that she did not participate in accomplishing the birth certificate, which was filled out by her husband. She explained that she and Renato had a religious marriage ceremony on March 18, 1990, officiated by a Catholic priest who had no civil authority to solemnize marriages. She believed her first marriage was void ab initio and, based on jurisprudence at the time, thought no judicial decree was needed to establish its invalidity. She and her husband decided not to correct the birth certificate to protect their daughter from embarrassment.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Alma Consuelo D. Esidera should be held administratively liable for falsification of public document and dishonesty.

RULING

No. The complaint was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court found that Judge Desales-Esidera did not falsify her daughter’s birth certificate. The certificate was accomplished by her husband, who was not a lawyer, and who entered the date of their religious marriage ceremony. There was no evidence that the respondent judge personally made the false entry or conspired to do so. Her failure to correct the entry, while potentially negligent, did not constitute falsification, as the element of making a false entry was absent. Regarding dishonesty, the Court found her actions concerning her marriages and the birth certificate were not motivated by a deliberate intent to deceive for personal gain. Her belief in the validity of her religious marriage and her decision for her daughter’s welfare, though legally mistaken, did not amount to gross dishonesty warranting administrative sanction. The Court emphasized that judges are entitled to the presumption of regularity and good faith, and the complainant failed to present substantial evidence to overcome this presumption.