G.R. No. RTJ-19-2552. December 7, 2021.
JUDGE EDWIN G. LARIDA, JR., complainant, vs. ATTY. STANLEY CALMA, DIANA RUIZ, LIGAYA BATINO, AND ANITA GOBOY, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves two administrative complaints. The first was filed by former Presiding Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr. of the RTC, Tagaytay City, Branch 18, against Atty. Stanley Calma (former Clerk of Court), Diana Ruiz (Legal Researcher/OIC), Ligaya Batino (Court Stenographer III), and Anita Goboy (Clerk III) for Serious Misconduct, Falsification of Public Documents, and Serious Neglect of Duty. The second was a counter-complaint filed by respondents Ruiz, Batino, and Goboy against Judge Larida for Gross Misconduct, Falsification of Public Documents, and Violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
The controversy stemmed from a Decision dated March 14, 2008, rendered by Judge Larida in LRC Case No. TG-07-1321, which granted a petition for the issuance of new owner’s copies of two Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) registered in the name of Victorino Angcaya. New titles were subsequently issued in the name of Clarito Poblete. However, Original Development and Construction Corporation (ODECOR), which had allegedly bought the properties from Angcaya in 2002 and possessed the owner’s duplicate certificates, was aggrieved by these developments.
ODECOR filed an administrative case against Judge Larida (A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3550-RTJ) and a civil case for annulment before the RTC, Tagaytay City, Branch 18. A Certification dated March 12, 2010, by respondent Batino stated that LRC Case No. TG-07-1321 was still pending. Acting on this, then Acting Presiding Judge Emma Young heard the case and dismissed the petition on May 28, 2010.
Judge Larida filed his administrative complaint, asserting the authenticity of his March 14, 2008 Decision and an accompanying Certificate of Finality dated April 18, 2008, issued by Atty. Calma. He alleged that these documents were intentionally removed from the case records by respondents Ruiz, Batino, and Goboy, who had access to them, and that they misled Judge Young into believing the case was still pending.
In their joint comment and counter-complaint, respondents Ruiz, Batino, and Goboy denied the accusations. They claimed the March 14, 2008 Decision never existed in the records, that the case was not submitted for decision in 2008, and that it was still listed as pending in semestral docket inventories. They pointed out irregularities in the purported Decision, such as the initials “ddm” of a non-existent stenographer and the lack of a case header. Atty. Calma, in an affidavit, denied issuing the handwritten Certificate of Finality, claiming his signature was falsified, and alleged that the official receipts presented as proof of payment for the certification were also falsified. In their counter-complaint, they accused Judge Larida of issuing a decision in a case not submitted for resolution and of conniving with parties to falsify documents.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation. The OCA noted that the charges against Batino and Goboy should be dismissed as moot and academic due to lack of jurisdiction, as they had retired before the complaint was filed.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr. and the court staff respondents (Atty. Stanley Calma, Diana Ruiz, Ligaya Batino, and Anita Goboy) are administratively liable for the charges of misconduct, falsification, and neglect of duty in relation to the purported Decision dated March 14, 2008, in LRC Case No. TG-07-1321 and the related Certificate of Finality.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals.
1. As to respondents Atty. Stanley Calma, Ligaya Batino, and Anita Goboy: The administrative charges against them were DISMISSED.
* The charge against Atty. Calma was rendered moot by his prior resignation from the judiciary.
* The charges against Batino and Goboy were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as they had retired from government service on April 1, 2013, before the complaint was filed on June 27, 2013.
2. As to respondent Diana Ruiz: The charge against her was DISMISSED for lack of sufficient basis.
3. As to complainant Judge Edwin G. Larida, Jr.: He was found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and Falsification of Public Documents. The Supreme Court agreed with the Investigating Justice’s conclusion that the evidence overwhelmingly disproved Judge Larida’s claim of authenticity regarding the Decision dated March 14, 2008. The irregularities noted (e.g., non-existent stenographer initials, missing case header, absence from court records and docket inventories, and the subsequent dismissal of the case by Judge Young) supported the finding that the decision was falsified. Gross misconduct, as a grave offense, warrants the supreme penalty of dismissal from service. Consequently, Judge Larida was DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.