March 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 : March 09, 2010] OLGA M. SAMSON VERSUS JUDGE VIRGILIO G. CABALLERO :
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 : March 09, 2010]
OLGA M. SAMSON VERSUS JUDGE VIRGILIO G. CABALLERO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 9, 2010
"A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 - OLGA M. SAMSON versus JUDGE VIRGILIO G. CABALLERO
Respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero humbly seeks the reconsideration of the Court's August 5, 2009 resolution finding him guilty of dishonesty and falsification of the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) which he filed on March 21, 2006 in the Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA) Regional Trial Court (RTC) Personnel Division. In particular, he answered "No" to the question "Have you ever been formally charged?" This was untrue because he was, in fact, administratively and criminally charged in the Office of the Ombudsman on July 23, 2002 for grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in his capacity as assistant provincial prosecutor of Nueva Ecija.
In his motion for reconsideration, respondent admits that the Court did not err in its findings as they were supported by the records of the case. Nonetheless, he claims that he did not actually commit any act of dishonesty or falsification but simply failed to adduce evidence in support of his defense that he duly informed the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) of the pending case filed by complainant Olga M. Samson against him in the Office of the Ombudsman. He belatedly rectified his mistake by submitting copies of the decisions[1] dated March 4, 2004 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaints against him. He claims that, as shown by the stamp receipt on the face of the Office of the Ombudsman's decisions, he submitted copies of the said decisions to the JBC on April 5, 2004. This paved the way for the JBC's indorsement of his nomination (and subsequent appointment) as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 30.
He asserts that he had no reason to state a falsehood in his PDS when he filled up and submitted the same on March 21, 2006. While he does not deny the falsity of his answer to a material question in his PDS, he avers that he had no intention to lie or to falsify his PDS when he filled up the entries therein. He supplied a wrong answer due simply to oversight or lack of care. He was not feeling well that day because he was suffering from hypoglycemia but he still decided to proceed to the Supreme Court in Manila to draw his first paycheck as a judge as he badly needed it for his family's sustenance. Because of his condition, he haphazardly filled up and submitted his PDS, a requirement for the release of his initial salary.
In support of his claim, he submits the affidavits[2] of his physician, Dr. Ramon L. Navallo, and a certain Diosdado Cayetano, Jr. Dr. Navallo stated that respondent consulted him on March 21, 2006 and complained of severe headache, sweating, dizziness and chills. Dr. Navallo's diagnosis was that respondent's condition was symptomatic of hypoglycemia which could have impaired respondent's mental condition. On the other hand, Cayetano stated that he drove for respondent to the Supreme Court in Manila on March 21, 2006 because respondent was not feeling well. From the Supreme Court, Cayetano brought respondent to Dr. Navallo for check up.
After carefully considering the merits of respondent's motion for reconsideration, the Court is convinced that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed a second chance.
Respondent readily and humbly accepts that, on the basis of the records then available to the Court, the Court did not err when it issued its August 5, 2009 resolution. He admits that the said resolution was due to an omission on his part. He only prays that his case be given a second look because, if circumstances were to be taken in their proper context, the penalties imposed on him were too harsh and incommensurate to his infraction.
Dishonesty, the offense for which respondent was found liable, is intentionally making a false statement in any material fact.[3] It is a disposition to lie, cheat or defraud;[4] it is untrustworthiness, lack of integrity.[5] It is an essential and underlying element of falsification because intent to falsify is basically intent to lie. Thus, both dishonesty and falsification flow from the same animus.
If it were true that respondent's mental condition was Impaired because of his severe headache and dizziness, then his wrong answer could not have been purely the result of an intent to lie. Albeit belatedly, respondent makes out a credible case that warrants a substantial modification of our August 5, 2009 resolution. He was able to show that he supplied a false answer in his PDS because of his impaired physical condition. This tends to negate a disposition to lie, cheat or defraud when he filled up his PDS on March 21, 2006. Coupled with his humble and contrite acceptance of the August 5, 2006 resolution, his lack of deceitful or mendacious character becomes all the more credible.
It is also noteworthy that various community leaders, church elders and ordinary citizens of Cabanatuan City have shown their support for respondent and vouched for his integrity. Significantly, even complainant herself filed a comment on respondent's motion for reconsideration, declaring her acceptance of respondent's apology and joining the appeal for the reduction of the penalty imposed on him.
Nonetheless, while respondent may have had no intent to commit dishonesty and falsification, the fact remains that he supplied a false answer to a material qiaestion in his PDS. It is presumed that an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent[6] and that a person intended all the natural consequences of his act.[7] In this case, respondent took responsibility for all the natural consequences of his act as he submitted his PDS (containing a false statement) without regard to the accuracy or correctness of the entries therein. The PDS is not just any document; it is an official or public document. Indeed, it is executed under oath by one who attests to the truth of all entries therein.[8]
Besides, the question that respondent answered wrongly was a material question. Likewise, the charges filed by complainant against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were significant to him as the said charges were brought up in connection with his application to be a judge. Thus, he was expected to give utmost regard to that particular question. While he may not have intended to commit so grave a wrong, he nevertheless intended to commit a wrong - to file a PDS regardless of the accuracy or correctness of the entries therein and unmindful of his attestation regarding the truth of the said entries. Fortunately for him, he has adequately showed that whatever wrong he committed was caused by his impaired physical condition at that time.
All things considered, respondent's act of dishonesty for making a false entry in his PDS is mitigated by his lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and by the impairment of his medical condition. Substantial justice and considerations of equity justify the reduction of his penalty to suspension of one year, both from the service and from the practice of law.[9] The extreme penalties of dismissal from the service and of disbarment will not be imposed on an erring employee where there exist circumstances alleviating his or her liability.[10]
A parting word.
Let this be both a reminder and a warning to respondent and to all those who don the black robe of the judiciary that they must strictly adhere to the high standards of their judicial office. This Court will not hesitate to impose on them the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service, coupled with disbarment even, for any cause that renders them unfit to continue holding their position in case of infidelity to their office, incompetence in carrying out their functions or inefficiency in performing their duties. For this Court condemns and will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice which violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the people's faith in the judiciary.[11]
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero's motion for reconsideration of the August 5, 2009 resolution is hereby partially granted. He is ordered SUSPENDED from the service as well as from the practice of law for a period of one year, reckoned from his receipt of our August 5, 2009 resolution.
Upon the termination of his period of suspension, respondent shall first report to the Office of the Court Administrator and the Office of the Bar Confidant before assuming the duties of his office.
He is further STERNLY WARNED that commission of any misconduct in the future shall be dealt with utmost severity."
"A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 - OLGA M. SAMSON versus JUDGE VIRGILIO G. CABALLERO
Respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero humbly seeks the reconsideration of the Court's August 5, 2009 resolution finding him guilty of dishonesty and falsification of the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) which he filed on March 21, 2006 in the Office of Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA) Regional Trial Court (RTC) Personnel Division. In particular, he answered "No" to the question "Have you ever been formally charged?" This was untrue because he was, in fact, administratively and criminally charged in the Office of the Ombudsman on July 23, 2002 for grave abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in his capacity as assistant provincial prosecutor of Nueva Ecija.
In his motion for reconsideration, respondent admits that the Court did not err in its findings as they were supported by the records of the case. Nonetheless, he claims that he did not actually commit any act of dishonesty or falsification but simply failed to adduce evidence in support of his defense that he duly informed the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) of the pending case filed by complainant Olga M. Samson against him in the Office of the Ombudsman. He belatedly rectified his mistake by submitting copies of the decisions[1] dated March 4, 2004 issued by the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaints against him. He claims that, as shown by the stamp receipt on the face of the Office of the Ombudsman's decisions, he submitted copies of the said decisions to the JBC on April 5, 2004. This paved the way for the JBC's indorsement of his nomination (and subsequent appointment) as presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Branch 30.
He asserts that he had no reason to state a falsehood in his PDS when he filled up and submitted the same on March 21, 2006. While he does not deny the falsity of his answer to a material question in his PDS, he avers that he had no intention to lie or to falsify his PDS when he filled up the entries therein. He supplied a wrong answer due simply to oversight or lack of care. He was not feeling well that day because he was suffering from hypoglycemia but he still decided to proceed to the Supreme Court in Manila to draw his first paycheck as a judge as he badly needed it for his family's sustenance. Because of his condition, he haphazardly filled up and submitted his PDS, a requirement for the release of his initial salary.
In support of his claim, he submits the affidavits[2] of his physician, Dr. Ramon L. Navallo, and a certain Diosdado Cayetano, Jr. Dr. Navallo stated that respondent consulted him on March 21, 2006 and complained of severe headache, sweating, dizziness and chills. Dr. Navallo's diagnosis was that respondent's condition was symptomatic of hypoglycemia which could have impaired respondent's mental condition. On the other hand, Cayetano stated that he drove for respondent to the Supreme Court in Manila on March 21, 2006 because respondent was not feeling well. From the Supreme Court, Cayetano brought respondent to Dr. Navallo for check up.
After carefully considering the merits of respondent's motion for reconsideration, the Court is convinced that he should be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed a second chance.
Respondent readily and humbly accepts that, on the basis of the records then available to the Court, the Court did not err when it issued its August 5, 2009 resolution. He admits that the said resolution was due to an omission on his part. He only prays that his case be given a second look because, if circumstances were to be taken in their proper context, the penalties imposed on him were too harsh and incommensurate to his infraction.
Dishonesty, the offense for which respondent was found liable, is intentionally making a false statement in any material fact.[3] It is a disposition to lie, cheat or defraud;[4] it is untrustworthiness, lack of integrity.[5] It is an essential and underlying element of falsification because intent to falsify is basically intent to lie. Thus, both dishonesty and falsification flow from the same animus.
If it were true that respondent's mental condition was Impaired because of his severe headache and dizziness, then his wrong answer could not have been purely the result of an intent to lie. Albeit belatedly, respondent makes out a credible case that warrants a substantial modification of our August 5, 2009 resolution. He was able to show that he supplied a false answer in his PDS because of his impaired physical condition. This tends to negate a disposition to lie, cheat or defraud when he filled up his PDS on March 21, 2006. Coupled with his humble and contrite acceptance of the August 5, 2006 resolution, his lack of deceitful or mendacious character becomes all the more credible.
It is also noteworthy that various community leaders, church elders and ordinary citizens of Cabanatuan City have shown their support for respondent and vouched for his integrity. Significantly, even complainant herself filed a comment on respondent's motion for reconsideration, declaring her acceptance of respondent's apology and joining the appeal for the reduction of the penalty imposed on him.
Nonetheless, while respondent may have had no intent to commit dishonesty and falsification, the fact remains that he supplied a false answer to a material qiaestion in his PDS. It is presumed that an unlawful act was done with an unlawful intent[6] and that a person intended all the natural consequences of his act.[7] In this case, respondent took responsibility for all the natural consequences of his act as he submitted his PDS (containing a false statement) without regard to the accuracy or correctness of the entries therein. The PDS is not just any document; it is an official or public document. Indeed, it is executed under oath by one who attests to the truth of all entries therein.[8]
Besides, the question that respondent answered wrongly was a material question. Likewise, the charges filed by complainant against him in the Office of the Ombudsman were significant to him as the said charges were brought up in connection with his application to be a judge. Thus, he was expected to give utmost regard to that particular question. While he may not have intended to commit so grave a wrong, he nevertheless intended to commit a wrong - to file a PDS regardless of the accuracy or correctness of the entries therein and unmindful of his attestation regarding the truth of the said entries. Fortunately for him, he has adequately showed that whatever wrong he committed was caused by his impaired physical condition at that time.
All things considered, respondent's act of dishonesty for making a false entry in his PDS is mitigated by his lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong and by the impairment of his medical condition. Substantial justice and considerations of equity justify the reduction of his penalty to suspension of one year, both from the service and from the practice of law.[9] The extreme penalties of dismissal from the service and of disbarment will not be imposed on an erring employee where there exist circumstances alleviating his or her liability.[10]
A parting word.
Let this be both a reminder and a warning to respondent and to all those who don the black robe of the judiciary that they must strictly adhere to the high standards of their judicial office. This Court will not hesitate to impose on them the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service, coupled with disbarment even, for any cause that renders them unfit to continue holding their position in case of infidelity to their office, incompetence in carrying out their functions or inefficiency in performing their duties. For this Court condemns and will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice which violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the people's faith in the judiciary.[11]
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero's motion for reconsideration of the August 5, 2009 resolution is hereby partially granted. He is ordered SUSPENDED from the service as well as from the practice of law for a period of one year, reckoned from his receipt of our August 5, 2009 resolution.
Upon the termination of his period of suspension, respondent shall first report to the Office of the Court Administrator and the Office of the Bar Confidant before assuming the duties of his office.
He is further STERNLY WARNED that commission of any misconduct in the future shall be dealt with utmost severity."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Separate decisions were rendered by the Office of the Ombudsman in the administrative and criminals cases filed by complainant against respondent.
[2] The affidavits were dated September 23, 2009 and September 28, 2009, respectively.
[3] Corpuz v. Ramilerre, A.M. No. P-04-1779, 25 November 2005, 476 SCRA 108; Wooden v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 152884, 30 September 2005, 471 SCRA 512.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Section 3(b), Rule 131, RULES OF COURT.
[7] Section 3(c), id.
[8] In particular, in signing the PDS, one makes the following declaration:
I declare under oath that this Personal Data Sheet has been accomplished by me, and is a true, correct and complete statement pursuant to the provisios of pertinent laws, rules and regulations of the Republic of the Philippines, (emphasis supplied)
[9] Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC (Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar).
[10] Office of the Court Administrator v. Breta, A.M. No. P-05-2023, 06 March 2006, 484 SCRA 114.
[11] Id.
