Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

A.M. No. P-06-2265 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Liezel L. Bautista).-

This disposes of a charge that a former legal researcher forged the  signature of the approving judge on her applications for leave of absence.

The Facts and the Case 

Respondent Liezel L. Bautista (Bautista) used to hold the position of legal researcher of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City, Branch 88, under Judge Agapito S. Lu. She began working as such on March 21, 2003. Subsequently, she was detailed beginning on March 4, 2005 to Branch 16 of the court, presided over by then RTC Executive Judge Manuel A. Mayo.

The records show that Bautista did not report for work from October 2005 to July 7, 2006. She filed several leave applications covering her leaves and these were signed by either Judge Lu or Executive Judge Mayo.

On March 1, 2006 Bautista applied with the Secretariat of the Selection and Promotion Board for the Lower Courts (SPB-LC) for the position of Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court, Bay, Laguna. While routinely browsing at her records with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the SPB-LC discovered that Judge Lu's signature on Bautista's leave applications dated February 10 and 13, 2006 appeared starkly different from his signatures on documents that were executed at about the same period.

When required to comment, Judge Lu disowned the questioned signatures. He said that he did not remember signing the leave applications and that those signatures were evidently forged.

On August 2, 2006 Bautista tendered her resignation effective July 10, 2006 due to poor health. Judge Mayo approved the same with Judge Lu noting the resignation.

On September 13, 2006 the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), then headed by Christopher Lock, submitted its report, recommending the filing of an administrative case against Bautista for dishonesty or forgery. The OCA pointed out that Bautista tendered her resignation merely to forestall the possibility of administrative sanctions being imposed on her for the forgery.^[1]

On October 23, 2006 the Court approved Bautista's resignation but directed her to show cause why she should not be administratively penalized for forging Judge Lu's signature. Meantime, the Court held in abeyance payment of all benefits due her pending resolution of this administrative case.

In her compliance (answer) of March 3, 2008, Bautista denied having forged Judge Lu's signature on the two leave applications. She claimed that she at first filled out an application for leave dated February 10, 2006 and sent her houseboy, Albert Aquino, to hand it over to Judge Lu for his approval. Unfortunately, Aquino merely left the papers .with Branch 88 and could not tell Bautista with whom he left it. Since February 10 was a Friday, she called Branch 88 on Monday morning, February 13, to find out if Judge Lu had signed her application. She was told that Branch 88 had not received the application.

Thus, on the afternoon of February 13, 2006, Bautista prepared a second leave application and instructed Jose Custodio, Jr. (Custodio), their family driver, to personally deliver the application to Judge Lu for his signature and then file the same with the Clerk of Court. But because Custodio reached the court past 4:30 p.m. and Judge Lu had already left, he just left the leave application with an employee whom he described as male, small, and dark-skinned with curly hair.^[2] Bautista could not, however, recall anyone from her office that matched the description.

On the following day, February 14, 2006, Bautista requested Custodio to return to her office and look for the man to whom he entrusted her leave application and get a copy of it for her. Just in case he could not find the man, Bautista filled out a third leave application, now dated February 14, 2006 and instructed Custodio to have Judge Lu sign it, then personally deliver the same to the Office of the Clerk of Court. When Custodio could not find the man who got the second leave application from him, he brought the third leave application to an employee of Branch 88 who had Judge Lu approve and sign the same.

Bautista lamented that the leave applications dated February 10 and 13, 2006, which she thought had been lost, were the ones filed with the OCA rather than the application dated February 14, 2006. She feared that someone either wanted to play some joke on her or, hating her, wanted her administratively charged so that she could not take the bar exams.

On April 23, 2008 the Court referred the matter to the Cavite City RTC Executive Judge Lu for investigation, report and recommendation but the latter inhibited himself from the case. Likewise, Vice-Executive Judge Melchor Q.C. Sadang inhibited himself because of his closeness to Bautista's father, a former sheriff. The Court referred the case to Bacoor RTC Executive Judge Eduardo I. Tanguanco but Bautista objected on the ground that she believed that it was Judge Tanguanco's wife, Butch, an OCA administrative staff assigned to Court Administrator Lock, who is behind the filing of this administrative case.

Finding merit in Bautista's objection, the Court referred the case to Executive Judge Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr. of the Imus RTC. After investigating the case, Judge Quisumbing submitted to the Court his report and recommendation.

Judge Quisumbing recommended the dismissal of the action for lack of evidence, documentary or testimonial, that Bautista forged Judge Lu's signatures on the two leave applications in question. Bautista had no motive for forging those signatures since, evidently, she could easily secure Judge Lu's approval of her leaves. Judge Lu had approved and signed many of her past leave applications. What is more, Judge Lu testified that he actually approved and signed Bautista's leave application .for the period February 13 to May 5, 2006 under an application dated February 14.

The Court has no reason to reject the findings and recommendation of Judge Quisumbing. The record shows that Bautista went on leave without pay from January 2 to July 7, 2006. She got all her applications for leave properly approved and filed except for the two applications dated February 10 and 13, 2006. She took other leaves after February 14 and they were all properly approved. We can thus conclude that the two applications were out of place, especially since, as it turned out, Bautista had retained a copy of the genuinely approved application for leave dated February 14 that took the place of what were thought to be lost applications (dated February 10 and 13).

What is more, all three leave applications (February 10, February 13, and February 14) covered the same period and number of working days. This gives credence to Bautista's explanation that she thought the February 10 and February 13 applications had been lost in the delivery and that this prompted her to have Judge Lu approve the third application dated February 14, 2006 that covered the same period arid days of absence.

WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES this administrative complaint against respondent Liezel L. Bautista for lack of merit and DIRECTS the Office of the Court Administrator to release all the monetary benefits that she may be entitled to under the law on account of her resignation from the service effective July 10, 2006.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
  Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
  Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 3.

^[2] TSN, August 17, 2010, p. 9.

Back to Home | Back to Main