Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2020 > July 2020 Decisions > A.M. No. 11-7-76-MeTC - RE: ALLEGATION OF FALSIFICATION AGAINST PROCESS SERVERS MAXIMO D. LEGASPI AND DESIDERIO S. TESIORNA, BRANCH 43 AND OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, RESPECTIVELY, BOTH OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, QUEZON CITY - Supreme Court E-Library:

The Case

This administrative matter stems from an investigation conducted by Atty. Jose R. Ortiz, Jr. (Atty. Ortiz)¹ of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City regarding the falsification of the signature of Judge Augustus C. Diaz (Judge Diaz) on a marriage certificate, allegedly committed by Maximo D. Legaspi (Legaspi) and Desiderio S. Tesiorna (Tesiorna; collectively, respondents), Process Servers of the MeTC.

The Facts

In a letter² dated 06 June 2011, Atty. Ortiz sought the assistance of Executive Judge Caridad Walse-Lutero (Judge Walse-Lutero) in an investigation for falsification of official document, in particular, a marriage certificate signed by Judge Diaz of MeTC, Branch 37 which was prompted by a letter-complaint by Nathaniel Jonathan Springael (Springael).

Atty. Ortiz stated that on 02 June 2011, Judge Diaz together with his Branch Clerk of Court and Springael came to his office to inquire about a Certificate of Marriage with Registry No. 2011-05595.³ It appears in the said certificate that a marriage was solemnized by Judge Diaz on 18 April 2011 between Springael and his partner, Willy Rose Lagulao. However, Judge Diaz explained that this was impossible, considering that he was on official leave and in the United States at that time.⁴ Consequently, he disavowed his signature therein.

In his letter-complaint,⁵ Springael related that in early April 2011, he went to Quezon City Hall to apply for marriage papers where he met a certain "Derio" who undertook to assist him. He explained that he would be having a wedding but since his pastor had an expired license, he needed a marriage certificate. Springael received some forms from Derio who intimated that there was no need for a personal appearance before the judge for the purpose, as a marriage certificate would nonetheless be issued. Springael went along with Derio's suggestion, considering he was an employee of the Court. He gave Derio P5,000.00 and after Holy Week, he picked up the signed marriage certificate. On 01 June 2011, Springael went to the office of Judge Diaz to personally express his appreciation and it was then that he discovered that Judge Diaz did not sign the marriage certificate.

During his investigation, Atty. Ortiz summoned Tesiorna, a Process Server from the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the MeTC, being the only employee known as "Derio" in their office. When he appeared, Springael positively identified him as the person who "processed" his marriage documents.⁶

In view of the accusation against him, Atty. Ortiz issued a Memorandum⁷ to Tesiorna, directing him to explain. On 03 June 2011, Tesiorna submitted a handwritten Sinumpaang Salaysay⁸ admitting that: (i) he gave Springael a blank marriage certificate and (ii) he typed the entries in the marriage certificate but stating that it was a certain "Max", who caused the affixing of Judge Diaz's "signature" therein. Tesiorna later identified Max as Legaspi, a Process Server from Branch 43 of the MeTC.

Judge Walse-Lutero issued a Memorandum⁹ dated 07 June 2011 directing Legaspi to comment on the allegations. In his Compliance¹⁰ dated 08 June 2011, Legaspi denied any participation in the issuance of the fraudulent marriage certificate. He denied receiving papers related to the subject marriage certificate or even talking to Tesiorna concerning Springael.

Pursuant to the Resolution¹¹ dated 30 September 2013, the instant administrative complaint against respondents was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for investigation.

Executive Judge Report and Recommendation

On 12 September 2016, Executive Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr. (Judge Sagun) issued a Resolution¹² � finding Tesiorna guilty of dishonesty and falsification of official document. He determined that it was sufficient to hold Tesiorna administratively liable for these charges based on the latter's own admission in his Sinumpaang Salaysay whereby he admitted to issuing a blank marriage certificate to Springael, thus:

Ang sabi ko po susubukan ko po at bibigyan ko po sila ng Certificate of Marriage na blanko para papirmahan sa both parties, ninang at ninong, after a week binalik po sa akin ang marriage certificate na mav mga pirma na at pagkakuha ko ng marriage license noong April 18, 2011 agad kung tinype sa Certificate of Marriage at ibinigay ko kay Max, at kung may alam syang gagaya sa pirma ni Judge, mahigit isang ling(g)o ibinalik sa akin na may pirma na. Hindi ko alam kung saan sya pinapirmahan.¹³cralawlawlibrary

Judge Sagun concluded that more than substantial evidence was adduced, in fact, proof beyond reasonable doubt established Tesiorna's culpability.¹⁴ As regards Legaspi, he determined that the forgery of Judge Diaz's signature could not be shifted to him considering that Springael testified that he neither met nor transacted with him. It was only Tesiorna whom he dealt with regarding his request for a marriage certificate. Thus, the following recommendations were made:

1. That Tesiorna be permanently dismissed from service as Process Server of the OCC of MeTC of Quezon City;

2. That Legaspi be acquitted/exonerated from the charge for complete lack of evidence and that the administrative complaint as to him be dismissed.

The OCA's Evaluation and Recommendation

In a Memorandum¹⁵ dated 29 September 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted the findings of Judge Sagun and recommended that Tesiorna be found guilty of Falsification of Official Document. Accordingly, he was meted the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of his retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment from government service. Meanwhile, the OCA determined that the administrative case against Legaspi should be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.

The Court's Ruling

After a thorough review of the matter, the Court adopts the recommendations of Judge Sagun. Tesiorna is guilty of dishonesty and falsification of official document, while the case against Legaspi should be dismissed for lack of legal and factual basis.

To sustain a finding of administrative culpability, only substantial evidence is required, not overwhelming or preponderant, and very much less than proof beyond reasonable doubt as required in criminal cases.¹⁶ Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.¹⁷ In this case, the Court finds that this quantum of proof has been met.

In his defense, Tesiorna argues that no falsification of official document was committed because Springael testified that what he received from the former was an application for marriage license and not a marriage certificate; in fact, Springael did not even file a formal complaint against him. As testified by Springael, he also did not witness Tesiorna forge Judge Diaz's signature. Similarly, save for his bare allegation, there was no proof that Tesiorna received P5,000.00 as claimed.¹⁸

Such arguments do not serve to exculpate Tesiorna from administrative liability.

At the onset, it bears stressing that upon clarification by the court on cross-examination, Springael testified that what was given to him was a certificate of marriage and not a marriage license as earlier stated.¹⁹ To eliminate any uncertainty, upon directive by the court, Springael was shown the documents submitted into evidence where he identified the marriage certificate as the paper given to him by Tesiorna. Furthermore, he stated in no uncertain terms that he transacted with Tesiorna.²⁰ More importantly, Tesiorna himself admitted²¹ that he gave Springael a blank marriage certificate. The Court sustains the determination by Judge Sagun that such act in itself is sufficient to hold him administratively liable.

Dishonesty is defined as the "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness, lack of integrity"²² It involves intentionally making a false statement to deceive or commit a fraud.²³ Here, Tesiorna represented himself as having the capacity to secure a marriage certificate for Springael, when in truth and in fact, his duties as a process server do not even include this function. Atty. Ortiz explained that as a process server, Tesiorna was only tasked to serve notices of the OCC and other related functions, and not the processing of marriage papers which was the duty of another court personnel.²⁴ Consequently, even the receipt of an application of solemnization of marriage is outside the purview of his job.

Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue, and integrity.²⁵ It is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, as "no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary".²⁶ While it cannot be gainsaid that there is no direct evidence that it was Tesiorna who actually forged Judge Diaz's signature, the surrounding circumstances herein undoubtedly show his direct participation in procuring a marriage certificate for Springael. Notably, the records of this case are bereft of any showing that Springael was impelled by any improper motive as to falsely accuse Tesiorna with such a serious offense. On the other hand, falsification of an official document, as an administrative offense, is knowingly making false statements in official or public documents.²⁷ The affixing of Judge Diaz's purported signature on the marriage certificate made it appear that the former officiated Springael's marriage when in truth, he was on official leave and outside of the country. Aside from Judge Diaz's testimony disavowing his signature, documents submitted in court, i.e., photocopies of the stamps in his passport,²⁸ show that he was abroad from 9 April to 19 May 2011. Clearly, Judge Diaz could neither have solemnized Springael's wedding on 18 April 2011 nor signed the marriage certificate.

Under Rule IV, Section 52 (A) (1) of the Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service²⁹ dishonesty and falsification of official document are both grave offenses punishable by dismissal from government service, without prejudice to criminal or civil liability. The penalty also carries with it the cancellation of respondent's eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.³⁰ In a catena of cases, the penalty of dismissal is imposed even on the first offense.³¹ This is not unexpected as dishonesty and falsification are malevolent acts that have no place in the judiciary. In Villordon v. Avila,³² the Court stressed that employment in the judiciary demands the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency from its personnel. All judiciary employees are expected to conduct themselves with propriety and decorum at all times.³³ An act that falls short of the exacting standards set for public officers, especially those in the judiciary, shall not be countenanced.

By his acts of dishonesty and falsification of an official document, Tesiorna has failed to measure up to the high and exacting standards set for judicial employees and must therefore be dismissed from service. It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel.³⁴

Meanwhile, the Court sustains the recommendation that the administrative case be dismissed as against Legaspi. Save for Tesiorna's bare allegation that he gave the marriage certificate to Legaspi, who thus returned it with Judge Diaz's purported "signature", no other evidence was presented implicating Legaspi. Throughout the investigations conducted by the MeTC and Judge Sagun, Springael has consistently stated that he only dealt with Tesiorna regarding his request for a marriage certificate. He had neither seen nor met Legaspi until the hearing before Judge Sagun.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Desiderio S. Tesiorna GUILTY of dishonesty and falsification of official document. He is forthwith DISMISSED from service, with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification for reemployment in the government service, including in government owned or controlled corporations.

The administrative case against respondent Maximo D. Legaspi is DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.

---

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on July 14, 2020 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received by this Office on September 29, 2020 at 11:25 a.m.

Endnotes:

---

¹ Clerk of Court IV of the MeTC of Quezon City.

²Rollo, pp. 2-4.

³ Id. at 7.

⁴ Id. at 2.

⁵ Id. at 6.

⁶ Id. at 2.

⁷ Not attached to the rollo.

⁸Rollo, p. 5.

⁹ Id. at 8.

¹⁰ Id. at 9.

¹¹ Id. at 19-20.

¹² Id. at 257-264.

¹³ Id. at 278. (Underscoring supplied)

¹⁴ Id. at 264.

¹⁵ Id. at 284-288.

¹⁶Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, 567 Phil. 46, 57 (2008).

¹⁷ Section 5, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court.

¹⁸Rollo, pp. 72-74.

¹⁹ Id. at 149-150; TSN, 10 January 2014, pp. 8-14.

²⁰ Id. at 108-109; TSN, 18 December 2013, pp. 33-34.

²¹See Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 06 June 2011; id. at 56-57, Judicial Affidavit of Desiderio S. Tesiorna dated 04 February 2014.

²²Office of the Ombudsman v. Fetalvero, Jr., G.R. No. 211450, 23 July 2018.

²³ Id.

²⁴Rollo, pp. 2-3.

²⁵Atty. Nava v. Prosecutor Artuz, 817 Phil. 242, 255 (2017).

²⁶ Id.

²⁷Office of the Ombudsman v. Torres, supra note 16, at 58.

²⁸Rollo, pp. 51-52.

²⁹ Civil Service Resolution No. 991936 (1999).

³⁰ Section 58 (a), Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

³¹ See Quinsay v. Avellaneda, 507 Phil. 417 (2005); Retired Employee v. Manubag, 591 Phil. 21 (2008).

³² 692 Phil. 388 (2012).

³³ Id. at 398.

³⁴Adm. Case for Dishonesty and Falsification Against Luna, 463 Phil. 878, 889 (2003).chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary