A.M. No. MTJ-90-460 - Court Administrator vs. Villanueva

A complaint for gross immorality was filed on September 10, 1990, by the Office of the Court Administrator against Judge Osmundo M. Villanueva and Clerk of Court Heide B. Pacaco of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bagumbayan-Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat.
The complaint stemmed from allegations that Judge Villanueva maintained an illicit relationship with his subordinate, Heide B. Pacaco, and that they had a child together—a child identified as Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva.

On June 7, 1990, an unsworn letter from a concerned citizen alleged that Judge Villanueva had a “querida” (mistress) named Heide B. Pacaco and that they had a child, Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva, who was only four years old.
Judge German Malcampo of RTC Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, was directed to discreetly investigate the matter and report his findings, which largely confirmed the allegations regarding the existence of the child and the purported relationship.

A certificate of live birth (Exhibit "D") of Ceasar Anthony was introduced as evidence linking the respondents to the child. This certificate purportedly named “Haide Pacaco” as the mother and “Osmundo Villanueva” as the father.
Respondents challenged the authenticity of Exhibit "D" on several grounds including:

Doubts on authorship and signature authenticity, particularly questioning the signatures purportedly of Judge Villanueva and Pacaco.
Alleged alterations and procedural irregularities in its preparation and registration.

Additional evidence included a certification from the Directress of Montessori Learning Center, testimony from the school principal and a teacher, and a second certificate of live birth (Exhibit "E") which differed in details (e.g., child’s name and parental identities).
Respondents Judge Villanueva and Pacaco both provided separate answers denying the illicit relationship and attributing the child’s paternity or custody to other circumstances:

Judge Villanueva denied having an affair and claimed that the child’s presence was due to external factors—in particular, attributing the filing of the case to disgruntled litigants.
Pacaco maintained that the child in her care was not her biological offspring but rather that he was the child of her second cousin Helen Paciente and Oscar Villanueva.

A joint motion for inhibition was filed by the respondents to replace Investigating Judge Malcampo, which resulted in the designation of Judge Romeo S. Sucaldito for investigation.

Arcadio A. Ramos, the Chief Documents Examiner of the NBI, conducted a meticulous handwriting examination comparing the questioned signature on Exhibit "D-5" against several authenticated signatures of Judge Villanueva.
The expert’s report highlighted marked differences in line quality, stroke initiation, loop regularity, and overall style between the questioned signature and the established samples.
The conclusion was that the signature in the space intended for the “Signature of Father” was not attributable to Judge Villanueva, thereby rendering that particular evidence insufficient to prove his paternity of Ceasar Anthony.

The investigation confirmed the existence of a child, Ceasar Anthony, who attended Montessori Learning Center in Isulan, Sultan Kudarat and lived with respondent Pacaco.
While aspects of the birth registration (Exhibit "D") were flawed or questioned, public documents are admitted as evidence only of the occurrence of the events (e.g., the fact of the child’s birth and its registration).
The testimony of school personnel, the admissions and evasiveness in the testimonies of the respondents, and the forensic findings collectively formed the factual background against which the administrative charges were assessed.

Is Exhibit "D"—the Certificate of Live Birth—admissible as evidence of the alleged illicit relationship and paternity?
Do the alleged irregularities, lack of proper signature authentication, and procedural discrepancies in Exhibit "D" undermine its probative value?

Has respondent Heide B. Pacaco committed an act of gross immorality by having a child out of wedlock, particularly as a government employee?
Can the evidence presented establish, with clear and convincing proof, that an illicit relationship occurred between Pacaco and Judge Villanueva?

Does the documentary and testimonial evidence conclusively link Judge Villanueva to paternity of Ceasar Anthony P. Villanueva?
Should the discrepancies between multiple birth certificates and the challenged signatures affect the determination of paternity?

What is the weight to be given to circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, and the inherent presumption of regularity in public documents in administrative cases of this nature?
Are the defenses raised by the respondents, including requests for substitution of investigating judges and denial of the charges, sufficient to exonerate them?