Case Digest (G.R. No. 237524)
Facts:
Complainant Wyna Marie P. Garingan-Ferreras alleged that in June 2009 she received an e-mail attachment showing a Certificate of Finality dated March 24, 2006 in supposed Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006 (RTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan) declaring her marriage null and void. She asserted she had no knowledge of any such case and only later confirmed, through NSO annotation, that the marriage had been declared void ab initio. She then requested copies from Branch 33, and a certification from the court stated that Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006 was not on file.The complaint charged respondent Eduardo T. Umblas, Legal Researcher II of the same RTC, with falsification. The Investigating Judge found respondent’s signature on the questioned Certificate of Finality to be essentially the same as his signatures in other records and recommended dismissal, and the OCA agreed. The matter was ultimately treated by the Court as an administrative case.
Issues:
- Whether respondent fraudulently,
Case Digest (G.R. No. 237524)
Facts:
- Nature of the complaint
- Complainant Wyna Marie P. Garingan-Ferreras alleged that respondent Eduardo T. Umblas, Legal Researcher II of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan, was involved in what complainant believed to be falsification of public documents.
- Complainant anchored the alleged falsification on a supposed Certificate of Finality in Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006 of RTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan, which allegedly supported a Declaration of Nullity of Marriage entitled “Reynaldo Z. Ferreras v. Wyna Marie G. Garingan-Ferreras.”
- Complainant’s initial allegations regarding the Civil Case and Certificate of Finality
- Complainant stated that in June 2009 she received an e-mail with an attachment purportedly showing a Certificate of Finality dated March 24, 2006 for Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006.
- Complainant alleged that the Certificate of Finality bore respondent’s signature as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Clerk of Court.
- The Certificate of Finality stated that a Decision (declaring the marriage void ab initio based on psychological incapacity), granting custody of their child, and dissolving their conjugal property regime, had become final and executory.
- Complainant feared foul play because she claimed she had absolutely no knowledge about the supposed case and received no summons or notices.
- Steps taken by complainant to verify the alleged annulment
- Complainant asked the National Statistics Office for a certification regarding any annotation on her marriage records.
- Complainant received confirmation that her marriage bore an annotation declaring it null and void ab initio, premised on a decision allegedly dated January 19, 2006 rendered by Judge Eugenio M. Tangonan in Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006.
- Complainant requested copies of documents relative to the alleged annulment case from Branch 33, RTC, Ballesteros, Cagayan.
- Certification from the RTC Ballesteros records regarding the alleged case
- On August 18, 2009, Jacqueline C. Fernandez, Court Interpreter III, issued a certification stating that, according to available records, Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006 entitled “Reynaldo Z. Ferreras versus Wyna Marie P. Garingan-Ferreras for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage” was not on file.
- Administrative referral and respondent’s denial
- On October 21, 2009, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to respondent for comment.
- Respondent denied material allegations and claimed that the Decision and Certificate of Finality were fraudulent.
- Respondent asserted that his purported signatures therein were spurious, not his handwriting.
- Respondent also asserted that he was no longer the OIC Clerk of Court at the time of issuance because he had allegedly been replaced before the issuance date.
- Re-docketing and investigation
- On September 19, 2011, the Court resolved to re-docket the matter as an administrative case and referred it to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Tuguegarao City for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- Despite multiple calendared settings, no actual confrontation occurred between the parties.
- Posture of the parties during investigation
- Complainant traveled from Nueva Vizcaya to attend hearings, except once when she moved for postponement to accompany her son to Manila.
- Respondent did not appear in any scheduled hearings despite receipt of summons.
- Documents relied upon in the investigation
- The Investigating Judge noted that the case revolved substantially on the respondent’s signature.
- Complainant submitted the following documents:
- A Certificate of Finality dated March 24, 2006 signed by respondent and authenticated by the National Statistics Office.
- A duly authenticated copy of the Decision in Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006.
- A certified true copy of the certification issued by Jacqueline Fernandez, Court Interpreter II of RTC Ballesteros.
- A certification by the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Ballesteros stating it received copies of the Certificate of Finality and Decision on October 3, 2007.
- The authenticated NSO copy of the marriage contract with the annotation that the marriage was declared null and void ab initio.
- The Affidavit of Edna Forto.
- Investigating Judge’s findings and recommendation
- In a Report and Recommendation dated February 1, 2013, Investigating Judge Vilma T. Pauig found respondent guilty of falsification of official document.
- The Investigating Judge reasoned that respondent’s signature in the Certificate of Finality bore a striking resemblance to the signature respondent used in his Comment dated February 18, 2013.
- The Investigating Judge inferred that only one person could have affixed the signature, given the similarity of strokes.
- The Investigating Judge found respondent’s denial flimsy because the complainant’s core contention was that there was no properly filed case.
- The Investigating Judge held that respondent failed to present evidence or witnesses to prove his claim of forgery.
- The Investigating Judge recommended respondent’s dismissal from service for committing the grave offense of falsification.
- OCA evaluation and agreement
- On July 1, 2013, the Court referred the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
- The OCA agreed with the Investigating Judge.
- The OCA found that complainant presented evidence supporting allegations of fraud against respondent whose signature appeared in the Certificate of Finality dated March 24, 2006 in a case later declared nonexistent by Branch 33, RTC, Ballesteros, Cagayan.
- The OCA noted that complainant submitted:
- Certified true copies of the Decision dated January 19, 2006 and the Certificate of Finality dated March 24, 2006 obtained from the Office of the Civil Registrar General, NSO.
- A municipal civil registrar certification that the Ballesteros office received copies on October 3, 2007.
- The OCA held respondent failed to controvert the authenticity of his signature and failed to validate his forgery claim by evidence or witnesses.
- The OCA further observed respondent’s indifferent attitude: he did not appear during any of the seven scheduled hearings, and four were postponed at the instance of his counsel.
- The OCA reasoned that respondent’s argument that complainant caused the fraud failed, because the Certifica...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent committed falsification of a public document by fraudulently preparing and affixing his signature on a Certificate of Finality relating to a non-existent Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006.
- Whether respondent’s signature on the Certificate of Finality was actually his, given the documentary comparisons made in the investigation.
- Whether respondent’s forgery defense relieved him of liability given his failure to present clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
- Whether respondent’s acts constituted dishonesty warranting dismissal from service, and what penalty was proper in view of a p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)