G.R. No. 203254 - Lee vs. Ilagan

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received reports from the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City regarding an alarming number of decisions, resolutions, and orders on annulment of marriage cases allegedly issued by Judge Cader P. Indar (Judge Indar), Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 14, Cotabato City, and Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao.
The OCA conducted a judicial audit on RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15, discovering that the annulment cases reported did not appear in the court’s official records, raising suspicions about their authenticity.

The cases listed by the Local Civil Registrars did not appear in RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15, or RTC-Cotabato, Branch 14 records.
The case numbers from the registrars were outside the series of docket numbers recorded by both courts.
The audit team noted the possibility of spurious decisions that had not undergone proper legal process such as filing, payment of docket fees, or hearings.
The authenticity of signatures on these documents could only be validated by handwriting experts at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Judge Indar, through a letter dated 10 March 2010, maintained that his annulment decision dated 23 May 2007 was valid, asserting the court’s general jurisdiction over family relation cases.
The OCA recommended docketing the matter as an administrative case, preventive suspension of Judge Indar pending investigation, and assignment to a Court of Appeals Justice for investigation.

Judge Indar was preventively suspended by the Supreme Court en banc in May 2010.
The case was initially raffled to Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, and later re-raffled to Justice Angelita A. Gacutan due to proximity considerations.
Multiple notices of hearings were sent to Judge Indar at his official court stations and residence; some were received by court personnel, but Judge Indar failed to appear or submit an explanation.
The investigation found no records in the courts reflecting proper proceedings, docket fees, hearings, or notices for the cases allegedly decided by Judge Indar.

The Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City testified that they received copies of the questioned decisions for annotation, which were certified true by the Clerk of Court.
The Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Shariff Aguak, Judge George C. Jabido, conducted verification and found no records supporting the issuance of the questioned annulment decisions.
Subpoenas sent to parties named in questioned decisions produced no evidence of actual filing or courtroom proceedings.

Justice Abraham B. Borreta took over the investigation and concluded that due process in administrative terms was observed despite Judge Indar’s non-appearance.
Justice Borreta found Judge Indar guilty of serious misconduct and dishonesty based on the issuance of spurious decisions without actual judicial process and recommended dismissal.

In 2009 and 2011, Judge Indar was fined for earlier offenses involving violations of the Rules of Court and Code of Judicial Conduct.
The current case constitutes his third offense, which is an aggravating circumstance.

Whether Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct for issuing annulment decisions without the proper judicial proceedings and process.
Whether Judge Indar is guilty of dishonesty by affirming the validity of annulment decisions that were not supported by court records.
Whether Judge Indar is fit to continue serving as a judge and member of the Philippine Bar in view of his conduct.
Whether the administrative case should also be considered a disciplinary proceeding for disbarment.