A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417 - Perfecto vs. Esidera

On July 15, 2010, Eladio D. Perfecto filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alma Consuelo D. Esidera of RTC Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar, charging her with falsification of public document and dishonesty.
Perfecto alleged that Esidera’s daughter’s birth certificate was falsified to show a marriage on March 18, 1990, when no civil marriage existed on that date.

Esidera’s first marriage to Richard Tang Tepace was solemnized May 7, 1987, and declared void for psychological incapacity by the RTC on January 27, 1992.
Esidera gave birth to a daughter on October 3, 1990, to Renato Verano Esidera. A marriage to Renato was duly registered on June 3, 1992.
The daughter’s birth certificate, prepared by the medical records clerk, listed March 18, 1990 as parents’ marriage date; a certification from Parañaque City Registrar showed no such marriage. Esidera did not correct the entry.

Esidera argued non‐compliance with Rule 140 personal‐knowledge requirement, contending Perfecto’s evidence was hearsay or maliciously obtained.
She denied participating in filling out the birth certificate (it was accomplished by her husband as informant) and asserted the March 18, 1990 marriage was a purely sacramental rite unrecognized under civil law.
She maintained she and her husband decided against correcting the birth certificate to protect their daughter from stigma, invoking religious beliefs on marriage, annulment, and morality.

The OCA found Esidera guilty of condoning misrepresentation on the birth certificate, engaging in an illicit affair, contracting a second marriage despite a subsisting marriage, and failing to comport with her Catholic faith.
It recommended a 15‐day suspension for disgraceful, immoral, or dishonest conduct.

Whether Judge Esidera is administratively liable for falsification of public document and dishonesty under Rule 140 for omission to correct her daughter’s birth certificate.
Whether Esidera’s conduct constitutes “disgraceful, immoral, or dishonest conduct” under the Code of Professional Responsibility, based on her alleged illicit affair and contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first.
Whether Esidera’s March 18, 1990 religious marriage rite constitutes bigamy or an offense under Articles 349 or 350 of the Revised Penal Code.
The extent to which Esidera’s exercise of religious freedom in contracting a purely sacramental marriage may be accommodated or limited in assessing administrative liability.