Title
Carman vs. Zerrudo
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-98-1146
Decision Date
Feb 5, 2004
Judge Zerrudo fined for gross misconduct in granting bail improperly; wife censured for conduct unbecoming a court employee. Falsification charges unproven.
judge
various offenses
falsification of private document
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-98-1146)

Factual Background

The complainants alleged that, in 1977, Maria and Mauro Santalisis sold half of a 444 square-meter residential lot (No. 3706-A) in Iloilo City to spouses Dennis and Elenita Jarangue. Despite this prior sale, the complainants claimed that, in January 1984, respondent judge prepared and notarized a Deed of Sale purporting to cover the same residential lot and allegedly involving respondent judge’s friend, Oscar Santalisis, as buyer.

Complainants charged that Maria’s signature on the 1984 deed of sale was forged, and that respondent judge further made it appear that Oscar was a widower even though Oscar’s marriage to Erlinda Torre allegedly remained subsisting. They also asserted that respondent judge knew that the portion sold in 1977 already belonged to the Jarangue spouses. Complainants further alleged that during the period 1978 to 1980, respondent judge assisted in efforts to eject a person from the Jarangues’ half portion. They alleged that Oscar was aware of the prior 1977 sale because Oscar had served as one of the witnesses to that earlier deed.

Complainants also alleged that after Maria died on November 5, 1984, Oscar filed an Notice of Adverse Claim over the residential lot three days later, and that the notice was notarized by respondent judge on November 2, 1984. They argued that discrepancies in the page numbers between the notarized 1984 deed and Oscar’s 1984 notice, as reflected in respondent judge’s notarial records, showed that the deed was antedated to make it appear that the lot was sold to Oscar before Maria’s death. They claimed that, because of the alleged bogus deed, the entire lot was transferred and registered in Oscar’s name, and that Oscar later sold the lot to the respondent spouses in October 1985, after which respondents took possession of the half portion that allegedly belonged to the Jarangue spouses.

The complainants further alleged that Ma. Theresa G. Zerrudo personally followed up the titling with the Register of Deeds, exploiting her husband’s position as a judge and her position as Assistant Clerk of Court.

Additional Allegations Relating to Reconstitution Proceedings

The complaint also charged respondent judge with falsification through false and untruthful statements in the narration of facts in a petition for reconstitution of an owners’ duplicate copy of TCT No. T-39863, covering the subject property in the names of Maria and Mauro Santalisis.

Complainants alleged that in his sworn petition, respondent judge falsely stated that the owners’ duplicate title was lost or destroyed and could no longer be located among the things left behind by the Santalisis spouses after their death. They further alleged that respondent judge falsely stated that the property had not been encumbered, or if it had been, the encumbrance had already been released and discharged.

Complainants asserted that respondent judge knowingly made those statements despite knowledge that the title was in the possession of the Rural Bank of Zarraga because Maria allegedly mortgaged the property for P5,000.00. Complainants claimed that, through the alleged misrepresentation, respondent judge was able to obtain a new owners’ duplicate copy of title in his name and his wife’s name.

Grave Abuse of Authority, Judicial Discretion, and the Bail Incident

A further set of allegations concerned events around the shooting of Eduardo Almacen on December 31, 1993, allegedly involving Antonio and Armando Andrada on the alleged orders of Oscar Santalisis. Oscar and the Andradas were detained.

Complainants alleged that respondent judge asked P/Chief Inspector Salvador Thornton to release Oscar to his custody, but the request was denied. They further claimed that respondent judge then personally wrote a petition for bail. They alleged that on January 1, 1994, respondent judge granted the bail without furnishing the Office of the City Prosecutor with a copy of the petition for bail, and fixed bail himself in the amount of P2,000.00 without considering the gravity of the offense. They alleged that respondent judge then issued an order directing Oscar’s release although Oscar had not yet posted bail. Complainants claimed that the amount was posted only on January 3, 1994, when respondent Ma. Theresa Zerrudo personally paid and deposited the bail with the Clerk of Court of MTCC Iloilo City.

Complainants alleged that Almacen died on January 5, 1994, leading to a murder case filed against Oscar and the Andradas. They alleged that no bail was recommended. Complainants asserted that respondent judge secured the services of Atty. Rey Padilla for Oscar, and that on respondent judge’s instruction, Atty. Padilla filed another bail petition for P30,000.00, which was allegedly granted by Judge Jose D. Azarraga without conducting a hearing. Complainants claimed that after trial, only the Andradas were convicted and Oscar was acquitted due to respondent judge’s alleged improper influence.

The complaint also accused respondents of irregularities with respect to the P2,000.00 bond. Complainants alleged that the P2,000.00 cash bond was later withdrawn by Ma. Theresa Zerrudo, who purportedly used it for personal needs by applying it to pay her loan with the Monte de Piedad Savings Bank. They alleged that the disbursement voucher was kept by respondent assistant clerk and was not provided to the Clerk of Court.

Respondents’ Comments and Explanations

As to the falsification of the 1984 deed of sale and alleged conduct unbecoming, respondent judge explained that he prepared and notarized the deed as a lawyer, not as a judge, since he was appointed judge only in 1986. He denied falsification and maintained that Maria’s signature was genuine, supported by the testimony of Maria’s sisters, Salvacion and Remedios, who were described as the only surviving heirs. He characterized the page-number discrepancies in his notarial records as clerical errors attributable to the clerk who typed the entries, and he argued that such discrepancies did not disprove that Maria actually signed the deed.

On the allegation that he described Oscar as a widower, respondent judge stated that he used the status as represented to him by Maria. He also justified the subsequent transfer to him and his wife by reference to a sale made for valuable consideration, supported by statements that Maria’s intestate compulsory heirs attested to the sale.

Respondent judge also explained that Maria sold the entire lot to Oscar because the complainants allegedly did not fully pay for the earlier sale, and that Maria did not recognize her prior sale to the Jarangue spouses, considering herself still the owner. Respondent judge stated that Maria mortgaged the lot in 1980 and that the Jarangue spouses did not vacate the property until 1989, when they allegedly turned over possession to respondent judge as new owner. He further stated that from then on, respondents recognized the Jarangue spouses’ rights to the half portion.

Respondent judge informed the Court that the criminal cases for falsification under Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code were dismissed by the City Prosecutor for lack of basis. He also relied on a civil case for annulment of sale and title, where he claimed the trial court found that respondents did not dispute the Jarangue spouses’ ownership of half of the lot, and where respondents allegedly executed a Deed of Reconveyance to the Jarangues covering the 222 square meters portion of lot 3706-A.

Regarding falsification by false statements in the petition for reconstitution, respondent judge asserted that he truthfully alleged that the owners’ duplicate title was not found among the things left behind and thus could be considered lost. He also stated that the mortgage annotation had been released and discharged, citing a Cancellation and Discharge of Mortgage dated March 17, 1986 issued by the rural bank.

Concerning the allegations on grave abuse of authority/judicial discretion, respondent judge admitted that he wrote a draft of the bail petition for Oscar but denied the claim that the prosecutor had not been furnished with copies. He claimed that copies of the petition, official receipts, and supporting documents were forwarded to the City Prosecutor, and that the latter conformed with the P2,000.00 bail. He also admitted issuing an Order for Oscar’s release on January 1, 1994. He explained that the P2,000.00 cash bond was borrowed from respondent Ma. Theresa Zerrudo and was deposited with the Clerk of Court only on the first working day after detention, January 3, 1994, because the accused had been detained over the holiday. He further stated that when Oscar was able to withdraw the bail, he gave the check to respondent Ma. Theresa Zerrudo, who allegedly advanced the cash bond.

Respondent judge denied that he committed estafa/malversation in relation to the withdrawal of the P2,000.00 bond. He maintained that Oscar withdrew the amount from the Clerk of Court and endorsed the check to respondent Ma. Theresa Zerrudo for the reason already stated. Respondent Ma. Theresa Zerrudo, in her separate Comment, similarly denied improper motives and denied having kept the voucher supporting the withdrawal. She also denied taking advantage of respondent judge’s position.

Investigation, Amendments on Parties, and Recommendations

After review of the Comments, the Court referred the matter to Executive Judge Severino C. Aguilar, RTC Iloilo City, Branch 35, for investigation, report, and recommendation. During the investigation, complainants represented by Atty. Carman informed the investigating judge that subsequent events had led to an amicable settlement in the related civil case, that they were satisfied with the respondents’ explanations, and that they might be unable to substantiate their charges. The Jarangue spouses and Almacen requested dismissal of the administrative case. The Executive Judge recommended dismissal.

Atty.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms