A.C. No. 6909 - Vecino vs. Ortiz, Jr.

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6909)

Factual Background

In April 2021 the Office of the City Prosecutor filed four Informations docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 65207‑21 to 65210‑21 against Jeffrey Ostil Tamayo. On April 22, 2021 Tamayo applied for bail and, following a record review, Judge Leah Angeli B. Vasquez‑Abad issued motu proprio dismissal orders on three of the four cases prior to raffle on grounds she articulated in written Orders. On April 26, 2021 Criminal Case No. 65208‑21 was raffled to Judge Sharon M. Alamada, who thereafter accepted a guilty plea on April 27, 2021. Judge Alamada filed an administrative complaint charging Judge Abad with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Rules of Procedure for acting on probable cause and dismissing cases before raffle.

Judge Abad’s Defense on Raffle and Bail

Judge Leah Angeli B. Vasquez‑Abad defended her actions as taken in good faith and grounded on contemporaneous Circulars addressing court operations during the COVID‑19 pandemic. She explained that she routinely studied newly filed records and acted given the exigencies created by A.C. No. 33‑2020 and OCA Circular No. 89‑2020, and that she construed the phrase “as far as practicable” in OCA Circular No. 94‑2020 together with the general powers of Executive Judges under Administrative Matter No. 03‑8‑02‑SC to permit temporary action on urgent matters. Upon receiving clarifying guidance from the Office of the Court Administrator, she recalled her April 22, 2021 dismissal Orders by separate Orders dated April 30, 2021.

Complaint by Judge Abad Against Judge Alamada — Payroll and Cash Card Allegations

On July 19, 2021 Judge Abad filed a Letter‑Complaint against Judge Alamada alleging Dishonesty, Misconduct, and Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, anchored on statements by former driver Sandy Labarite Eraga. The complaint alleged that Eraga’s Land Bank cash card was taken and controlled by court personnel and that payroll registers certified by Judge Alamada falsely reflected payments to Eraga after his resignation and after his reported employment by Hunter Security in November 2020. The Supplemental Complaint asserted specific certifications signed as “Certified Correct” by Judge Alamada for multiple payroll periods and suggested withdrawals from Eraga’s account that indicated possible misappropriation.

Judge Alamada’s Response and Counter‑Accusations

Judge Sharon M. Alamada denied wrongdoing, asserted that Judge Abad and Judge Sakkam filed unverified administrative complaints in circumvention of Rule 140, and disputed claims that she had retained or used Eraga’s cash card. She admitted signing payroll registers and asserted that she attempted to have Eraga removed from the LGU list and that signatures by staff were procured to avoid delay in release of salaries for other JO workers. She claimed pandemic conditions and LGU procedures complicated immediate correction of payroll entries.

OED and JIB Proceedings and Recommendations

The Office of the Executive Director (OED) and the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) separately investigated the complaints. The OED made varying recommendations: dismissal for lack of merit in some matters, and referral for formal investigation in others where prima facie issues and possible misappropriation emerged. The JIB conducted hearings, received testimonial and documentary evidence, and issued consolidated reports recommending (a) in certain matters dismissal for lack of merit and admonitions as appropriate, and (b) in the central payroll and cash card matter a finding of prima facie liability against Judge Alamada, Worwor‑Miguel, and De Jesus, with recommendation for preventive suspension and for formal hearings on serious charges.

Hearing Evidence and Testimony

During hearings before the JIB, testimonial evidence included statements from Judge Abad, Eraga, LBP Branch Manager Anna Marie Mundin, Hunter Security’s operations manager Romeo Mateo, and Calamba City LGU officer Maxima Lapastora. Judge Alamada, Worwor‑Miguel, and De Jesus testified in their defense. Documentary evidence included payroll registers, a Cash Card Account History showing periodic credits and withdrawals from October 2020 through July 2021, multiple signed payroll certifications, and correspondence requesting removal of Eraga from LGU payroll. Witness Agoncillo testified she executed periodic withdrawals upon instruction and stated that cash and receipts were returned to Judge Alamada.

Legal Issue and Standard of Proof

The consolidated proceeding presented the single central question whether respondents should be held administratively liable for the acts charged. The Court applied the administrative standard of proof of substantial evidence, defined as that quantum of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

Court’s Analysis — Executive Judge Vasquez‑Abad (A.M. No. MTJ‑23‑014)

The Court found that Judge Abad erred in interpreting directives regarding raffle and the exercise of Executive Judge powers but that her error was promptly corrected by recalling the dismissal Orders. Considering the contextual pressure of the pandemic, that this was her first administrative case, and that the record established an honest interpretive mistake rather than culpable ignorance, the Court modified the JIB recommendation and imposed only an admonition to be more careful in observing Supreme Court directives and circulars.

Court’s Analysis — Conduct Allegations and Dismissals (A.M. No. MTJ‑24‑026 and MTJ‑24‑027)

The Court agreed with the JIB and OED recommendations to dismiss the complaints predicated on unverified letters and alleged discourteous conduct for lack of sufficient evidence. The Court held that Judge Abad and Judge Sakkam failed to substantiate allegations of improper conduct by Judge Alamada, and that Judge Sakkam’s notarization of the Letter‑Complaint and Sinumpaang Salaysay fell within the authorized ex officio notarial function under Circular No. 1‑90 and the duty of judges under Canon 2, Section 3, NCJC to take disciplinary measures when warranted. Consequently, the Court dismissed those administrative complaints for lack of merit.

Court’s Findings — Falsification, Misappropriation, and Dishonesty by Judge Alamada (A.M. No. MTJ‑23‑015)

The Court found that Judge Alamada admitted signing the payroll registers certifying that Eraga rendered services for eight specified payroll periods despite knowing that he had resigned and was employed elsewhere. The payroll registers bore an express certification: “Certified Correct: Each person whose name appears on this roll had rendered services for the time stated,” immediately below which her signature appeared. The Court concluded that by knowingly certifying false entries she committed Falsification of Official Documents and that the repeated certifications were sufficiently related to be treated as a single collective falsification under the practical application adopted in Banzuela‑Didulo v. Santizo.

Court’s Findings — Misappropriation Supported by Cash Card Account History and Testimony

The Court relied on the Cash Card Account History and witness testimony, particularly that of Agoncillo, to conclude that withdrawals from Eraga’s cash card occurred regularly after his separation and that those withdrawals were effected on the authority of Judge Alamada. The transaction history reflected periodic mass top‑ups and ATM withdrawals from May to July 2021 coincident with credited payroll entries. Agoncillo testified that she received the cash card and gave withdrawn funds and receipts to Judge Alamada. The Court held there was substantial evidence that Judge Alamada possessed the cash card and caused withdrawals that resulted in her material benefit, and that such acts constituted Serious Dishonesty, Gross Misconduct, and Commission of Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude.

Legal Characterization and Doctrinal Bases for Penalty

The Court treated the falsification, misappropriation, and attendant conduct as violations of Canon 2 and Canon 4 of the NCJC and as serious offenses under A.M. No. 21‑08‑09‑SC and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. The Court invoked precedent that falsification of official documents undermines public faith and that dishonesty by a judicial officer taints the integrity of the Judiciary (Villordon v. Avila), and it emphasized that membership in the bar imposes a continuing requirement of good moral character and probity.

Sanctions Imposed on Judge Alamada and Rationale for Disbarment

Given the gravity and multiplicity of offenses and the evidence of moral depravity and abuse of authority, the Court imposed the maximum administrative penalty under applicable rules: dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to public office. The Court further found that Judge Alamada’s conduct rendered her unfit to remain a member of the Bar and imposed disbarment, ordering her name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys, citing the heightened standard of integrity required of judges and the precedent in Samson v. Caballero and related authorities.

Liability and Penalties of Worwor‑Miguel and De Jesus

The Court found that Rachel Worwor‑Miguel and Beverly A. De Jesus had signed payroll registers on behalf of Judge Alamada without personal knowledge that the entries were true, thereby committing Falsification of Official Documents and Serious Dishonesty. The Court declined to find them guilty of crimes involving moral turpitude because the record show

Case Syllabus (A.C. No. 6909)

Parties and Procedural Posture

HON. SHARON MAGAYANES, VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGE/PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 3, MTCC, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANT filed administrative charges originally docketed as JIB FPI No. 21-024-MTJ and re-docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-23-014 against HON. LEAH ANGELI B. VASQUEZ-ABAD, EXECUTIVE JUDGE/PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 1, MTCC, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.
HON. LEAH ANGELI B. VASQUEZ-ABAD, COMPLAINANT filed separate administrative charges initially docketed as JIB FPI No. 21-032-MTJ and re-docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-23-015 against HON. SHARON M. ALAMADA-MAGAYANES, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 3, MTCC, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT, and against court personnel MS. RACHEL WORWOR-MIGUEL, CLERK OF COURT III, and MS. BEVERLY A. DE JESUS, COURT STENOGRAPHER II.
HON. LEAH ANGELI B. VASQUEZ-ABAD and HON. ERIC ISMAEL P. SAKKAM, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 2, MTCC, CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, COMPLAINANTS filed matters consolidated as A.M. No. MTJ-24-026 and A.M. No. MTJ-24-027 against HON. SHARON M. ALAMADA-MAGAYANES and HON. ISMAEL P. SAKKAM respectively.
The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and its Office of the Executive Director (OED) conducted investigations and reported with recommendations to the Court, and the Court consolidated the four administrative cases for resolution.
The primary administrative issue presented to the Court was whether the respondents were administratively liable for the acts complained of under the applicable rules, circulars, and codes of judicial conduct.

Key Factual Allegations

Judge Alamada alleged that on April 22, 2021 Judge Abad assessed probable cause and motu proprio dismissed three of four newly filed criminal informations against Jeffrey Ostil Tamayo before the raffle of cases.
Judge Alamada alleged that Judge Abad thus exercised adjudicatory powers not vested in an Executive Judge and violated Supreme Court directives and the Guidelines on the Decongestion of Holding Jails.
Judge Abad maintained she dismissed the three informations in good faith for lack of essential elements or prematurity and relied on pandemic-era OCA/Supreme Court circulars that temporarily altered operational practice such as the judge-on-duty system.
Judge Abad recalled her April 22, 2021 dismissal orders after seeking and receiving clarification from Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva.
Judge Abad filed a Letter-Complaint dated July 19, 2021 alleging that Judge Alamada and her court personnel falsified payroll registers of Calamba City job-order (JO) workers and misappropriated salary credits of one Sandy Labarite Eraga who had resigned on September 24, 2020.
Eraga asserted that his LBP cash card was taken in the office of Judge Alamada, that salaries continued to be credited to that card after he left, and that withdrawals were made by others without his consent while he worked for Hunter Security beginning November 2020.
Payroll registers for multiple periods bore certifications signed by Judge Alamada and by her staff Worwor-Miguel and De Jesus, and LBP account records showed periodic top-ups and ATM withdrawals from Eraga’s cash card through July 4, 2021.
Judge Sakkam notarized Judge Abad’s Letter-Complaint and Eraga’s sworn statements, and Judge Alamada and other judges exchanged personnel-related complaints and letters accusing one another of unbecoming conduct.

Procedural History

The JIB received the initial complaints and OED reports and made differing recommendations, including dismissal for lack of merit in some matters and formal investigation in others.
A.M. No. MTJ-23-015 was re-docketed for formal investigation under Rule 140, Section 6, and hearings were conducted with testimonial and documentary evidence.
The JIB rendered a Consolidated Report recommending varying dispositions including dismissal, reprimand, re-docketing as regular administrative matters, imposition of preventive suspension for some respondents, and criminal referrals.
The Supreme Court en banc reviewed the consolidated records, adopted or modified JIB/OED recommendations as warranted, held hearings as necessary, and promulgated the final decision.

Issues Presented

Whether Judge Leah Angeli B. Vasquez-Abad committed Gross Ignorance of the Law and Rules of Procedure by acting on bail applications and issuing dismissal orders before raffle.
Whether Judge Sharon M. Alamada and her court personnel engaged in falsification of official documents, serious dishonesty, gross misconduct, commission of crimes involving moral turpitude, and violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and/or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability through certifications on payroll registers and misappropriation of Eraga’s cash card funds.
Whether Judge Eric Ismael P. Sakkam and other actors committed misconduct by notarizing documents or filing unverified complaints in violation of applicable rules and circulars.
What penalties are appropriate if administrative liability is established.

Contentions of Parties

Judge Alamada contended that Judge Abad unlawfully determined probable cause and dismissed informations prior to raffle and invoked Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC, Guidelines on Decongestion of Holding Jails, and Crespo v. Mogul to support her position.
Judge Abad maintained she acted in good faith under pandemic circulars including Administrative Circular No. 33-2020, OCA Circular No. 89-2020, and OCA Circular No. 94-2020, and that her dismissals were promptly recalled upon clarification.
Judge Abad further alleged forgery, falsification, and misappropriation by Judge Alamada based on payroll registers and Eraga’s cash card withdrawals, and she sought preventive suspension of the accused.
Judge Alamada denied misappropriation, explained that Eraga received board and compensation, and argued that Judge Abad’s Letter-Complaint was unverified and violated Rule 140; she also asserted that notarizations by Judge Sakkam were unauthorized per Circular No. 1-90 and Nate v. Judge Contreras.
Worwor-Miguel and De Jesus admitted signing payroll registers on Judge Alamada’s instruction and asserted they a