A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Indar

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232)

Origin and Nature of the Complaint

The complaint against Judge Indar arose from reports by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City concerning an unusual volume of annulment of marriage decisions purportedly issued by him. These decisions were questioned due to alleged irregularities. The OCA conducted a judicial audit at RTC Shariff Aguak, Branch 15, and found that the cases cited in the submitted list were absent from court records, including case dockets and trial proceedings, at both RTC Branch 15 and RTC Branch 14. The number series of the cases did not correspond with the official docket records.

Findings of the Judicial Audit and Initial Investigations

The OCA Audit Team concluded that:

The allegedly annulled marriage cases were absent from the official lists of filed, pending, or decided cases at both RTC Branch 15 and RTC Branch 14.
The purported decisions were spurious, as they lacked evidence of judicial process such as proper filing, payment of docket fees, or hearings.
Validation of purported signatures required forensic handwriting expertise, indicating suspicion of forgery.
The possible involvement of court personnel needed further discreet investigation.
The emergence of additional spurious documents could further impair the court’s integrity.

Response from Judge Indar

In reply to the Australian Embassy's inquiry regarding a specific annulment decision (Chona Chanco Aguiling v. Alan V. Aguiling), Judge Indar asserted the validity of the decision and affirmed that the party was free to remarry, despite no record of the case in official court files.

Administrative Proceedings and Preventive Suspension

Upon recommendation by the OCA, the Court En Banc docketed the case as an administrative matter, assigned it for investigation to a Court of Appeals Justice, and preventively suspended Judge Indar pending investigation. Initial investigative hearings led by two different Court of Appeals Justices commenced, with hearings scheduled and notices sent to Judge Indar’s official court addresses and residence. Despite receipt by court personnel and household members, Judge Indar repeatedly failed to appear or submit affidavits.

Investigation by Acting Presiding Judge and Subpoena of Parties

Judge George C. Jabido, Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 15, was tasked to verify the authenticity of the questioned decisions. After thorough inquiry of court records, he found:

No evidence of filings, hearings, notice to parties, or docket fee payments.
Absence of calendared hearings or submission for decision regarding these cases.
Official court documents and memoranda failed to produce any factual record of these annulment petitions or proceedings.
Subpoenas to parties in sample annulment cases were returned unserved, further casting doubt on the legitimacy of the decisions.

Findings and Report of the Investigating Justice

Justice Abraham B. Borreta found that:

Administrative due process was complied with despite absence of proof that Judge Indar personally received hearing notices; notices were received by authorized court personnel or household members, and preventive suspension was publicly reported.
Judge Indar was guilty of serious misconduct and dishonesty for issuing annulment decisions without observing required judicial processes mandated by the Rules of Court and relevant legislation.
His act of affirming the validity of a decision that did not exist in court records amounted to dishonesty.
He recommended Judge Indar’s dismissal from service and investigation of Atty. Silongan for possible involvement in authenticating spurious decisions.

Legal Standards on Administrative Due Process and Public Office

The Court emphasized that administrative investigations are distinct from judicial proceedings and are not strictly bound by technical procedural rules on evidence and hearing. Administrative due process requires only that an accused be given the opportunity to be heard, not necessarily a formal trial or personal receipt of notices. This relaxation is underpinned by the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, demanding higher standards of accountability, integrity, and responsibility.

Court’s Rulings on Judge Indar’s Liability and Penalties

The Court concurred with the Investigating Justice’s findings and ruled:

Judge Indar committed gross misconduct by issuing numerous annulment decisions without any record of filed cases, payment of fees, hearings, or compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
Such acts constitute a grave betrayal of public trust and an affront to the rule of law, severely undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Judge Indar’s dishonesty violated Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to act with honesty and integrity.
These acts also breached Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule 1.01, which prohibit dishonesty and mandate lawyers to uphold the law and integrity of the profession.

Prior Disciplinary Record of Judge Indar

The Court noted that this was Judge Indar’s third offense:

Previously fined for issuing a preliminary injunction without a hearing and prior notice.
Fined for gross misconduct in a separate case.
This demonstrated his habitual misconduct and aggravated his present offenses.

Penalty Imposed

Judge Indar was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave, and barred from future government employment. In parallel, he was disbarred, with

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232)

Nature of the Case and Parties Involved

This is an administrative complaint for gross misconduct and dishonesty filed against Judge Cader P. Indar, the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 14, Cotabato City, and Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) acted as Complainant.
The complaint arose from reports by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City regarding an unusually high volume of annulment of marriage decisions allegedly issued by Judge Indar.
The case was docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232 on April 10, 2012.

Origin and Findings of the Judicial Audit

The OCA conducted a judicial audit of RTC Shariff Aguak, Branch 15, following reports to verify the legitimacy of the annulment decisions linked to Judge Indar.
The Audit Team found that the cases listed by Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City were absent from court records of Branch 15 and RTC Cotabato, Branch 14.
Case numbers in submitted lists did not correspond with docket books maintained by either court.
The Audit Team concluded:
1. The listed cases were not filed, pending, nor decided in the concerned courts.
2. There were spurious decisions that lacked proper filing, payment of docket fees, and trial proceedings, yet were registered nationwide.
3. Authenticity of signatures required validation by NBI handwriting experts.
4. Possible involvement of lower court officials could not be determined without further discreet investigation.
5. There was significant concern about damage to the Court’s integrity from these spurious documents.

Judge Indar’s Response and OCA Recommendations

Judge Indar responded, asserting the court’s general jurisdiction over family relations cases and maintained the validity of the questioned annulment decision, specifically the case "Chona Chanco Aguiling v. Alan V. Aguiling."
OCA recommended docketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter, assignment to a Court of Appeals Justice for investigation, and preventive suspension of Judge Indar pending investigation.
The Court En Banc issued a resolution on May 4, 2010, preventively suspending Judge Indar and docketing the case.

Investigation Proceedings and Attempts at Service of Notices

The case was first assigned to CA Justice Rodil V. Zalameda and then reraffled to Justice Angelita A. Gacutan due to proximity considerations.
Notices of hearing were repeatedly sent to Judge Indar’s official and residential addresses, with receipts acknowledged by court employees or household members.
Judge Indar failed to appear for hearings and did not submit required affidavits.
Subsequent notices and orders extended hearing dates; however, Judge Indar’s whereabouts became unknown as he reportedly left Cotabato City in April 2010.
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) assistance was sought to locate Judge Indar and Atty. Umaima L. Silongan, Acting Clerk of Court, implicated for alleged participation in certifying questioned decisions.

Findings from Local Civil Registrars and Court Records

The Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City confirmed receipt and annotation of annulment cases allegedly issued by Judge Indar.
These decisions were certified true and authentic by the Clerk of Court, particularly by Atty. Silongan, who attested to the genuineness of Judge Indar’s signatures.
Despite certificat