Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417)
Allegations: Falsification of Public Document and Dishonesty
Perfecto alleged that Respondent falsified her daughter’s birth certificate by indicating a March 18, 1990 marriage to Renato Esidera, despite no civil marriage on that date, to legitimize the child. He claimed Respondent failed to correct the certificate and prayed for her dismissal for dishonesty.
Respondent’s Defense: Procedural Compliance and Credibility
Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of personal-knowledge affidavits as required by Rule 140, Sec. 1, characterizing the complaint as hearsay. She denied participating in filling the birth certificate, asserting her husband was the informant, and challenged the complainant’s credibility and methods of obtaining court records.
Religious Marriage and Canonical Grounds
Respondent admitted a religious marriage on March 18, 1990, officiated by an unlicensed priest, valid under Catholic doctrine but lacking civil effect. She explained her delay in correcting the birth certificate to protect her daughter from social stigma and to await a conjugal decision.
OCA Findings and Recommendation
The Office of the Court Administrator found Respondent condoned a misrepresentation on the birth certificate, contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first, and failed to comport with her Catholic faith. It recommended a 15-day suspension for disgraceful, immoral, or dishonest conduct.
Analysis on Falsification Liability
The Supreme Court held that Respondent did not participate in preparing the birth certificate and that her husband signed as informant. Her omission to correct the record under the circumstances did not constitute administrative falsification or dishonesty.
Analysis on Immoral Conduct under Secular Standards
The Court reiterated that “immoral conduct” for administrative purposes must be judged by secular moral standards affecting public confidence in the judiciary, not by religious morality. It found no conduct so depraved as to impair confidence in the Rule of Law.
Bigamy and Civil Marriage Validity
Under Art. 349 RPC and the Family Code definitions, bigamy requires a second marriage valid under law but for a subsisting first marriage. The religious marriage lacked the necessary civil formalities and officer’s authority, rendering it void ab initio and not imputable as bigamy.
Religious Freedom and Administrative Liability
Article 350 RPC’s prohibition on marriages against legal impediments may burden religious exercise. Applying the benevolent neutrality test, the Court fou
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417)
Procedural History
- On July 15, 2010, Eladio D. Perfecto filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera of RTC Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar, for falsification of public document and dishonesty.
- Judge Desales-Esidera filed her Comment with Motion to Dismiss on December 30, 2010, challenging the sufficiency of Perfecto’s personal knowledge and evidence.
- The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended in September 2014 that Judge Desales-Esidera be found guilty of immoral or dishonest conduct and suspended for 15 days.
- The Supreme Court, through Justice Leonen, resolved the case on July 22, 2015, consolidating issues of falsification, dishonesty, immorality, bigamy, and religious freedom.
Facts of the Case
- Judge Desales-Esidera’s first marriage to Richard Tang Tepace was solemnized on May 7, 1987, at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila.
- She gave birth to a daughter, Mary Joyce, on October 3, 1990, purportedly to parents married on March 18, 1990.
- A civil annulment declared her marriage to Tepace void on January 27, 1992.
- A certification dated February 21, 2009, showed a second civil marriage with Renato Verano Esidera on June 3, 1992.
- Perfecto alleged that Judge Desales-Esidera falsified her daughter’s birth certificate to legitimize Mary Joyce by inserting a March 18, 1990 marriage date that did not exist in civil records.
Contentions of the Complainant
- Perfecto maintained that the March 18, 1990 marriage entry on the birth certificate was fictitious and unsupported by any civil registry record.
- He asserted that Judge Desales-Esidera knowingly allowed or condoned the false entry, amounting to falsification of a public document.
- Perfecto prayed for her dismissal from the bench for alleged dishonesty and falsification.
- He relied on documentary annexes: marriage certifications, the RTC annulment decision, the birth certificate, and a “no-marriage” certification.
Contentions of the Respondent
- Judge Desales-Esidera argued that Perfecto lacked personal knowledge and failed to support his allegations with affidavits or authenticated documents as required by Rule 140, Section 1.
- She claimed the March 18, 1990 date referred to a purely sacramental Catholic marriage withou