A.M. No. MTJ-00-1320 - Bangayan vs. Butacan

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1320)

Key Dates and Procedural History

July 23, 2003 — Criminal and administrative charges filed before the Office of the Ombudsman by complainant.
March 24, 2004 — Ombudsman dismissed the charges and denied motion for reconsideration (order dated September 30, 2004).
October 28, 2004 — Complainant filed petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA).
February–August 2005 — Respondent interviewed by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) for an RTC judgeship.
August 25, 2005 — Respondent appointed RTC Judge, Branch 30, Cabanatuan City.
March 21, 2006 — Respondent filed a Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in the OAS-OCA RTC Personnel Division, answering “No” to the question “Have you ever been formally charged?”
November 25, 2005 — CA decision on the petition: declined to take cognizance of criminal charges (proper remedy to Supreme Court), but reversed the Ombudsman’s dismissal as to the administrative aspect and directed the Ombudsman to file and prosecute administrative charges.
Supreme Court resolution (July 5, 2010) — Final disciplinary/adjudicative action by the Court (decision post-1990; 1987 Constitution applied).

Applicable Law and Rules Cited

1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 7 — qualification requisites for members of the judiciary, including “proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.”
Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (Rule 4, Sec. 5) — disqualification from nomination for those with pending criminal or administrative cases.
A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC — automatic conversion of certain administrative cases against judges and court officials who are lawyers into disciplinary proceedings as members of the Bar.
Code of Professional Responsibility (Canons 1, 7, 10, 11; Rule 1.01; Rule 10.01) — duties against unlawful, dishonest or deceitful acts and obligations of candor and fairness to the court.
Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court — grounds for disbarment or suspension for deceit or gross misconduct.
Precedents cited in reasoning: Ratti v. Mendoza-De Castro (PDS falsehoods constitute dishonesty/falsification), CaAada v. Suerte (application of A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC and disbarment consequences), and other related authorities addressing judicial conduct and disciplinary consequences.

Allegations and Factual Contentions

Complainant alleged (1) respondent was constitutionally unfit for appointment due to lack of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence; (2) respondent violated JBC rules by being nominated despite pending administrative/criminal cases; (3) respondent deliberately concealed pending Ombudsman charges during JBC interviews, enabling nomination and appointment; and (4) respondent committed improprieties and exceeded authority while a public prosecutor, prompting the Ombudsman complaint. Complainant also pointed to respondent’s PDS entry denying ever being formally charged as further proof of dishonesty.

Respondent’s Position and Defense

Respondent admitted that criminal and administrative charges were lodged against him in the Ombudsman but asserted the March 24, 2004 Ombudsman decision dismissed the charges and was immediately effective and executory; therefore, no pending cases existed during his JBC interviews (Feb–Aug 2005). He also asserted that he informed the JBC of the cases, allegedly showing the Ombudsman’s dismissal resolution during the panel interview. In response to the PDS allegation, respondent maintained the dismissal rendered there were no pending formal charges, explaining his negative answer on the PDS.

Evidentiary Assessment Regarding JBC Disclosure

The Court found it impossible to conclusively determine whether respondent withheld information from the JBC because neither party produced concrete, probative evidence proving disclosure or concealment during the JBC interviews. Both the complainant’s and respondent’s assertions on this point lacked corroborative evidence; thus, the Court afforded no probative weight to those competing claims.

Finding of Dishonesty and Falsification Based on PDS

Independent of the unresolved JBC disclosure issue, the Court held that respondent committed dishonesty and falsification of an official document by answering “No” to the PDS question “Have you ever been formally charged?” in the PDS filed on March 21, 2006. The Court interpreted the phrase “Have you ever been formally charged?” as encompassing any time in the past or present; therefore, a prior formal charge—even if dismissed later—renders a negative response false. The Court relied on precedent (Ratti v. Mendoza-De Castro) to equate untruthful statements in a PDS with dishonesty and falsification.

Legal Characterization and Rationale for Severe Penalty

Dishonesty by a judge was characterized as a grave offense warranting the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government. The Court emphasized that respondent’s status as a former prosecutor and a judge imposes a heightened duty to comply strictly with laws and ethical rules; a judge is expected to exhibit integrity that commands public confidence. The Court found respondent’s false PDS answer was not a mere inadvertence but a deliberate falsehood and noted respondent’s attempt to justify his answer by reference to the dismissal, which was immaterial to the PDS question’s temporal scope.

Application of A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC and Disbarment

Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the administrative complaint against respondent (a judge who is a lawyer) was automatically treated also as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the Bar. The Court examined the relevant Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility and concluded that respondent’s dishonest conduct violated the lawyer’s oath and provisions forbidding deceit and misleading the court (Canons 1, 10, 11; Rules 1.01, 10.01). Under the automatic-conversion rule and relevant precedents (notably CaAada v. Suerte), the Court found that respondent’s dishonesty rendered him unfit to continue the practice of law and warranted disbarment.

Penalties Imposed

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document and ordered:

Dismissal from the judicial service, with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government (including government-owned or controlled corporations).
Disbarment for violation of Canons 1 and 11 and Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Resp

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1320)

Citation and Procedural Posture

Reported at 612 Phil. 737; 106 OG No. 27, 3783 (July 5, 2010), decided En Banc.
Administrative matter docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138, August 05, 2009.
Resolution per curiam of the Supreme Court finding respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero guilty of administrative offenses; disciplinary conversion to Bar proceedings pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC; penalty imposed and directives issued.

Parties

Complainant: Olga M. Samson.
Respondent: Judge Virgilio G. Caballero, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.
Other institutions involved in the procedural history: Office of the Ombudsman, Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division), Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

Nature of the Case and Relief Sought

Administrative complaint for dishonesty and falsification of a public/official document filed by Olga M. Samson against Judge Virgilio G. Caballero.
Complainant sought accountability for alleged concealment of pending cases during JBC nomination/interviews and for false statements made in respondent’s Personal Data Sheet (PDS).
Relief requested implicitly and ultimately sought: administrative sanctions including dismissal and, by operation of rules, disbarment.

Relevant Dates and Key Events

July 23, 2003: Complainant, on behalf of Community Rural Bank of Guimba (Nueva Ecija), Inc., filed criminal and administrative charges with the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent for grave abuse of authority, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of Article 208, RPC.
March 24, 2004: Ombudsman rendered a decision dismissing the charges; this decision was described in the record as immediately effective and executory by respondent.
September 30, 2004: Joint order denying complainant’s motion for reconsideration (Ombudsman).
October 28, 2004: Complainant filed a petition for review in the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 43, Rules of Court.
February to August 2005: Respondent interviewed several times by the JBC for appointment to RTC judge.
August 25, 2005: Respondent appointed as judge, RTC Branch 30, Cabanatuan City.
November 25, 2005: CA decision—refused cognizance of criminal charges (Rule 65) but reversed and set aside Ombudsman dismissal as to administrative aspect and directed the Ombudsman to file and prosecute the administrative charges.
March 21, 2006: Respondent filed Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in OAS-OCA RTC Personnel Division, answering “No” to “Have you ever been formally charged?”
July 18, 2006: Date of the administrative complaint by complainant (per record note).
November 15, 2006: Respondent’s comment filed.
January 29, 2007: Complainant’s reply filed.
Final resolution by the Supreme Court rendered July 5, 2010 (reported).

Factual Allegations by Complainant

Respondent was not fit for appointment due to alleged absence of constitutional qualifications of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.
Respondent violated JBC rules that disqualify from nomination any applicant with pending administrative cases, by allegedly concealing pending administrative charges during JBC interviews.
On July 23, 2003, complainant filed criminal and administrative charges with the Ombudsman against respondent based on alleged improprieties when respondent was a public prosecutor, including alleged reinvestigation without notice, overruling the Secretary of Justice, failure to afford due process, filing a motion to dismiss without notifying petitioner, and related claims of abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the service.
Complainant asserted that respondent never informed the JBC of such pending cases, enabling his nomination and appointment.

Respondent’s Position / Defense

Admitted that criminal and administrative cases had been lodged against him with the Ombudsman.
Insisted that the Ombudsman’s March 24, 2004 decision dismissed the charges and was immediately effective and executory; thus, there were no pending cases during his JBC interviews (February–August 2005), and consequently no impediment to nomination or assumption of office.
Affirmed that he informed the JBC of the said cases (claimed he showed a copy of the Ombudsman resolution dismissing the cases during a panel interview in February 2005).
In formal pleadings, requested proof of allegations and contended allegations must be supported by evidence.

Procedural History in Administrative and Appellate Fora (Ombudsman and CA)

Ombudsman: Original criminal and administrative charges were dismissed in the March 24, 2004 decision; motion for reconsideration was denied in a joint order dated September 30, 2004.
Court of Appeals: Petition for review filed October 28, 2004. CA (November 25, 2005) held it could not take cognizance of the criminal charges—these appeals must go to the Supreme Court via certiorari—but reversed and set aside Ombudsman’s dismissal as to the administrative aspect and directed Ombudsman to file and prosecute the administrative charges.
While the CA petition was pending, respondent underwent JBC interviews and was appointed.

Personal Data Sheet (PDS) and Specific Falsification Allegation

Respondent filed a PDS on March 21, 2006 with OAS-OCA RTC Personnel Division.
In that PDS, respondent checked the box indicating “No” to the question, “Have you ever been formally charged?”
Complainant relied on this representation as evidence of respondent’s dishonesty and falsification of an official document.
Complainant mistakenly referred to this PDS as the one filed in the JBC (record notes this mistake).

OCA Findings and Recommendation

On the basis of pleadings and documents presented by both parties, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent administratively liable for dishonesty and falsification of an official document for his false statement in his PDS.
OCA recommended respondent’s dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service.

Supreme Court’s Evidence Assessment and Findings on Disclosure to JBC

The Supreme Court observed that neither party substantiated their respective allegations regarding disclosure to the JBC with concrete evidence.
As to whether respondent withheld information from the JBC, the Court found no probative evidence on either side; both allegations and defenses la