SECOND DIVISION
PEDRITA M. HARAYO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-92-710
June 19, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE MAMERTO Y.
COLIFLORES,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Complainant Pedrita M.
Harayo, former clerk-stenographer, Municipal Trial Court, Minglanilla,
Cebu, in a sworn complaint dated 15 September 1992, charged respondent
Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores, Presiding Judge of the same court, with
grave
misconduct for (a) dismissing for monetary consideration Crim. Case No.
2307 for violation of PD No. 1866[1]
and Crim. Case No. 2308 for violation of RA No. 6425;[2]
(b) assigning Court Aide Jose M. Agosto as domestic helper and driver
of
respondent’s passenger jeepney; (c) solemnizing illegal marriages and
collecting
fees therefor; (d) allowing her name (complainant’s) to be placed as
witness
in a marriage contract by forging her signature; (e) falsifying the
date
when he signed the verification portion of the complaint and the joint
affidavit of the arresting officers in Crim. Case No. 2388; and, (f)
changing
for monetary consideration the joint affidavit of arresting officers
Jerome
Abatayo, Erasmo Gako and Eugene Hernani relative to Crim. Cases Nos.
2307
and 2308.
In a related letter-complaint
dated 7 September 1992 complainant Pedrita Harayo charged respondents
Josefina
R. Hermosa and Jose M. Agosto, Clerk of Court and Court Aide
respectively,
of MTC, Minglanilla, Cebu, with falsification of entries in their daily
time record and daily attendance book.cralaw:red
By way of comment, respondent
Judge denied the allegations in the complaint and countered that
complainant
might have been prompted to file the instant complaint after he
indorsed
Josefina Hermosa over complainant for the position of Clerk of Court
II.
He added that complainant likewise vented her ire on Hermosa and Agosto
when Hermosa did not accede to her request not to pursue her
application
for Clerk of Court, and the latter, when he chided her about her
belligerent
attitude towards Hermosa and his remark that after all she
(complainant)
was not qualified for the position she was seeking and even as court
stenographer
since she had no knowledge of steno-typing.cralaw:red
On the matter of the
illegal marriage, charged in the complaint, respondent claimed that he
desisted from officiating the marriages upon discovery that the
documents
were not complete despite assurances by complainant to the contrary.cralaw:red
This Court in a resolution
dated 23 February 1993 referred the instant case to the Office of the
Court
Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and
recommendation.
Thereafter, the OCA submitted its memorandum dated 29 March 1993
prepared
by Deputy Court Administrator Eutropio Migriño recommending the
dismissal of the complaints for lack of merit.cralaw:red
On 11 May 1993 the Court
again passed a resolution referring the instant case to Executive Judge
Generoso Juaban of the Regional Trial Court, Cebu, for investigation,
report
and recommendation. In his report, Judge Juaban recommended
that respondent be exonerated on the first and third charges, i.e.,
that
he dismissed cases for monetary consideration, and that he utilized
Court
Aide Jose Agosto as his domestic helper and personal
driver.
However, on the charge that he performed illegal marriages, Judge
Juaban
recommended that respondent be admonished and his salary equivalent to
one (1) or two (2) months be suspended for having signed three (3)
marriage
contracts before the corresponding marriage licenses were obtained by
the
parties. Judge Juaban reported that:chanrobles virtual law library
While there is no hard
proof that respondent Judge demanded money in the solemnization of
these
marriages, suspicion is strong that there could be some monetary
consideration.
The investigator now seems to doubt the verity of respondent’s
denial.
If the marriage contracts were signed by him and no solemnization ever
had, as he alleges, because he desisted from doing so in the first
instance,
why did he repeat the same procedure in the second and the third
time?
Signing the marriage contracts before the marriage licenses were so
obtained
on these three (3) marriages is indicative of respondent’s imprudence
in
this respect that calls for appropriate measures of admonition.[3]
On 9 August 1994 this
Court referred the report of Judge Juaban to the OCA for further
evaluation,
report and recommendation. Accordingly, on 15 September 1994 the
OCA submitted a memorandum essentially adopting the recommendations of
Investigating Judge Juaban but with the proposal that with regard to
the
second charge, respondent be fined in the amount equivalent to his one
(1) month salary.cralaw:red
In an En Banc resolution
dated 30 May 1995, the Supreme Court noted that the report of Judge
Juaban
failed to address certain key issues which were likewise raised in the
complaint, namely: (a) that respondent allowed complainant’s name to be
placed as witness in the marriage contract signed by Emmanuel Plantar
and
Elizabeth Nacor on 10 May 1989 by forging her signature; (b) that he
falsified
the date when he signed the verification portion of the complaint and
the
joint affidavit of the arresting officers in Crim. Case No. 2388 by
making
it appear that he was in the office and signed the documents on 15
August
1992 when in fact it was only on 20 August 1992 that he went to the
court
and signed the same; and, (c) that for monetary consideration, he
changed
the joint affidavit of the arresting officers in order to lay the
groundwork
for the dismissal of Crim. Cases Nos. 2307 and 2308.cralaw:red
In justifying the inclusion
of the above-mentioned charges, the Court opined that these accusations
should have been included in the investigation as they were embodied in
the reply of complainant to the comment of respondent
Judge.
Consequently, the Court directed the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI),
Cebu City, to conduct an investigation and submit its report and
recommendation
on the (a) alleged forgery of complainant’s signature on the marriage
contract
signed by Emmanuel Plantar and Elizabeth Nacor on 10 May 1989; and (b)
purported falsification of the joint affidavit of the arresting
officers
in Crim. Cases Nos. 2307 and 2308, and of the date affixed in the
verification
of the complaint in Crim. Case No. 2388.cralaw:red
In partial compliance
with the Court’s directive, the NBI through Regional Director Florencio
Villarin submitted a report on 2 November 1995 which contained
its
findings and conclusions on the examination of the marriage contract
containing
complainant’s alleged forged signature. It concluded that
"(t)he
questioned signatures ‘Pedrita Harayo’ and the standard/sample
signatures
and handwritings of one ‘Pedrita Harayo’ were not written by one and
the
same person."[4]chanrobles virtual law library
With respect to the
alleged falsification of the joint affidavit of the arresting officers,
and of the date affixed in the verification of the complaint in Crim.
Case
No. 2388, the NBI reports disclosed the following: " (a) as regards the
joint affidavit executed on 23 August 1991, "x x x indicative
that
they were not typed from one and the same source/ typewriter;[5]
(b) as regards the joint affidavit executed on 15 August 1992 "x
x x indicative that they were not typed from one and the same
source/typewriter;"[6]
and (c) "the questioned and the standard sample/signatures (of) Jesus
P.
Carel were written by one and the same person. The questioned
typewritten
entries/figures reading ‘15’ is NOT altered."[7]
Upon receipt of the
last report of the NBI, the Second Division of this Court again
referred
the matter to the OCA which in turn recommended that the matter be
"REFERRED
BACK" to the executive judge of RTC, Cebu, for a more exhaustive
investigation,
report and recommendation, particularly on those matters raised by the
complainant but were not touched in the investigation conducted by
former
Executive Judge Generoso Juaban.cralaw:red
On 8 January 2003, Investigating
Judge Galicano Arriesgado, who replaced Judge Generoso Juaban as
Executive
Judge, RTC-Cebu, together with Judges Isaias Dicdican and Pampio
Abarintos,
First Vice - Executive Judge and Second Vice-Executive Judge,
respectively,
submitted their report with the recommendation that all the charges
against
respondent Judge be dismissed for lack of merit.[8]
In arriving at their findings and conclusions, the Investigating Judges
said:[9]
On the charge that respondent
judge allowed the forging of complainant’s signature in the marriage
contract
x x x x no sufficient proof was adduced that respondent judge had
personal knowledge, much less, allowed the commission of the
forgery.
While it is true that the NBI result impliedly reported a forgery,
however,
the same cannot be directly pointed to respondent x
x
x
On the second charge
of falsifying the date in the verification portion of the joint
affidavit
of the police officers in Criminal Case 2388, the investigation
revealed
a total lack of evidence to support the same x x x x In the
absence
of proof to the contrary, the best evidence is the document, which has
been, for all intents, proven not only to be regular, but also to be
without
any alterations. Hence, in the normal course of things, it is
logical
to presume that the document was signed by respondent on the 15th and
have
been filed with and received by the court on the 18th as appearing on
the
official stamp x x x
On the charge that respondent
judge changed the joint affidavits of the arresting officers in order
to
facilitate the dismissal of Criminal Cases Nos. 2307 and 2308, the same
June 1, 2000 report of the NBI did not yield conclusive results that
the
questioned affidavits were typed at the MTC Minglanilla x
x
x
On the first charge,
there is absolutely no proof, other than the unsubstantiated allegation
of the complainant, that respondent Judge had received pecuniary
consideration
from a brother of the accused in exchange for the dismissal of Crim.
Cases
Nos. 2307 and 2308. If we were to believe complainant’s account
of
the incident, the payoff was supposed to have been made outside the
chambers
of respondent Judge and in the presence of lawyers and court employees;
in other words, in open public view - a venue which no
sensible
perpetrator of a crime would choose as it would unnecessarily expose
him
to the dangers of eventual prosecution. Moreover, her allusion
that
respondent offered her P100.00, apparently as goodwill money, becomes
even
more preposterous considering that a considerable amount, P15,000.00 or
P20,000.00, was supposed to have changed hands. As pointed out by
respondent, P100.00 is an amount too miniscule to buy the silence of a
potential witness to a crime.chanrobles virtual law library
On the second charge,
we also find unpersuasive complainant’s allegation that respondent
improperly
utilized the services of Court Aide Jose Agosto as domestic helper and
driver of his passenger jeepney. This bare accusation, devoid of
corroboration, cannot nudge this Court into precipitate belief.cralaw:red
On the charge that respondent
Judge solemnized civil marriages for exorbitant fees without the
requisite
marriage license, the records would reveal that on three (3) different
occasions he had indeed signed marriage contracts, which were undated
as
to the time the marriages were solemnized and with the space provided
for
the license number left blank.cralaw:red
In his comment, respondent
Judge denied having solemnized marriages without a license. He
explained
that in the first instance involving the marriage between Didier and
Basan,
he signed the marriage contract only after assurances were made by
complainant
that the papers were in order but collected said documents back and
kept
them inside his drawer soon after learning that the marriage license
was
indeed missing. In the other two (2) instances, he also denied
having
officiated at the marriage between Bin Osman and Librea and that of
Cabreros
and Batto when informed that the contracting parties could not produce
their respective marriage licenses.cralaw:red
Indeed, there is nothing
in the records that would indicate that respondent had in fact
solemnized
the marriages without the mandated license. After all, who
could best prove the existence of this fact other than the contracting
parties themselves? Nonetheless, there is an inescapable showing
that in at least three (3) different occasions respondent Judge
actually
signed the marriage contracts, admittedly prior to the issuance of the
licenses.cralaw:red
Be that as it may, we
cannot reject outright, in the absence of a more convincing evidence en
contra by the complainant, the verity of respondent’s assertion that he
desisted from performing marriages upon learning of the contracting
parties’
failure to produce the requisite marriage licenses, which was
corroborated
by other defense witnesses. But we cannot also help but
register
our strong suspicion that there are more serious irregularities than
meet
the eye behind respondent’s actuations. Committing the same act
of
imprudence three (3) times is one too many for comfort, casting
respondent’s
motives in serious question. In the absence however of clear and
convincing proof that he actually solemnized the three (3) marriages
without
the marriage licenses, no culpability of such nature can be ascribed to
him.cralaw:red
Nonetheless, respondent’s
admission of signing the marriage contracts before the issuance of the
requisite marriage licenses, although not necessarily fraudulent,
amounts
to gross negligence, if not gross irresponsibility, in performing his
official
functions.chanrobles virtual law library
On the charge of forgery
by respondent of complainant’s signature as witness in a marriage
contract,
there appears to be sufficient basis for the conclusion of the NBI of
an
implied forgery on the documents in question although there is no
direct
evidence on who actually committed the forgery. But the
fact
is that it happened with respondent’s apparent tolerance, if not
acquiescence,
for which he should be held accountable.cralaw:red
As regards the allegation
of complainant that respondent falsified the date when he signed the
verification
portion of the complaint and the joint affidavit of the arresting
officers
in Crim. Case No. 2388, and that he changed for monetary consideration
the joint affidavit of the arresting officers in connection with Crim.
Cases Nos. 2307 and 2308, we can only rely, in the absence of proof to
the contrary, on the findings of the NBI that no alterations were made
on the subject documents.chanrobles virtual law library
In sum, respondent,
for gratuitously signing marriage contracts in utter disregard of its
legal
effects, had been remiss in his duty of exercising due care and
circumspection
in the performance of his official duties. In doing so, he
exhibited
a cavalier proclivity of ignoring the norms of diligence, efficiency,
competence
and dedication expected of a man donning a judicial robe. Thus,
he
deserves a more severe disciplinary sanction than that recommended.cralaw:red
Although the accusations
against respondent Judge do not appear to have been fully
substantiated,
the Court cannot let him go unpunished. In Negre v. Rivera,[10]
we admonished a municipal judge for signing a marriage contract where
no
marriage license had been issued. Considering that in the instant
case, respondent repeatedly committed these procedural gaffes, a
penalty
more severe must be meted against him.cralaw:red
His serious negligence
and irresponsibility in signing three (3) marriage contracts, allegedly
in blank, and without the requisite marriage licenses are simply too
palpable
for this Court to assume an air of nonchalance and suspend in midair
the
fall of the gavel when it should.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the recommendations
of Investigating Judges Generoso Juaban and Galicano Arriesgado are
APPROVED,
particularly exonerating respondent Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores of the
charges against him, with the exception of his act of signing the three
(3) marriage contracts without the required marriage licenses for which
the Court finds him administratively liable and is ORDERED suspended
immediately
for one (1) month and to pay a fine equivalent to two (2) months salary
which shall be withheld from his retirement benefits when he retires.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Quisumbing, and Callejo,
Sr., JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Codifying the laws on illegal/unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing
in, acquisition or disposition, of firearms, ammunition or explosives
or
instruments used in the manufacture of firearms, ammunition or
explosives,
and imposing stiffer penalties for certain violations thereof and for
relevant
purposes.
[2]
The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Original Records, p. 327.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Rollo, p. 346.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Appearing in NBI report dated 1 June 2000 and 12 July 1999; see
Investigation
Report and Recommendation submitted by Investigating Judges Galicano
Arriesgado,
Isaias Dicdican and Pampio Abarintos; Rollo (no pagination).chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Ibid.
[8]
Ibid.
[9]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
A.M. No. 343-MTJ, 22 June 1976, 71 SCRA 498. |