Office of the Court Administrator vs. Indar

A judge who issues decisions voiding marriages without any filed petitions, proceedings, or compliance with procedural and substantive requisites commits gross misconduct and dishonesty warranting dismissal from service and disbarment. Such fabrication makes a mockery of marriage, violates honesty in official duties, undermines faith in the judiciary, and breaches the lawyer's oath and professional responsibility.

Judge Cader P. Indar served as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City and Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao. Local civil registrars are charged with receiving and annotating court decrees affecting civil status, including annulment decisions, after verification with the clerk of court. The Office of the Court Administrator exercises supervision over lower courts and investigates reports of irregular judicial issuances.

Judge Cader P. Indar presided over the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City while acting as Presiding Judge of Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao. The Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City informed the Office of the Court Administrator that they had received an alarming number of decisions, resolutions, and orders on annulment of marriage cases allegedly issued by him and presented for annotation of civil status records.

An OCA audit team examined RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 and RTC-Cotabato, Branch 14. The lists submitted by the registrars did not appear in the records of cases received, pending, or disposed, nor in the Office of the Clerk of Court of Cotabato City, and the case numbers used were outside the series recorded in the docket books of either court. The team also followed up Deputy Court Administrator Jesus Edwin A. Villasor's 1st Indorsement dated 15 February 2010 concerning the 25 November 2009 letter of Ms. Miren Galloway of the Australian Embassy seeking confirmation of the authenticity of a 23 May 2007 decision in Spec. Proc. No. 06-581, entitled Chona Chanco Aguiling vs. Alan V. Aguiling, for declaration of nullity of marriage. The audit found no such case in the records filed, pending, or disposed. In a letter dated 10 March 2010, Judge Indar replied that his court being a court of general jurisdiction could act on family relations cases, hence the subject decision annulling the marriage was valid and the client was free to marry.

During investigation, the Manila registrar submitted copies of forty-three decisions, orders, and resolutions in annulment, correction of entry, and similar cases signed by Judge Indar, all accompanied by letters from Acting Clerk of Court Atty. Umaima L. Silongan affirming each as true and authentic based on records, with thirty-six also bearing her certification of the genuineness of his signature. The Quezon City registrar submitted twenty-five decisions, orders, and resolutions signed by Judge Indar, accompanied by certificates of finality affirming the genuineness of his signature issued by Atty. Silongan and in one case by OIC-Branch Clerk Abie Amilil. According to the registrars, Manila cases in one list had been annotated as a ministerial duty while others were held in abeyance due to the investigation, and Quezon City decisions had been annotated and verified although the verifier could not be identified. Acting Presiding Judge George C. Jabido, directed to verify authenticity, personally checked records, required court officers to produce minutes and related documents, and reported no record of the enumerated cases, no docket-fee payment, no notice or calendaring of hearings, no hearings conducted, no stenographic notes, and no submission for decision. Subpoenas to several named parties in the questioned decisions were all returned unserved, while notices to Judge Indar sent to his salas and residence were received by staff or returned as addressee moved or unknown, and Atty. Silongan twice failed to appear despite notice.

• Validity as Court of General Jurisdiction: Respondent maintained in his 10 March 2010 letter responding to the Australian Embassy inquiry that his court, being a court of general jurisdiction, could act even on cases involving family relations, hence the subject decision annulling the marriage was valid and the party was free to marry.

• Administrative Due Process: Whether due process was satisfied although there was no proof Judge Indar personally received the investigation notices and the investigation proceeded ex parte.
• Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty: Whether Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty for issuing numerous annulment and related decisions without any court proceedings or records thereof.
• Bar Discipline and Ancillary Investigation: Whether the administrative case warrants disbarment under automatic conversion and investigation of the acting clerk of court for authenticating the spurious decisions.

• Administrative Due Process: Yes. Administrative due process was satisfied because repeated notices to known addresses and opportunity to be heard were given, and technical judicial rules do not strictly apply.
• Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty: Yes. Gross misconduct and dishonesty were established by substantial evidence showing spurious decisions issued without filing, fees, notice, hearing, or records, aggravated by prior offenses.
• Bar Discipline and Ancillary Investigation: Yes. Disbarment was warranted under automatic conversion for breach of the lawyer's oath and professional canons, and investigation of Atty. Silongan for authentication was ordered.

• Administrative Due Process: Administrative investigations need not adhere strictly to technical rules of procedure and evidence, and notice and hearing are not indispensable in the judicial sense; what is safeguarded is opportunity to be heard, not lack of previous notice, especially since public office is a public trust and not property. Notices were sent to both salas and the residence and received by persons presumably authorized to receive them, the suspension resolution was mailed and widely reported, and repeated notices were issued, yet no explanation or appearance followed, justifying ex parte proceedings under Section 4, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
• Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty: Misconduct is transgression of an established rule of action, grave when attended by corruption, willful intent to violate law, or flagrant disregard of established rules; dishonesty is disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud and lack of integrity. Issuance of decisions voiding marital unions that made it appear trial and statutory and jurisprudential requisites were complied with, when audit and court verification showed no petitions, docket fees, notices, calendars, hearings, stenographic notes, or submission for decision, and affirmance to the Embassy of a non-existent case, manifested willful disregard of rules and deceit in violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Two prior penalties for injunction without hearing and for Code of Judicial Conduct violations made this the third offense, aggravating liability to dismissal under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
• Bar Discipline and Ancillary Investigation: Under A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, an administrative case against a judge based on grounds likewise constituting bar violations is automatically also a disciplinary action as a member of the Bar without need for separate comment order, judgment in both respects being incorporable in one decision. Fabrication of decisions and false affirmance violated the oath to do no falsehood and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and constituted deceit and gross misconduct under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, rendering continued practice untenable for want of good moral character. Authentication letters and certificates by Atty. Silongan supporting the spurious decisions justified ordering the OCA to investigate her participation.

• Administrative due process — Administrative investigations shall be conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to technical rules of procedure and evidence; notice and hearing in the strict judicial sense are not indispensable, and it suffices that the party is given the chance to be heard before decision. Applied to sustain ex parte proceedings after repeated notices to known addresses and failure to explain or appear.
• Public office as public trust — Public office is not property within due-process guarantees but a public trust requiring accountability, responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency at all times. Applied to justify relaxed due-process requirements in administrative proceedings and to exact the highest honesty and integrity from judges as visible representations of law.
• Simple misconduct vs. grave misconduct — Misconduct is transgression of some established and definite rule of action, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer; it is grave when involving corruption, willful intent to violate law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, established by substantial evidence. Applied to classify issuance of spurious annulment decisions without proceedings as gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Dishonesty — Dishonesty denotes disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity, honesty, probity, fairness, and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive, or betray. Applied to the making of decisions that falsely portrayed compliance with trial and annulment requisites and to false affirmance of validity to the Australian Embassy.
• Automatic conversion of administrative cases against judges to Bar discipline — Under A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, an administrative case against judges of regular and special courts based on grounds also constituting Bar violations is by operation of the rule also a disciplinary proceeding against them as lawyers, avoiding duplication. Applied to disbar Judge Indar in the same decision for violation of the lawyer's oath and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• "Administrative investigations shall be conducted without necessarily adhering strictly to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings." — States the governing procedural rule that permits relaxed technical requirements and sustains the ex parte administrative investigation.
• "While a day in court is a matter of right in judicial proceedings, in administrative proceedings it is otherwise since they rest upon different principles." — Distinguishes administrative from judicial due process to support sufficiency of opportunity to be heard through repeated notices.
• "The Court defines misconduct as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer."" — Provides the canonical definition used to differentiate simple from grave misconduct and to classify the spurious annulment issuances.
• "x x x a "disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray."" — Supplies the controlling definition of dishonesty applied to fabrication and false authentication of decisions.

• Cornejo vs. Gabriel, 41 Phil. 188 (1920) — Followed as controlling on administrative due process not necessarily requiring judicial notice and hearing and on public office as public trust rather than property.
• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Lopez, A.M. No. P-10-2788, 18 January 2011 — Followed for the definition distinguishing simple misconduct from grave misconduct requiring corruption, willful intent, or flagrant disregard of rules.
• De Vera vs. Rimas, A.M. No. P-06-2118, 12 June 2008 — Followed for the definition of dishonesty as disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud and lack of integrity.
• Samson vs. Caballero, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138, 5 August 2009 — Followed to hold automatic conversion impliedly institutes Bar discipline upon filing of the judicial administrative case without need for separate show-cause order, supporting disbarment in the same decision.

• Section 3, Rule I, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Provides administrative investigations need not strictly adhere to technical rules of procedure and evidence; applied to uphold investigation despite absence of strict judicial service and hearing.
• Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution — Declares public office a public trust requiring accountability, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; applied to exact highest honesty from judges and relax due-process formalism.
• Section 4, Rule 140, Rules of Court — Authorizes the investigating justice to proceed ex parte if respondent fails to appear after due notice; applied to validate continuation after repeated non-appearance.
• Section 8, Rule 140, Rules of Court — Classifies dishonesty and gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as serious charges; applied to characterize the spurious annulment decisions.
• Section 11, Rule 140, Rules of Court — Authorizes dismissal with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave and disqualification, suspension, or fine for serious charges; applied with aggravating third-offense circumstance to impose dismissal with accessory penalties.
• Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct; Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility; Lawyer's Oath; Section 27, Rule 138, Rules of Court; A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC — Require honest performance of duties, obedience to law, and integrity, punish deceit and falsehood, and convert judicial administrative cases to Bar proceedings; applied to disbar for fabrication and false affirmance of decisions.

Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose C. Mendoza, Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, Bienvenido L. Reyes, and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe. No separate concurring reasoning is set forth in the text.