Garingan-Ferreras v. Umblas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Wyna Marie P. Garingan-Ferreras filed a case against respondent Eduardo T. Umblas, Legal Researcher II of RTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan, for alleged falsification of public documents. Complainant received an email in June 2009 with an attached Certificate of Finality dated March 24, 2006, purportedly from Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006, declaring her marriage to Reynaldo Z. Ferreras void ab initio. Complainant had no knowledge of this case or any summons. A certification from the National Statistics Office confirmed an annotation on her marriage record based on a Decision dated January 19, 2006, from RTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan. A subsequent certification from the Court Interpreter III of RTC, Branch 33, Ballesteros, Cagayan, stated that Civil Case No. 33-398C-2006 was not on file. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to respondent for comment, who denied the allegations, claiming the Decision and Certificate of Finality were fraudulent and his signatures spurious. He asserted he was no longer OIC Clerk of Court prior to the issuance date. The case was re-docketed as an administrative matter and referred to the Executive Judge of RTC, Tuguegarao City, for investigation. Despite scheduled hearings, no confrontation occurred as respondent did not appear. The case proceeded based on submitted documents, particularly the respondent's signature. The Investigating Judge found respondent guilty of falsification based on the striking resemblance of his signature on the Certificate of Finality to his signature in his Comment. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal. The OCA concurred with the Investigating Judge's findings and recommendation. The Petition: The Court adopted the findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA, holding respondent guilty of falsification of public document and dishonesty.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent fraudulently, maliciously, and willfully caused the preparation of, and signed, a Certificate of Finality of a non-existent case from Branch 33, RTC Ballesteros, Cagayan. Whether the respondent is guilty of falsification of public document and dishonesty.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Eduardo T. Umblas guilty of falsification of public document and dishonesty. In lieu of dismissal, he was ordered to pay a fine of ₱40,000.00, to be deducted from his accrued leave credits. The Office of the Court Administrator was directed to file the appropriate criminal charge against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the respondent fraudulently, maliciously, and willfully caused the preparation of, and signed, a Certificate of Finality of a non-existent case from Branch 33, RTC Ballesteros, Cagayan: The Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Judge and the OCA. The respondent raised the defense of forgery, which placed the burden of proof upon him. He failed to discharge this burden by merely claiming that no such case was on file, as this was precisely the complainant's contention. His bare denial and failure to present evidence to prove that the signature was not his or was dissimilar to his real signature were insufficient. The Court lent credence to the conclusions of both the Investigating Judge and the OCA, who compared the signature on the Certificate of Finality with the respondent's signatures in his Comment and his 201 file, respectively, and found them to be similar. Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court allows for the genuineness of handwriting to be proved by comparison with writings admitted or proved to be genuine. The rule is that he who disavows the authenticity of his signature bears the responsibility of presenting evidence to that effect; mere disclaimer is not sufficient. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. On Whether the respondent is guilty of falsification of public document and dishonesty: The Court found the respondent guilty of falsification of public document and dishonesty. The respondent's cavalier and lackadaisical attitude towards the administrative matter further strengthened this conclusion. He was never present during any of the seven hearings set by the Investigating Judge, and on four occasions, he moved for postponements on ambiguous grounds. This indifference, given the gravity of the charge, suggested he had no viable defense. The OCA correctly held that falsification of an official document is a grave offense warranting dismissal from service, amounting to serious dishonesty. Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and falsification are grave offenses warranting dismissal. However, considering that respondent had already been dismissed from service in a previous case (A.M. No. P-09-2621) for similar offenses, the penalty of dismissal in this case was no longer feasible. Therefore, the Court imposed a fine of ₱40,000.00 in lieu of dismissal.
Main Doctrine
Falsification of an official document and dishonesty are grave offenses warranting dismissal from service. However, where a respondent has already been dismissed from service for similar offenses, a fine may be imposed in lieu of a second dismissal.