LIABILITIES OF JUDGES AND JUSTICES – Whether or not Respondent is liable for the

alleged act

FACTS:
-

a) Complainant’s Arguments (Samsom - Win)

- Filed a complaint against Respondent for dishonesty and falsification of a public document
-Argued that that respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero should not have been appointed to the
judiciary for lack of the constitutional qualifications of proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence2, and for violating the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which
disqualifies from nomination any applicant for judgeship with a pending administrative case.
According to the complainant, respondent, during his JBC interviews, deliberately concealed the
fact that he had pending administrative charges against him

b) Respondent’s Arguments (Judge Caballero - Lost)

- Argued and admitted that complainant had lodged criminal and administrative cases against
him in the Ombudsman. He, however, insisted that these were already dismissed by virtue of the
immediately effective and executory March 24, 2004 decision of the Ombudsman. Thus, there
were actually no more pending cases against him during his interviews in the JBC from February
to August 2005. Accordingly, there was no impediment to his nomination to and assumption of
the position of judge. However, he insisted that he informed the JBC of the said cases.

ISSUE:
-Whether or not Respondent is liable for the alleged act

RULING:
Conclusion:
- Respondent is liable. He is dismissed and disbarred. The complaint is granted
Rule:
-
Application:
- In this case, Respondent’s act of making an obviously false statement in his PDS was
reprehensible, to say the least. It was not mere inadvertence on his part when he answered "No"
to that very simple question posed in the PDS. He knew exactly what the question called for and
what it meant, and that he was committing an act of dishonesty but proceeded to do it anyway.
To make matters worse, he even sought to wriggle his way out of his predicament by insisting
that the charges against him were already dismissed, thus, his negative answer in the PDS.
However, whether or not the charges were already dismissed was immaterial, given the
phraseology of the question "Have you ever been formally charged?," meaning, charged at
anytime in the past or present.
Conclusion:
- Thus, Respondent is liable. He is dismissed and disbarred. The complaint is granted
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 August 5, 2009

OLGA M. SAMSON, Complainant,

vs.
JUDGE VIRGILIO G. CABALLERO, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

Per Curiam:

This is an administrative complaint for dishonesty and falsification of a public document against
respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Cabanatuan
City, Nueva Ecija.

In her complaint,1 complainant Olga M. Samson alleged that respondent Judge Virgilio G.
Caballero should not have been appointed to the judiciary for lack of the constitutional
qualifications of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence2, and for violating the
Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which disqualifies from nomination any applicant
for judgeship with a pending administrative case.3

According to the complainant, respondent, during his JBC interviews, deliberately concealed the
fact that he had pending administrative charges against him.

She disclosed that, on behalf of Community Rural Bank of Guimba (Nueva Ecija), Inc., she had
filed criminal and administrative charges for grave abuse of authority, conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service and violation of Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code against
respondent in the Office of the Ombudsman on July 23, 2003.

At that time a public prosecutor, respondent allegedly committed certain improprieties4 and
exceeded his powers by overruling the Secretary of Justice in a reinvestigation he conducted.

On March 24, 2004, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges.5 It also denied the complainant’s
motion for reconsideration.6

Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition for review7 on October 28, 2004 in the Court of
Appeals (CA). In a decision8 dated November 25, 2005, the appellate court held that it could not
take cognizance of the criminal charges against respondent on the ground that all appeals from
the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman pertaining to criminal cases should be taken to the
Supreme Court by way of a petition for certiorari.9 As to the administrative aspect, the CA
reversed and set aside the decision and joint order of the Ombudsman dismissing the charges
against respondent. The CA then directed Ombudsman to file and prosecute the administrative
charges against respondent.

While the complainant’s petition was pending in the CA, respondent was interviewed several
times in the JBC from February 2005 to August 2005 for the position of RTC judge. On August
25, 2005, he was appointed to the RTC, Branch 30, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. The
complainant charged that respondent never informed the JBC of his pending cases. This, she
said, made it possible for him to be nominated and, subsequently, appointed.

In his comment,10 respondent admitted that complainant had lodged criminal and administrative
cases against him in the Ombudsman. He, however, insisted that these were already dismissed by
virtue of the immediately effective and executory March 24, 2004 decision of the Ombudsman.
Thus, there were actually no more pending cases against him during his interviews in the JBC
from February to August 2005. Accordingly, there was no impediment to his nomination to and
assumption of the position of judge. However, he insisted that he informed the JBC of the said
cases.

The complainant filed a reply,11 stating that the March 24, 2004 decision of the Ombudsman was
not yet final and executory as it was timely appealed by way of a petition for review filed on
October 28, 2004 in the CA. In fact, the petition was even granted.

To further support her charge of dishonesty against respondent, complainant pointed to the
Personal Data Sheet (PDS) filed by respondent on March 21, 2006 in the Office of
Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA) RTC Personnel
Division.12 According to her, respondent categorically denied ever having been charged
formally with any infraction.

On the basis of the pleadings and documents presented by both parties, the OCA found
respondent administratively liable for dishonesty and falsification of an official document for his
false statement in his PDS. It 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.

RULING

We agree with the findings of the OCA that respondent is guilty of dishonesty and falsification
of an official document.

We have no way of knowing whether respondent withheld information from the JBC, as both he
and complainant never backed their respective allegations with concrete evidence.13 Thus, no
probative value can be given either to the charges or to the defenses.

However, respondent is not to be exonerated on the basis of the foregoing alone. Regardless of
whether he disclosed his pending cases during his interviews, the fact remains that he committed
dishonesty when he checked the box indicating "No" to the question "Have you ever been
formally charged?" in his March 21, 2006 PDS filed in the OAS-OCA RTC Personnel.14
Respondent’s act of making an obviously false statement in his PDS was reprehensible, to say
the least. It was not mere inadvertence on his part when he answered "No" to that very simple
question posed in the PDS. He knew exactly what the question called for and what it meant, and
that he was committing an act of dishonesty but proceeded to do it anyway. To make matters
worse, he even sought to wriggle his way out of his predicament by insisting that the charges
against him were already dismissed, thus, his negative answer in the PDS. However, whether or
not the charges were already dismissed was immaterial, given the phraseology of the question
"Have you ever been formally charged?," meaning, charged at anytime in the past or present.

In Ratti v. Mendoza-De Castro,15 we held that the making of untruthful statements in the PDS
amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document. Dishonesty, being in the nature
of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of
retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from
reemployment in the government service.

Respondent, a judge, knows (or should have known) fully well that the making of a false
statement in his PDS could subject him to dismissal. This Court will not allow him to evade the
consequences of his dishonesty. Being a former public prosecutor and a judge now, it is his duty
to ensure that all the laws and rules of the land are followed to the letter. His being a judge
makes it all the more unacceptable. There was an obvious lack of integrity, the most fundamental
qualification of a member of the judiciary.

Time and again, we have emphasized that a judge should conduct himself in a manner which
merits the respect and confidence of the people at all times, for he is the visible representation of
the law.16 Regrettably, we are convinced of respondent’s capacity to lie and evade the truth. His
dishonesty misled the JBC and tarnished the image of the judiciary. He does not even seem
remorseful for what he did as he sees nothing wrong with it.

He deserves the harsh penalty of dismissal from the service.

This administrative case against respondent shall also be considered as a disciplinary proceeding
against him as a member of the Bar, in accordance with AM. No. 02-9-02-SC.17 This resolution,
entitled "Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court
of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials
Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and as
Members of the Philippine Bar," provides:

Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
judges of regular and special courts; and the court officials who are lawyers are based on grounds
which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the
Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics,
or for such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds
for the discipline of lawyers.

In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case shall also be considered a disciplinary
action against the respondent justice, judge or court official concerned as a member of the Bar.
The respondent may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint and show cause why he
should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the
Bar. Judgment in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution. (Emphasis
supplied)

Before the Court approved this resolution, administrative and disbarment cases against members
of the bar who were likewise members of the court were treated separately.18 However, pursuant
to the new rule, an administrative case against a judge of a regular court based on grounds which
are also grounds for the disciplinary action against members of the Bar shall be automatically
considered as disciplinary proceedings against such judge as a member of the Bar.19

This must be so as violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the new
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the
Canons of Judicial Ethics constitutes a breach of the following Canons of the Code of
Professional Responsibility (CPR):20

CANON 1 – A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF

THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.

Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful act.

CANON 7 – A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND

DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION…

CANON 10 – A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE

COURT.

Rule 10.01 - a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor
shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice.

CANON 11 – A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO

THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR
CONDUCT BY OTHERS.

Since membership in the bar is an integral qualification for membership in the bench, the moral
fitness of a judge also reflects his moral fitness as a lawyer. A judge who disobeys the basic rules
of judicial conduct also violates his oath as a lawyer.21 In this particular case, respondent’s
dishonest act was against the lawyer’s oath to "do no falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any
in court."

Respondent’s misconduct likewise constituted a contravention of Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court, which strictly enjoins a lawyer from committing acts of deceit, otherwise, he
may be suspended or disbarred. Thus:

SEC. 27. Disbarment and suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court, grounds therefor. – A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an
attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
(Emphasis supplied)

This Court did not hesitate to apply the provisions of A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC in a plethora of
cases.22 Of particular importance to this case is our decision in Cañada v. Suerte23 where we
applied the rule to its fullest extent: automatic disbarment.1avvphi1

In Cañada v. Suerte, complainant charged respondent Judge Suerte with grave abuse of authority,
grave misconduct, grave coercion, dishonesty, harassment, oppression and violation of Article
215 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The complaint alleged,
among others, that respondent tried to sell a dilapidated cargo pick-up truck and Daewoo car to
complainant. The latter refused. Their friendship later on turned sour when they failed to reach
an agreement on the commission respondent was supposed to receive as agent-broker for the
contemplated sale of complainant’s beach lot. The complainant voiced out his fear that
respondent would use his judicial power to persecute him for what respondent may have
perceived as complainant’s infractions against him.

In his comment, respondent denied offering to sell the vehicles to complainant since, according
to him, he never owned a dilapidated cargo pick-up truck nor could he recall if he had a Daewoo
car in 1998.

However, a perusal of respondent’s Statements of Assets and Liabilities for the years 1998-2001
revealed that among his personal properties were a Daewoo car acquired in 1996 and an L-200
double cab acquired in 1998. Accordingly, we found respondent guilty of dishonesty for having
falsely denied that he ever owned the aforementioned vehicles. For his infraction, respondent
judge was fined in the amount of P40,000. He would have been dismissed from the service were
it not for the fact that he had already been dismissed therefrom because of an earlier case.24

Significantly, pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, we deemed respondent Judge Suerte’s

administrative case as disciplinary proceedings for disbarment as well, and proceeded to strip
him of his membership in the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Under the same rule, a respondent "may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint and
show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned
as member of the Bar." The rule does not make it mandatory, before respondent may be held
liable as a member of the bar, that respondent be required to comment on and show cause why he
should not be disciplinary sanctioned as a lawyer separately from the order for him to comment
on why he should not be held administratively liable as a member of the bench.25 In other words,
an order to comment on the complaint is an order to give an explanation on why he should not be
held administratively liable not only as a member of the bench but also as a member of the bar.
This is the fair and reasonable meaning of "automatic conversion" of administrative cases against
justices and judges26 to disciplinary proceedings against them as lawyers. This will also serve the
purpose of A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC to avoid the duplication or unnecessary replication of actions
by treating an administrative complaint filed against a member of the bench27 also as a
disciplinary proceeding against him as a lawyer by mere operation of the rule. Thus, a
disciplinary proceeding as a member of the bar is impliedly instituted with the filing of an
administrative case against a justice of the Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals and Court of Tax
Appeals or a judge of a first- or second-level court.28

It cannot be denied that respondent’s dishonesty did not only affect the image of the judiciary, it
also put his moral character in serious doubt and rendered him unfit to continue in the practice of
law. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also
a continuing requirement to the practice of law.29 If the practice of law is to remain an honorable
profession and attain its basic ideals, those counted within its ranks should not only master its
tenets and principles but should also accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement of
good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned,
than the possession of legal learning.30

A parting word.

The first step towards the successful implementation of the Court’s relentless drive to purge the
judiciary of morally unfit members, officials and personnel necessitates the imposition of a rigid
set of rules of conduct on judges. The Court is extraordinarily strict with judges because, being
the visible representation of the law, they should set a good example to the bench, bar and
students of the law. The standard of integrity imposed on them is – and should be – higher than
that of the average person for it is their integrity that gives them the right to judge.

WHEREFORE, we find respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 30, Cabanatuan City, GUILTY of dishonesty and falsification of an official document.
He is ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except
accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of
the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Respondent is likewise DISBARRED for violation of Canons 1 and 11 and Rules 1.01 and
10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his name STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys.

Let a copy of this resolution be entered into respondent’s records in the Office of the Bar
Confidant and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and on the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.