EN BANC

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

OLGA M. SAMSON , complainant, vs . JUDGE VIRGILIO G. CABALLERO ,

respondent.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM : p

This is an administrative complaint for dishonesty and falsi cation of a public

document against respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero, Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 30, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. SaIACT

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 independence,
2 and for violating the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which disquali es
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 led 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 O ce of the Ombudsman on July 23,
2003.
At that time a public prosecutor, respondent allegedly committed certain
improprieties 4 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 led a petition for review 7 on October 28, 2004 in
the Court of Appeals (CA). In a decision 8 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 O ce of the Ombudsman
pertaining to criminal cases should be taken to the Supreme Court by way of a petition
fo r 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 le 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 and, subsequently, appointed.
In his comment, 1 0 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 led a reply, 1 1 stating that the March 24, 2004 decision of the
Ombudsman was not yet nal and executory as it was timely appealed by way of a
petition for review led 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) led by respondent on March 21, 2006 in the
O ce of Administrative Services-O ce of the Court Administrator (OAS-OCA) RTC
Personnel Division. 1 2 According to her, respondent categorically denied ever
having been charged formally with any infraction. DHETIS

On the basis of the pleadings and documents presented by both parties, the OCA
found respondent administratively liable for dishonesty and falsi cation of an o cial
document for his false statement in his PDS. It recommended respondent's dismissal
from the service with forfeiture of retirement bene ts, except accrued leave credits,
and with prejudice to re-employment in the government service.
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. 1 3 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 led in the
OAS-OCA RTC Personnel. 1 4
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, 1 5 we held that the making of untruthful
statements in the PDS amounts to dishonesty and falsi cation of an o cial document.
Dishonesty, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of
dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement bene ts except accrued leave
credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 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 quali cation 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 con dence of the people at all times, for he is the
visible representation of the law. 1 6 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. CDHSac

This administrative case against respondent shall also be considered as a

disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the Bar, in accordance with A.M.
No. 02-9-02-SC. 1 7 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 O cials Who are Lawyers as
Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such O cials 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
o cials 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,
j u dge or court o cial 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. 1 8 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. 1 9
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): 2 0
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE
LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 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. EScaIT

Since membership in the bar is an integral quali cation for membership in the
bench, the moral tness of a judge also re ects his moral tness as a lawyer. A judge
who disobeys the basic rules of judicial conduct also violates his oath as a lawyer. 2 1 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 o ce as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit , malpractice, or
other gross misconduct in such o ce, 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. 2 2 Of particular importance to this case is our decision in Cañada v.
Suerte 2 3 where we applied the rule to its fullest extent: automatic disbarment.
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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 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 ned 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. 2 4 cDAITS

Signi cantly, 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. 2 5 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 judges 2 6 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 led against a member of the bench 2 7 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 ling 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. 2 8
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 un t 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. 2 9 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 delity 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. 3 0
A parting word.
The rst step towards the successful implementation of the Court's relentless
drive to purge the judiciary of morally un t members, o cials 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 nd respondent Judge Virgilio G. Caballero of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 30, Cabanatuan City, GUILTY of dishonesty and falsi cation of an
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 o cial document. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all
bene ts 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. DCTSEA

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 O ce of
the Bar Con dant and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and on the O ce of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in
the country.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Corona, Carpio Morales, Chico-Nazario,
Nachura, Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Peralta and Bersamin, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., is on official leave.
Velasco, Jr., J., took no part due to prior action in OCA.

Footnotes
1. Dated July 18, 2006. Rollo, pp. 11-15.
2. Section 7, Article VIII of the Constitution provides:

SEC. 7. (1) No person shall be appointed member of the Supreme Court or any lower
collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A member of the
Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must have been for fifteen years
or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
(2) The Congress shall prescribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts, but no
person may be appointed judge thereof unless he is a citizen of the Philippines and a
member of the Philippine Bar.

(3) A member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence,

integrity, probity and independence. (Emphasis supplied)

3. Section 5, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council provides:
SEC. 5. Disqualification. — The following are disqualified from being nominated
or appointment to any judicial post or as Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman:
1. Those with pending criminal or regular administrative cases;
2. Those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or tribunals; and
3. Those who have been convicted in any criminal case; or in an administrative case,
where the penalty imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000, unless he has been
granted judicial clemency. (Emphasis supplied)
4. Complainant averred that respondent violated therein petitioner's constitutional right to
due process when he (a) conducted the reinvestigation without informing petitioner; (b)
did not give the petitioner a chance to file a motion for reconsideration as he
immediately filed a motion to dismiss in the trial court on the very same day he
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 (respondent) rendered a joint resolution; and (c) filed the motion to dismiss without
notifying petitioner and setting it for hearing.
5. Annex A. Decision penned by Graft Investigation and Prevention Officer Ismaela B. Boco
and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Victor C. Fernandez. Rollo, pp. 87-90.
6. Joint order dated September 30, 2004.
7. Under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

8. Annex C. Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate
Justices Jose C. Mendoza and Arturo G. Tayag of the Sixteenth Division of the Court of
Appeals; Rollo, pp. 133-152.
9. Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

10. Dated November 15, 2006. Rollo, pp. 42-44.

11. Dated January 29, 2007. Id., pp. 77-86.
12. Complainant mistakenly referred to the PDS as the one filed by respondent in the JBC.
Id., pp. 7-9.
13. In his comment, respondent merely stated: " . . . [I]t could be said that he did not keep
secret from the Judicial and Bar Council that he had [a]dministrative and [c]riminal cases
before the Ombudsman because he showed the copy of the [r]esolution by the
Ombudsman dismissing both said cases during his [p]anel [i]nterview with the Judicial
and Bar Council sometime in February 2005." Id., p. 43.
To this, respondent replied, "Allegations must be proved, not simply averred. . . . There
must be evidence presented by Judge Caballero before this Honorable Office to support
his allegation . . . ." Id., p. 81.

14. Id., p. 9.
15. A.M. No. P-04-1844, 23 July 2004, 435 SCRA 11. In this case, respondent-court
stenographer answered "No" to the questions: "Have you ever been convicted for
violating any law, decree, ordinance or regulations by any court or tribunal?. . ." and "Do
you have any pending administrative/criminal cases? If you have any, give particulars."
See also Judge Jose S. Sañez v. Carlos B. Rabina, 458 Phil. 68 (2003), where a utility
worker was dismissed under similar circumstances.

16. Cañada v. Suerte, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1884, 22 February 2008, 546 SCRA 414, 425.
17. Resolution dated 17 September 2002. It took effect on 1 October 2002.
18. Heck v. Santos, 467 Phil. 798, 813.
19. Cañada v. Suerte, supra note 16, at 426, citing Maddela v. Gallong-Galicinao, 490 Phil.
437, 442.
20. Cañada v. Suerte, supra note 16, at 426-427, citing Juan dela Cruz v. Carretas, A.M. No.
RTJ-07-2043, 5 September 2007, 532 SCRA 218, 232.
21. I, ___________ do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of
the Philippines; I will support its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal
orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood, nor consent
to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or unwittingly promote or sue any
groundless, false or unlawful suit, nor give aid nor consent to the same; I will delay no
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 man for money or malice, and will conduct myself as a lawyer according to the best of
my knowledge and discretion, with all good fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients;
and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. So help me God. (Emphasis supplied)

22. See Mariano v. Nacional, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1688, 10 February 2009; Heirs of Olorga v.
Beldia and Villanueva, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2137, 10 February 2009; Ogka Benito v.
Balindong, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2103, 23 February 23 2009; Chuan and Sons, Inc. v. Peralta,
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1917, 16 April 2009; Juan dela Cruz v. Carretas, supra note 20; Dela
Cruz v. Luna, A.M. Nos. P-04-1821 and P-05-2018, 2 August 2007, 529 SCRA 34; Re:
Absence Without Official Leave of Atty. Marilyn B. Joyas, A.M. No. 06-5-286-RTC, 2
August 2007, 529 SCRA 28; and Avanceña v. Liwanag, 454 Phil. 20.
23. Supra note 16.
Cañada v. Suerte is not the only case where we automatically disbarred a member of the
judiciary or a court official or personnel as a consequence of his dismissal from the
service (also see Dela Cruz v. Luna and Avanceña v. Liwanag, supra). However, we
chose to cite and discuss Cañada as its factual milieu is closest to that of the facts of
this case.
24. See Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu, 488
Phil. 250 (2004). In that case, we found Judge Suerte guilty of gross misconduct, gross
ignorance of the law and incompetence for gross violations of the express directive of
the Court embodied in A.O. No. 36-2004. The Court likewise held that the special interest
shown by Judge Suerte in several cases filed before him constitutes grave misconduct.
25. Or as a court official or employee.

26. And court officials and employees who are lawyers.

27. As well as a court official or employee who is also a lawyer.
28. Or a court official or employee who is also a lawyer.
29. Dela Cruz v. Luna, supra note 22, at 45, citing Heck v. Santos, supra note 18, at 823.
30. Id., citing Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, A.C. No. 2714, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 1, 16.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com