2025 / Apr
A.M. No. P-19-4001 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4951-P) ALMYRA D. YAP, LIBRARIAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. NIDA GONZALES, LEGAL RESEARCHER, BRANCH 56, SAME COURT, RESPONDENT. April 02, 2025
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. P-19-4001 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4951-P), April 02, 2025 ]
ALMYRA D. YAP, LIBRARIAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANGELES CITY, PAMPANGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. NIDA GONZALES, LEGAL RESEARCHER, BRANCH 56, SAME COURT, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
The Court resolves the Letter-Complaint[1]dated January 10, 2018, filed by Almyra D. Yap (Yap) against Nida Gonzales (Gonzales), Legal Researcher, Branch 56, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, Pampanga for allegedly submitting a falsified affidavit in relation to another administrative case with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The Antecedents
The case is rooted on the undated Complaint[2]that a certain Corazon Solarte (Corazon) filed against Gonzales before the OCA, docketed as D-21336 and D-21347 (firstComplaint).
In her Complaint, Corazon alleged that Rebecca Solarte (Rebecca), her sister, and Elvira Lubguban (Elvira) were the private complainants and witnesses in a criminal case for Illegal Recruitment and Anti-Human Trafficking. She narrated that while Rebecca and Elvira were waiting for the trial, Gonzales hired them as housemaids for two months and thereafter gave them transportation fares and sent them home to their province. Corazon suspected that Gonzales had connived with the lawyer of the accused in the criminal case in order to have it dismissed for failure to prosecute.[3]
Meanwhile, on January 10, 2018, Yap filed the present administrative case against Gonzales before the OCA in which she averred that the latter submitted a falsified affidavit in relation to thefirstComplaint.[4]Yap explained that Gonzales asked her to execute an affidavit to attest to some facts and circumstances regarding thefirstComplaint and even volunteered to draft the document for her. Later on, Yap learned that Gonzales prepared, finalized, signed, and submitted the Affidavit[5]dated October 26, 2017 (subject affidavit) to the OCA which bore her name and purported signature without her knowledge and consent.[6]
In the Memorandum[7]dated March 7, 2018, the OCA closed and terminatedthe firstComplaint for insufficiency of evidence but it directed Gonzales to file a comment on the Letter-Complaint of Yap.[8]
In her Comment,[9]Gonzalesadmittedthat she prepared, signed, and had the subject affidavit notarized[10]by Atty. Maria Katrina P. Dayrit (Atty. Dayrit) without the knowledge of Yap. She explained that Yap was on leave at the time and she was pressed for time to duly file her comment on thefirstComplaint. To exculpate herself from any administrative liability, Gonzales asserted that she acted in good faith in submitting the subject affidavit to the OCA in order to shed light and to explain the circumstances as to how she and Yap employed Rebecca and Elvira as housemaids.[11]
Report and Recommendation of the OCA
In the Memorandum[12]dated April 3, 2019, the OCA found Gonzales guilty of Simple Misconduct for having executed the falsified affidavit in Yap's name. It rejected Gonzales' defense of good faith and opined that she should not have caused the execution of the affidavit without Yap's consent in the first place.[13]
As for the penalty, the OCA, applying the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), recommended that Gonzales be suspended from office for one month and one day to six months considering that this is her first offense.[14]
In the Resolution[15]dated September 9, 2019, the Court resolved to re-docket the Letter-Complaint of Yap as a regular administrative matter against Gonzales per the OCA's recommendation.
Then, in the Resolution[16]dated October 4, 2023, the Court directed the OCA to submit a status report as to whether Gonzales is still currently employed in the Judiciary and whether she has been found guilty of an administrative offense in a previous case.
In the Memorandum[17]dated March 19, 2024, the OCA informed the Court that:first, Gonzales is still active in the service from August 1, 1989 up to the present;[18]andsecond, she has been found guilty of habitual tardiness and reprimanded accordingly in the Resolution dated March 13, 2023 in A.M. No. P-23-090.[19]
The Issue
The sole issue for the Court's resolution iswhether Gonzales should be held administratively liable for her actions.
The Ruling of the Court
After a careful review, the Court concurs with the findings and conclusions of the OCA butmodifiesthe designation of the offense and the penalty to be imposed upon Gonzales in accordance with Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.[20]
Here, Gonzales alreadyadmittedthat she did, in fact, prepare and sign the subject affidavit in Yap's name and even had the document notarized before submitting it as a part of her comment on thefirstComplaint to the OCA. Thus, the OCA is correct in ruling that Gonzales' administrative liability in the case is without question. However, instead of Simple Misconduct as the OCA opined, the Court finds that Gonzales' actions are tantamount to the offenses of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document which are both classified asserious chargesunder Section 14 (c) and (g) of Rule 140, as further amended.
Dishonesty is defined as "the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows a lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray, or intent to violate the truth."[21]Pertinently, the offense is qualified as Serious Dishonesty in cases where the erring government official or personnel employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act that isrelatedto his or her employment, among others.[22]
Meanwhile, the Falsification of an Official Document, "as an administrative offense, is knowingly making false statements in official orpublic documents."[23]
In the case, Gonzalez, by her own admissions, clearly committed the offense of Falsification of an Official Document when she affixed Yap's purported signature on the subject affidavit and then proceeded to have itnotarizedin order to serve her own personal agenda.[24]Worse, Gonzales then deliberately submitted the falsified affidavit to the OCA as part of her defense in an administrative case filed against her, which is tantamount to Serious Dishonesty.
Rule 140, Section 17, as further amended, lists the imposable sanctions for serious charges such as Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document as follows:
Relatedly, Rule 40, Section 21, as further amended, provides the guidelines for the imposition of the penalty in instances wheremultiple offensesare involved in a single administrative proceeding, viz.:
Given the peculiar circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of aprevious finding of administrative liability[29]for habitual tardiness in A.M. No. P-23-090,[30]the Court deems it proper to dismiss Gonzales from the service, with the forfeiture of her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
Indeed, Gonzales, through her dishonest actions, has failed to measure up to the high and exacting standards set for all employees of the Judiciary. As a necessary consequence, she must be dismissed from the service. After all, "[i]t is the act of dishonesty itself that taints the integrity of government service . . . Such conduct should not be tolerated from government officials, even when official duties are performed well."[31]
Finally, Atty. Dayrit, the notary public who notarized the subject falsified affidavit without the presence of the affiant therein, is directed to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for violation of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC,[32]or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
ACCORDINGLY,the Court finds respondent Nida Gonzales, now Legal Researcher II, Branch 56, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, Pampanga,GUILTYof Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document. Accordingly, the CourtDISMISSESher from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits,excepther accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations.
Atty. Maria Katrina P. Dayrit is directed toSHOW CAUSE,within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice, why she should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao,andKho, Jr., JJ.,concur.
Marquez,*J.,no part due to prior participation as Court Administrator.
Singh,**J.,on leave.
*No part.
**On leave.
[1]Rollo, pp. 56-57.
[2]Id. at 2, 4.
[3]Id. at 4, 89.
[4]Id. at 116.
[5]Id. at 58-59.
[6]Id. at 56.
[7]Id. at 89-92. The March 7, 2018 Memorandum was approved by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (now a member of the Court).
[8]Id. at 92.
[9]Id. at 96-98.
[10]Id. at 72-73.
[11]Id. at 97-98.
[12]Id. at 116-119. The April 3, 2019 Memorandum was signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (now a member of the Court) and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva.
[13]Id. at 118-119.
[14]Id. at 118.
[15]Id. at 121.
[16]Id. at 127-128.
[17]Id. at 129-131. The March 19, 2024 Memorandum was submitted by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva.
[18]Id. at 129.
[19]Id. at 131.
[20]Titled, "Further Amendments in Rule 140 of the Rules of Court," which became effective on April 4, 2022.
[21]Chen v. Field Investigation Bureau, 922 Phil. 531, 549 (2022).
[22]Id.
[23]Re: Allegation of Falsification Against Process Servers Legaspi and Tesiorna, Branch 43 and Office of the Clerk of Court, 877 Phil. 352, 360 (2020),citingOffice of the Ombudsman v. Torres, 567 Phil. 46, 59 (2008).
[24]Re: Allegation of Falsification Against Process Servers Legaspi and Tesiorna, Branch 43 and Office of the Clerk of Court,id.
[25]Id. at 361.See alsoMayor Ramos v. Mayor, 591 Phil. 21, 29-30 (2008);Adm. Case for Dishonesty & Falsification against Luna, 463 Phil. 878, 890 (2003);De Guzman v. Delos Santos, 442 Phil. 428, 436 (2002).
[26]SeeAtty. Nava v. Prosecutor Artuz, 817 Phil. 242, 255 (2017).
[27]Re: Allegation of Falsification Against Process Servers Legaspi and Tesiorna, Branch 43 and Office of the Clerk of Court, 877 Phil. 352, 361 (2020),citingAdm. Case for Dishonesty and Falsification Against Luna, 463 Phil. 878, 889 (2003).
[28]A.M. Nos. P-22-063 & 18-09-85-MTC, February 7, 2023.
[29]A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, sec. 19(2)(a).
[30]Rollo, p. 134, Clearance Certificate.
[31]Villordon v. Avila, 692 Phil. 388, 398 (2012).
[32]Promulgated on July 6, 2004.
The case is rooted on the undated Complaint[2]that a certain Corazon Solarte (Corazon) filed against Gonzales before the OCA, docketed as D-21336 and D-21347 (firstComplaint).
In her Complaint, Corazon alleged that Rebecca Solarte (Rebecca), her sister, and Elvira Lubguban (Elvira) were the private complainants and witnesses in a criminal case for Illegal Recruitment and Anti-Human Trafficking. She narrated that while Rebecca and Elvira were waiting for the trial, Gonzales hired them as housemaids for two months and thereafter gave them transportation fares and sent them home to their province. Corazon suspected that Gonzales had connived with the lawyer of the accused in the criminal case in order to have it dismissed for failure to prosecute.[3]
Meanwhile, on January 10, 2018, Yap filed the present administrative case against Gonzales before the OCA in which she averred that the latter submitted a falsified affidavit in relation to thefirstComplaint.[4]Yap explained that Gonzales asked her to execute an affidavit to attest to some facts and circumstances regarding thefirstComplaint and even volunteered to draft the document for her. Later on, Yap learned that Gonzales prepared, finalized, signed, and submitted the Affidavit[5]dated October 26, 2017 (subject affidavit) to the OCA which bore her name and purported signature without her knowledge and consent.[6]
In the Memorandum[7]dated March 7, 2018, the OCA closed and terminatedthe firstComplaint for insufficiency of evidence but it directed Gonzales to file a comment on the Letter-Complaint of Yap.[8]
In her Comment,[9]Gonzalesadmittedthat she prepared, signed, and had the subject affidavit notarized[10]by Atty. Maria Katrina P. Dayrit (Atty. Dayrit) without the knowledge of Yap. She explained that Yap was on leave at the time and she was pressed for time to duly file her comment on thefirstComplaint. To exculpate herself from any administrative liability, Gonzales asserted that she acted in good faith in submitting the subject affidavit to the OCA in order to shed light and to explain the circumstances as to how she and Yap employed Rebecca and Elvira as housemaids.[11]
In the Memorandum[12]dated April 3, 2019, the OCA found Gonzales guilty of Simple Misconduct for having executed the falsified affidavit in Yap's name. It rejected Gonzales' defense of good faith and opined that she should not have caused the execution of the affidavit without Yap's consent in the first place.[13]
As for the penalty, the OCA, applying the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RACCS), recommended that Gonzales be suspended from office for one month and one day to six months considering that this is her first offense.[14]
In the Resolution[15]dated September 9, 2019, the Court resolved to re-docket the Letter-Complaint of Yap as a regular administrative matter against Gonzales per the OCA's recommendation.
Then, in the Resolution[16]dated October 4, 2023, the Court directed the OCA to submit a status report as to whether Gonzales is still currently employed in the Judiciary and whether she has been found guilty of an administrative offense in a previous case.
In the Memorandum[17]dated March 19, 2024, the OCA informed the Court that:first, Gonzales is still active in the service from August 1, 1989 up to the present;[18]andsecond, she has been found guilty of habitual tardiness and reprimanded accordingly in the Resolution dated March 13, 2023 in A.M. No. P-23-090.[19]
The sole issue for the Court's resolution iswhether Gonzales should be held administratively liable for her actions.
After a careful review, the Court concurs with the findings and conclusions of the OCA butmodifiesthe designation of the offense and the penalty to be imposed upon Gonzales in accordance with Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.[20]
Here, Gonzales alreadyadmittedthat she did, in fact, prepare and sign the subject affidavit in Yap's name and even had the document notarized before submitting it as a part of her comment on thefirstComplaint to the OCA. Thus, the OCA is correct in ruling that Gonzales' administrative liability in the case is without question. However, instead of Simple Misconduct as the OCA opined, the Court finds that Gonzales' actions are tantamount to the offenses of Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document which are both classified asserious chargesunder Section 14 (c) and (g) of Rule 140, as further amended.
Dishonesty is defined as "the concealment or distortion of truth, which shows a lack of integrity or a disposition to defraud, cheat, deceive or betray, or intent to violate the truth."[21]Pertinently, the offense is qualified as Serious Dishonesty in cases where the erring government official or personnel employed fraud and/or falsification of official documents in the commission of the dishonest act that isrelatedto his or her employment, among others.[22]
Meanwhile, the Falsification of an Official Document, "as an administrative offense, is knowingly making false statements in official orpublic documents."[23]
In the case, Gonzalez, by her own admissions, clearly committed the offense of Falsification of an Official Document when she affixed Yap's purported signature on the subject affidavit and then proceeded to have itnotarizedin order to serve her own personal agenda.[24]Worse, Gonzales then deliberately submitted the falsified affidavit to the OCA as part of her defense in an administrative case filed against her, which is tantamount to Serious Dishonesty.
Rule 140, Section 17, as further amended, lists the imposable sanctions for serious charges such as Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document as follows:
SECTION 17.Sanctions. –In similar cases involving Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Documents,[25]the Court, applying the RACCS, has imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service against erring court officials and employeeseven for the first offense. This should come as no surprise considering that these offenses, which distinctly evinces a person's serious lack of honor, virtue, and integrity, are neither tolerated nor simply brushed aside in the Judiciary.[26]After all, "the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel."[27]
Relatedly, Rule 40, Section 21, as further amended, provides the guidelines for the imposition of the penalty in instances wheremultiple offensesare involved in a single administrative proceeding, viz.:
SECTION 21.Penalty for Multiple Offenses. – If the respondent is found liable for more than one (1) offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each offense. Should the aggregate of the imposed penalties exceed five (5) years suspension or P1,000,000.00 in fines, the respondent may, in the discretion of the Supreme Court, be meted with the penalty of dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as may be determined, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.Provided,however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.The Court notes that Gonzales' administrative offenses in the case are rooted on aseries of actionsrelating to the drafting of the falsified affidavit and its notarization and eventual submission to the OCA. Essentially, Gonzalesmanufactured evidencein her favor just because Yap, the supposed affiant in the falsified affidavit, was on leave at the time. That being said, the Court treats Gonzales' actions, which cannot be reasonably separated from each other, as asingle collective actfor the purpose of determining the proper penalty to be imposed against Gonzales, in line withBanzuela-Didulo v. Santizo.[28]
On the other hand, if a single act/omission constitutes more than one (1) offense, the respondent shall still be found liable for all such offenses, but shall, nonetheless, only be meted with the appropriate penalty for the most serious offense.
Given the peculiar circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the aggravating circumstance of aprevious finding of administrative liability[29]for habitual tardiness in A.M. No. P-23-090,[30]the Court deems it proper to dismiss Gonzales from the service, with the forfeiture of her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
Indeed, Gonzales, through her dishonest actions, has failed to measure up to the high and exacting standards set for all employees of the Judiciary. As a necessary consequence, she must be dismissed from the service. After all, "[i]t is the act of dishonesty itself that taints the integrity of government service . . . Such conduct should not be tolerated from government officials, even when official duties are performed well."[31]
Finally, Atty. Dayrit, the notary public who notarized the subject falsified affidavit without the presence of the affiant therein, is directed to show cause why she should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for violation of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC,[32]or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
ACCORDINGLY,the Court finds respondent Nida Gonzales, now Legal Researcher II, Branch 56, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, Pampanga,GUILTYof Serious Dishonesty and Falsification of an Official Document. Accordingly, the CourtDISMISSESher from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits,excepther accrued leave credits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned and/or -controlled corporations.
Atty. Maria Katrina P. Dayrit is directed toSHOW CAUSE,within a non-extendible period of 10 days from notice, why she should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao,andKho, Jr., JJ.,concur.
Marquez,*J.,no part due to prior participation as Court Administrator.
Singh,**J.,on leave.
*No part.
**On leave.
[1]Rollo, pp. 56-57.
[2]Id. at 2, 4.
[3]Id. at 4, 89.
[4]Id. at 116.
[5]Id. at 58-59.
[6]Id. at 56.
[7]Id. at 89-92. The March 7, 2018 Memorandum was approved by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (now a member of the Court).
[8]Id. at 92.
[9]Id. at 96-98.
[10]Id. at 72-73.
[11]Id. at 97-98.
[12]Id. at 116-119. The April 3, 2019 Memorandum was signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez (now a member of the Court) and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva.
[13]Id. at 118-119.
[14]Id. at 118.
[15]Id. at 121.
[16]Id. at 127-128.
[17]Id. at 129-131. The March 19, 2024 Memorandum was submitted by Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva.
[18]Id. at 129.
[19]Id. at 131.
[20]Titled, "Further Amendments in Rule 140 of the Rules of Court," which became effective on April 4, 2022.
[21]Chen v. Field Investigation Bureau, 922 Phil. 531, 549 (2022).
[22]Id.
[23]Re: Allegation of Falsification Against Process Servers Legaspi and Tesiorna, Branch 43 and Office of the Clerk of Court, 877 Phil. 352, 360 (2020),citingOffice of the Ombudsman v. Torres, 567 Phil. 46, 59 (2008).
[24]Re: Allegation of Falsification Against Process Servers Legaspi and Tesiorna, Branch 43 and Office of the Clerk of Court,id.
[25]Id. at 361.See alsoMayor Ramos v. Mayor, 591 Phil. 21, 29-30 (2008);Adm. Case for Dishonesty & Falsification against Luna, 463 Phil. 878, 890 (2003);De Guzman v. Delos Santos, 442 Phil. 428, 436 (2002).
[26]SeeAtty. Nava v. Prosecutor Artuz, 817 Phil. 242, 255 (2017).
[27]Re: Allegation of Falsification Against Process Servers Legaspi and Tesiorna, Branch 43 and Office of the Clerk of Court, 877 Phil. 352, 361 (2020),citingAdm. Case for Dishonesty and Falsification Against Luna, 463 Phil. 878, 889 (2003).
[28]A.M. Nos. P-22-063 & 18-09-85-MTC, February 7, 2023.
[29]A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, sec. 19(2)(a).
[30]Rollo, p. 134, Clearance Certificate.
[31]Villordon v. Avila, 692 Phil. 388, 398 (2012).
[32]Promulgated on July 6, 2004.