OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDILBERTO N. CRUZ, STENO­GRAPHIC REPORTER, BRANCH 9, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DIPOLOG CITY, RESPONDENT.

This case originates from the letter of Executive Judge Jesus O.
Angeles of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City, dated 5 December
1990, addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) informing it
that at his instance the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Dipolog City
had conducted an investigation on at least three incidents involving the
falsification of court orders and the forgery of signatures of Judge Pelagio R.
Lachica of Branch 8, Judge Daniel B. Bernaldez of Branch 9, Judge Wilfredo C.
Martinez of Branch 10, and Branch Clerk of Court Eyahiya S. Malon of Branch 10
of the RTC of Dipolog City by the respondent, a Stenographic Reporter of Branch 9 of the said court. Judge Angeles also transmitted to the OCA
the memorandum of the NBI, with annexes, which states that there is sufficient
basis to hold the respondent criminally and administratively liable, and
recommending that formal charges be filed against the respondent and that a
copy of the NBI memorandum be referred to the Ombudsman for the prosecution of
the respondent.

In the Resolution of 8 June 1992, this Court authorized the OCA
to file the appropriate administrative complaint against the respondent and
directed it to furnish the Ombudsman with a copy of the NBI memorandum.

On 4 August 1992, the OCA filed the administrative complaint
charging the respondent “with three acts of falsification” committed
as follows:

“First, respondent made it appear that an Order, dated July 6,
1990, was issued in Branch 9 of the RTC of Dipolog City by now retired Judge
Pelagio R. Lachica in connection with Civil Case No. 2184, entitled ‘Numeriana
Vda. de Balladares, et al. v. Heirs of Artemio Adasa, et al.’ by falsifying the
signature of Judge Lachica;

Second, respondent made it appear that an Order, dated November 20,
1989, was issued in Branch 10 of the RTC of Dipolog City by Judge Wilfredo C.
Martinez in connection with Misc. SP Proc. No. 6812 ostensibly entitled ‘In Re:
Petition for Issuance of New Owner’s Copy of TCT No. (T-20001)-2872 in Lieu of
the Lost Copy; Renee B. Dalaguete, petitioner’ by falsely representing that
Judge Martinez signed the original of the Order where in truth and in fact
Judge Martinez did not do so sign the order and by forging the signature of the
branch clerk of court of Branch 10;

Third, respondent made it appear that an Order, dated August 30,
1985, was issued in Branch 9 of the RTC of Dipolog City by Judge Daniel B.
Bernaldez in connection with Misc. SP Proc. No. 6713 ostensibly entitled ‘In Re: Petition for Issuance of New Owner’s
Copy of TCT No. (T-26081)-4253 in Lieu
of the Lost Copy;
Quirino Tagapan, petitioner,‘ by falsely representing that Judge
Bernaldez signed the original of the Order where in truth and in fact Judge
Bernaldez did not do so sign the Order.”

and praying that after investigation the
proper administrative sanction be made upon the respondent.

In the Resolution of 17 August 1992, this Court required the
respondent to file his Answer to the complaint and on 13 October 1992 the
respondent filed his Answer wherein he alleges that “he did not, directly
or indirectly, participate in the alleged falsification” of the questioned
documents; that the alleged Order of 30 August 1985 purportedly issued by Judge
Daniel B. Bernaldez in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 6713 and the alleged Order dated 6
July 1990 issued by Judge Pelagio R. Lachica in Civil case No. 2184 are
non-existent, fictitious and/or absolutely simulated, hence they are mere
scraps of paper; that he had no hand in the preparation of the Order allegedly
issued by Judge Wilfredo Martinez on 20 November 1989 in Misc. Sp. Proc. No.
6812; and that as court stenographer of the RTC of Zamboanga del Norte for more
than 27 years, he “has performed his duties and functions with the highest
degree of responsibility, integrity, honesty, and efficiency” and
“has dedicated his time and efforts to his work x x x with utmost diligence, befitting
a true employee of the judiciary.”

On 22 March 1993, this Court referred this case for investigation, report, and recommendation
to Executive Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotorena of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial
Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte.

Judge Ochotorena conducted a full-blown investigation. Called to
the witness stand to testify for the complainant were Atty. Friolo R. Icao, Jr., NBI Agent on the case, Atty.
Aleth Hamoy-Velasco, Judge Pio Velasco, Delia Cabilin, Eyahiya S. Malon,
Elizabeth Embrado, and Maura Dinawanao Atay. Respondent testified pro se.

On 23 July 1993, the OCA received the Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Judge dated 12 July 1993. He summarizes therein in detail, with references to the transcript of
the stenographic notes, the evidence for the parties.

Based on the records and the transcripts of the stenographic
notes, the following facts are preponderantly established:

Re the First Count

On 24 September 1990, the respondent issued a Certificate of
Finality reading as follows:

“CERTIFICATE
OF FINALITY

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that this Order in Civil Case No. 2184 has long
become FINAL AND EXECUTORY as of this date.

Dipolog City, September 24, 1990.

(SGD) EDILBERTO N. CRUZ

(TYP) EDILBERTO N. CRUZ”

Stenographic
Reporter”

which is written below a purported Order
dated 6 July 1990 of Judge Pelagio R. Lachica
in Civil Case No. 2184 of Branch
9 of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City. A signature appears over and above the name of the Judge, and the Order
purports to read as follows:

“O
R D E R

This treats of the motion filed by the defendants, thru counsel, praying
for issuance of new owner’s copy of Original Certificate of Title No. P-12551 in the name of Gregorio Balladares in
view of the lost [sic] of the same, presumably in the course of the hearing of
the above-entitled case. It appearing
also that this case has long become final and executory and in fact, a writ of
execution in favor of the defendants had long been issued.

Records show that efforts have been exerted to locate the missing
title, but the search only proved fruitless and hence it was thus considered
to have been totally lost, hence the motion filed by the defendants.

WHEREFORE, the motion is granted and the Register of Deeds of
Zamboanga del Norte is directed to issue a new owner’s copy of Original
Certificate of Title No. P-12551, after payment of the required fee(s)
therefor.

SO ORDERED.

Given at Dipolog City, this 6th day of July 1990.

(SGD) PELAGIO R. LACHICA

(TYP) PELAGIO R. LACHICA

Judge.”

(see
copy at Rollo, 19)

Atty. Aleth Hamoy de Velasco, Clerk of Court of Branch 9 of the
RTC at Dipolog City, who affirmed her affidavit taken by NBI agent Icao on 17
October 1990 (Rollo, 21-22), testified that Civil Case No. 2184 pertains to
Branch 8, not 9, of the said court; that the questioned Order was never issued
by Branch 9; that she is familiar with the signature of Judge Lachica and that
what purports to be his signature on the questioned Order is not Judge
Lachica’s as he had already earlier retired; and that she is familiar with the
signature of the respondent and that the signature appearing on the Certificate
of Finality is that of the respondent. (TSN, 4 May 1993). The Order was
presented to the Register of Deeds by the respondent, registered, and given an
entry number. Mrs. Embrado, Records
Officer, Office of the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte, who affirmed
her affidavit taken by NBI Agent Icao on 24 October 1990 (Rollo, 37-­39),
brought to the attention of Atty. Hamoy de Velasco this particular order, after
it was registered by the respondent, by showing him a photocopy of the
document. After verifying from Atty. de
Velasco that the Order is non-existent, Mrs. Embrado returned to her office and
had the registration cancelled. Thereafter, the document was returned to the respondent. (TSN, 18 May 1993, 15-17). Per the testimony of Maura Atay, Cash Clerk
of the Office of the Registry of Deeds, who also affirmed her affidavit taken
by NBI Agent Icao on 24 October 1990 (Rollo, 40-42), it was the respondent who
paid the sum of P35.00 for the registration fees of the document and the
issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title; however,
the receipt therefor was placed in the name of Margarita Milla. (Rollo, 23-24).

Judge Pio Velasco, who was then the Branch Clerk of Court of
Branch 8 of the RTC of Dipolog City, also affirmed his affidavit taken by NBI
agent Icao on 23 October 1990 (Rollo, 27-­28); he further confirmed that the
so-called 6 July 1990 Order is fabricated or fictitious because it was issued
in the case which pertains to Branch 8; no motion for the issuance of a new
duplicate copy of the title was in fact filed; Judge Lachica, who allegedly
issued the Order on 6 July 1990, could not have issued it because he retired on
30 June 1990 and that a certification could only be issued by the Clerk of
Court. (TSN, 4 May 1993, 21­-23).

Re the Second Count

It was made to appear that on 12 December 1989 EYAHIYA S. MALON,
Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 10 of the RTC of Dipolog City had issued the
following:

“CERTIFICATE
OF FINALITY AND CERTIFICATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that the original copy of this Order has been
duly signed by the Presiding Judge of this Court and that it has already become
FINAL and EXECUTORY as of this date.

Dipolog City, December 12, 1989.

(SGD) EYAHIYA S. MALON

(TYP) EYAHIYA S. MALON

Branch Clerk of
Court”

at the bottom of the purported Order of
Judge Wilfredo C. Martinez of Branch 10 in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 6812, a petition
of one Renee B. Dalaguete for the “Issuance of New Owner’s Copy of TCT No.
(T-20001)-2872 In Lieu of the Lost Copy,” reading as follows:

“O
R D E R

FINDING the verified petition for issuance of a new owner’s
duplicate copy in order, and considering that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT
No. (T-20001)-2872 which was not the subject to (sic) a conveyance or encumbrance was lost and could not be located, as
prayed for, the petition is GRANTED.

Upon payment of the requisite legal fee(s), the Register of Deeds
of Dipolog City is directed to issue a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No.
(T-20001)-2872 which shall be accorded like faith and credit as the original
duplicate.

Let a memorandum of the loss be entered.

SO ORDERED.

Given this 20th day of November, 1989, in Dipolog City,
Philippines.

ORIGINAL SIGNED

WILFREDO C. MARTINEZ

Judge”

(see copy, Rollo,
20)

Branch Clerk of Court Malon testified
that he has not certified any order to that effect; the signature appearing
thereon and purporting to be his is not his signature and therefore it is
“imitated, fabricated and forged”; moreover, Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 6812
does not exist in Branch 10 of the court, no hearing was ever conducted thereon
and Judge Martinez had no participation whatsoever in the issuance of any order
therein. It is therefore falsified and
he believes that the author of the forgery and the falsification is the
respondent, for which reason he had filed a case against the respondent with
the Office of the City Prosecutor. (TSN, 18 May 1993, 11-13). Delia
Cabilin, Acting Register of Deeds of Dipolog City, who affirmed her affidavit
taken by NBI agent Icao on 24 October 1990 (Rollo, 44-48), declared that she
was approached by Renee Dalaguete on how to go about a deed of sale of a parcel
of land executed by the owner who had lost his duplicate copy of the
certificate of title. She told Renee
that if it is
a voluntary transaction, she should have the reconstitution of the owner’s
duplicate copy of the title through court proceedings and recommended that she
see the respondent. She assumed that
Renee did because the latter kept on calling her by phone to ask whether an
order had already been issued by the court. Finally, after several months, Renee brought to the Office of the
Register of Deeds the necessary documents for the issuance of a new owner’s
duplicate copy of the certificate of title. (TSN, 18 May 1993, 2-3). One of
the documents is the questioned Order of 20 November 1989. On the faith thereof and upon compliance by
Renee with certain requirements and procedure, new owner’s duplicate copies of
the certificates of title were issued to Renee. (Page 3, Affidavit of Cabilin, 3-4).

Re the Third Count

On 2 September 1985, the respondent issued the following:

“CERTIFICATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that the original copy of this Order has been duly signed by the Presiding Judge of
this Court.

Dipolog City, September 2, 1985

(SGD) EDILBERTO N. CRUZ

(TYP) EDILBERTO
N. CRUZ

Stenographic
Reporter”

at the bottom of an alleged order
purportedly issued by Judge Daniel B. Bernaldez of Branch 9 of the RTC of
Dipolog City in Misc. Sp. Proc. No. 6713, which is purportedly a petition of
one Quirino Tagapan for the issuance of a new owner’s copy of TCT No.
(T-26081)-4253 in lieu of the lost copy. It reads:

“O
R D E R

Acting on this verified petition filed by petitioner, thru counsel,
seeking for issuance of another new owner’s copy of Transfer Certificate of
Title No. (T-26081)-4253 in lieu of its lost copy for reasons therein alleged
which are well-taken, the Court finds it well-taken and thus it is hereby
GRANTED.

WHEREFORE, as prayed for, the Register of Deeds of Dipolog City is
hereby directed to issue, in substitution of its lost copy, a new owner’s
duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. (T-26081)-4253 which shall
be, in all aspects, entitled to like faith and credit as the lost one, after
payment by petitioner of the requisite legal fee(s) therefor.

SO ORDERED.

In Chambers, Dipolog City, Philippines, this 30th day of August,
1985.

ORIGINAL SIGNED

DANIEL
B. BERNALDEZ

Judge”

(see copy, Rollo,
18)

There is, however, no evidence that this document was presented
to the Office of the Register of Deeds to secure the issuance of the new
owner’s duplicate copy. When confronted
by NBI agent Icao about it, Delia Cabilin declared that it was not presented to
her office, and that TCT No. (T-26081)-4253 is intact in her office; however,
it is in the name of Mercedes vda. de Sevilla. (Affidavit of Cabilin, page 2, Rollo, 45).

The Investigating Judge summarized the evidence for the
respondent as follows:

“EDILBERTO N. CRUZ testifying in his behalf declared as
follows: that he was connected with the judiciary as Court Stenographer III,
RTC Br. 9, Dipolog City since
March 29, 1965 up to the present; that this is the first time an administrative
case was filed against him; that the signature appearing above his typewritten
name on Court Order dated August 30, 1985 is not his signature; that the
signature appearing above his name on Court Order dated July 6, 1990 likewise
is not his signature; that he had no knowledge in the preparation of Court
Order dated August 30, 1985; and that upon receipt of the complaint he
immediately filed his answers with annexes to show that he have [sic] not participated
directly and/or indirectly in the preparation of Court Orders involved in the
instant administrative case.

On cross-examination he said:

Q    Your signature appearing in your answer is your genuine signature?

A     Yes,
Your Honor, that is my
genuine signature. (emphasis supplied)

Q    Appearing
below the verification is your genuine signature?

A     Yes,
sir. In my answer.

Q    In
Annex ‘A’ of your answer there appears in the left hand margin a signature, is
this your signature?

A     Yes, sir. (emphasis
supplied)

x x x

Q    In
Annex “1” there appears a signature above the typewritten name
Edilberto N. Cruz, what can you say about this signature?

A     My signature, Your Honor in Annex “1” now marked
as Exh. “1” for the Respondent. (emphasis supplied)

Q    In Annex “2” of your answer
there is a signature?

A     That
is my signature in Annex “2” of my answer as Exh.
“2” for the Respondent. (emphasis supplied)

Q    Now,
comparing your signature in the alleged Order, fake Order dated August 30, 1985
with your signature here in your answer, what is your comment?

A     My
comparison of signature appearing in the alleged falsified order that signature
appearing in the verification, we could not fully determine whether that is my
signature, while the other one is written over the typewritten name which is an
original copy, the other signature appearing in the mentioned order is written
only on a mere xerox copy, Your Honor.

Q    But
in your observation that has a semblance in your signature appearing in the
Order and signature appearing in the verification of your answer?

A     There
seems a semblance, similarity. (emphasis supplied)

Q    Likewise,
signature appearing in the Order dated July 6, 1990 it has similarity, there is
semblance
of your genuine signature?

A     It
is mere xerox copy and there seems a similarity, Your
Honor. (emphasis supplied)

Q    As
you testified a while ago that you are connected with Br. 9 since 1965 until
present, a 28 solid years. By that span
of 28 years you are familiar with the signatures of Judges?

A     With
respect to former Judges wherein I served I am familiar with their signatures,
Your Honor.

Q    How
about the signature of Judge Lachica?

A     I
am also familiar Your Honor having me under him before.

Q    How
about signature of Judge Martinez?

A     I
am also familiar, Your Honor.

Q    And
there are times being Court Stenographer of Branch 9 an Order for
Reconstitution will be authenticated by you?

A     By
the Branch Clerk of Court, Your Honor.

Q    So,
you are familiar of the wordings of the Order?

A     Before
only the Judge dictates Orders with respect to issuance of title by the
Register of Deeds but presently the one dictating in the preparation of said
Order is our Branch Clerk of Court.

Q    During the span of 28 years, have you
not in one occasion brought an Order to the Register of Deeds to facilitate
issuance of Title?

A     I
could not remember of any instance.

Q    You impress this Court that for the
span of 28 years this is the first time you are charged administratively?

A      In my 28 long years of service in the
government solely under judiciary, this is the first time I have been charged
administratively, Your Honor and the Complainant is no less than Judge Jesus
Angeles, there is no private party, nor there was no private complainant
involving this case.

x x x

Q    So,
your defense is a general denial, you have nothing to do with those question
(sic) Orders?

A     I
have no participation nor have a
hand in preparation of the said triple
question (sic) Orders, Your Honor. (t.s.n. pp. 16-20 hearing on June 17, 1993)”

The investigating Judge then concluded:

“The acts committed by Respondent Edilberto N. Cruz constitute
grave misconduct in Office which would justify dismissal from the service. If he (Judge) is disposed to impose a
lighter penalty, it is simply because the personal records of the Respondent
shows [sic] that this is the first offense, that Edilberto N. Cruz has more
than 28 solid years of service in the government to his credit.

IN falsification of a public document the falsification need not be
made on an official form. It is
sufficient that the document is given the appearance of, or made to appear
similar to, the official form. (People
vs. Tupasi, C.A. G.R. 290-292, March 22, 1937).

THE simulation of Public Official document or mercantile document
is also contemplated in falsification of these documents. (People vs. David, C.A. G.R. No. 44368, Nov.
27, 1936).

HENCE, one of the ways of committing falsification is by
fabricating a document so that it may be easily mistaken for a genuine
one. (U.S. vs. Corral, 15 Phil. 383).

UNDER paragraph 1 of Article 171, of the Revised Penal Code the
mere drawing up of a false document is not sufficient to constitute the crime
of falsification. The signature,
handwriting or mark of another person must be signed or made by the offender, without
authority to do so. (U.S. vs. Paraiso,
1 Phil. 66).

IN the case at bar even if the signature of Judge Bernaldez, Judge
Lachica and Judge Martinez had not been imitated on the Court Orders in
question, the fact that they were signed thereon in order to make it appear
that they intervened in the execution thereof, when they did not in fact
intervene, is sufficient to constitute falsification.

THE Respondent[s] contention that the signatures appearing on the
question [sic] Orders were not his genuine signatures is not impressed with
merit. Under Sec. 22, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence, the handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who ‘has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness acted
or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such
person.’ Otherwise stated, any witness may be called who has, by sufficient
means, acquired knowledge of the general character of the handwriting of the
party whose signature is in question. Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules on Evidence further provides that
‘evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by comparison, made by
the witness or the Court, with the writing admitted or treated as genuine by
the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the
satisfaction of the judge’. Pursuant
thereto, the Investigating Judge compared the signature of the certification
with the signature of the Respondent on documents filed with the Court, and
which were proved to be genuine.

THE record of this case contains documents bearing signatures of
the Respondent which have been proved to be genuine or treated by him to be
so. The Investigating Judge refers,
among many others, to two full signatures undisputably [sic] affixed by the
Respondent on the answer. There is no
doubt that these two signatures strikingly resemble that on question [sic]
orders not only in general but also in the manner the illegible letters were
formed. Even the Respondent himself
reluctantly admitted that the challenged signatures really looks [sic] like my
[sic] signature and is almost the same.

AFTER making the comparison, the Investigating Judge was satisfied
that the signatures on the certifications are truly the signatures of the
respondent. (see Layno vs. People, et
al., G.R. No. 93842, September 7, 1992).”

The Investigating Judge found the
respondent “guilty of grave misconduct in Office,” and recommends
that he be “suspended from Office for a period of six (6) MONTHS without
pay, x x x with a warning of a
graver penalty for any succeeding misconduct in Office.”

The culpability of the respondent in all three counts has been
established by the evidence.

As regards the alleged Order of 6 July 1990, he made it appear
that Civil Case No. 2184 pertained to Branch 9 of the RTC of Dipolog City, that
the Order was issued on 6 July 1990 by Judge Lachica, and that the signature
appearing thereon is that of Judge Lachica when in truth the case pertained to
Branch 8, Judge Lachica never signed it, and could not have validly issued the
Order because he had earlier retired on 30 June 1990. The respondent’s claim that he had no part in its preparation was
not rebutted by expert testimony; on the contrary, the finding of the
Investigating Judge who compared the signature thereon with the respondent’s
genuine signatures, and the testimony of witness Elizabeth Embrado. (Note: her testimony is hearsay) that the
respondent brought the document to the Office of the Register of Deeds, had it
registered therein, paid for the required fees and got back the document after
the registration was cancelled prove beyond cavil that he had forged the
signature of Judge Lachica and signed the certification.

Anent the questioned Order of 20 November 1989, there is no doubt
that the signature of Clerk of Court Malon was forged, that the Order was not
issued, and that Judge Martinez did not sign any Order to that effect, and that
the said case does not pertain to Branch 10 of the court. That this was, however, prepared by the
respondent is evident from the testimony of Delia Cabilin that she had
recommended Renee Dalaguete to the respondent and that she was repeatedly asked
by Dalaguete if an order of reconstitution had already been released. Because of all these, Malon filed a criminal
case against the respondent with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Dipolog
City.

The Order of 30 August 1985 does not appear to have been
presented to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Dipolog City, but as found
by the Investigating Judge the signature of the respondent therein is genuine
and authentic. The “semblance
[and] similarity” of the said signature to that of the respondent’s
signature in the verification of his answer is, as adverted to above, admitted
by him.

Whether he benefited from the acts he committed is entirely
irrelevant. By his misdeeds, he made it
appear that Judges Lachica, Martinez, and Bernaldez had issued the orders in
due course, made it appear that these were lawful orders of the court and gave
them the appearance of authenticity which would lead the public to accord it
not only full faith and credit, but respect and obedience. He thus made a mockery of the trial court,
tarnished the integrity of the Judges concerned and deliberately made
untruthful narrations of facts on papers he passed off as public documents
emanating from the courts of justice.

Independently of whether he is criminally liable for
falsification — a matter yet to be resolved by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Cases Nos.
17949, 17950 and 17951 for falsification of public documents involving the
questioned orders of 30 August 1985, 20 November 1989 and 6 July 1990 — there
can be no doubt that the respondent’s proven misdeeds constitute grave
misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice and the best interests of the public service. He displayed moral turpitude making him unfit for public trust.

In Sy vs. Academia (198 SCRA
705 [1991]), we stated:

“The administration of justice is a sacred task. By the very nature of their duties and
responsibilities, all those involved in it must faithfully adhere to, hold
inviolate, and invigorate the principle solemnly enshrined in the 1987
Constitution that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and
employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. (Sec. 1, Article XI).

This Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or
omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice
which would violate the norm of public accountability and would diminish or
even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. In Jereos,
Jr. vs. Reblando, Sr. (71 SCRA 126, 131-132), We laid down the rule that the conduct and behavior of everyone
connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, like the
court below, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be
characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else must be above
suspicion.

Indeed, every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity,
uprightness and honesty. (Ablanida vs.
Intia, Adm. Matter No. R-770-P, May 17, 1988).”

Respondent was unfaithful to his trust
and, by choice, refused to be an example of integrity, uprightness and
honesty. He should not be allowed to
serve a minute longer in the Judiciary.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court
resolved to DISMISS from the service respondent EDILBERTO N. CRUZ for grave
misconduct, gross dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice and the best interests of the public service, with forfeiture of all
benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the
Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. This
decision shall take effect upon the respondent’s receipt of a copy hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Bellosillo, J., on official
leave.