EDGARDO S. CABANGON, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JAIME L. VALEÑA, RESPONDENT.

In a verified letter-complaint dated March 8, 1978 (p. 1, rec.),
addressed to President Ferdinand E. Marcos and referred to this Court,
complainant Edgardo S. Cabangon, Mayor of Calauag, Quezon, charged respondent
Judge Jaime Valeña of the Municipal Court of Calauag, Quezon with falsification
of public docu­ments, extortion and conduct unbecoming of a judge, on two [2]
counts, namely:  the alleged withdrawal
by respondent judge of the cash bond posted in Criminal Case No. 4874 in the
amount of P800.00, by falsifying the signature of one Ang Lo; and, the alleged
solemnization by respondent of the marriage between Eliseo Lipnica and Editha
Solano without a marriage license being previously issued.

Complainant narrated that Mrs. Trinidad Olila, thru her husband
Ang Lo, filed a cash bond in the amount of P800.00 for the provisional release
of her son Angelito Olila, one of the accused in Crimi­nal Case No. 4874 for
“Less Serious Physical Injuries.” In his order dated December 12,
1977 (p. 6, rec.), respondent Judge directed the immediate return of the cash
bond to the depositor, for the respondent stated that the same had been
replaced by sufficient property bond. 
The truth of the matter, as related by the complainant, was that there
was no property bond filed.  Respondent
only made it appear that there was a property bond filed to justify and allow
him to collect the cash bond in the amount of P800.00, which he did collect by
means of fal­sifying the signature of Ang Lo as evidenced by Municipal Voucher
dated December 13, 1977 (p. 7, rec.). 
Complainant argued that Ang Lo could not have signed the voucher since
he has been out of the Philippines since July 1977.

As to the second accusation, the complainant alleged that on
October 2, 1971, respondent Judge solemnized a fake marriage between one Eliseo
Lipnica and Editha Solano, knowing that there was no marriage license issued
and well knowing that Eliseo Lipnica, who is his close personal friend, is
legally married to Cecilia Magsino.  The
purpose of the said fake marriage was to produce documentary evidence to show
that Eliseo Lipnica is not married to Cecilia Magsino but to Editha
Solano.  Thus, Cecilia Magsino, widow of
a U.S. veteran, would be entitled to the benefits under the U.S. Veter­an’s
Law.

Respondent in his comment dated June 7, 1978 (p. 10, rec.),
denied the charges filed against him, claiming that the same were baseless,
without merit and were motivated by complainant’s vindictiveness.  Respondent contended that if indeed Mrs.
Trinidad Olila is complaining against him why was the letter complaint of
Edgardo Cabangon not supported by a sworn statement from Mrs. Olila?  The same is true with the alleged fake
marriage.  If any of the parties to the
marriage had been prejudiced by the illegality thereof, the aggrieved party
would already have taken proper steps against the party who caused the
prejudice.

The First Division of this Court, in its resolu­tion dated
December 8, 1978 (p. 16, rec.), referred this administrative case to Executive
Judge Efren P. Garcia, Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch IV at Calauag,
for investigation, report and recommendation

Investigating Judge Efren P. Garcia, in his report dated August
3, 1979 (p. 111, rec.), found that with respect to the first charge, the
withdrawal by the respondent of the cash bond in the amount of P800.00 was with
the falsified signature of Ang Lo, and, without a property bond in reality
having been put up in substitution thereof. 
The investigating Judge stated that respondent admitted having with­drawn
the cash bond upon the request of Mrs. Trinidad Olila (t.s.n., July 16, 1979,
pp. 172-173), but denied that he had any hand in the mechanical preparation of
the voucher and the accompanying official receipt showing payment of the
P800.00, which amount was claimed to have been given to Mrs. Olila.  No evi­dence was presented to overcome the
assertions of the respondent that the said amount of P800.00 was received by
Mrs. Olila.  However, notwithstanding
respondent’s good intention to extend a helping hand to Mrs. Trinidad Olila, he
placed himself in a very compromising situation by going to the Office of the
Municipal Treasurer and receiving the cash bail bond of P800.00.

It was also noted by the investigating Judge that although the
letter complaint imputed the com­mision of forgery, it did not specifically
point out who committed the forgery of Ang Lo’s signature on the voucher.  There was no evidence whatsoever upon which
the act of forgery could be based.  No
circumstantial evidence was presented on which it can be deduced that
respondent Judge committed the forgery of the signature of Ang Lo on the
voucher.

However, the investigating Judge found that there were
irregularities in the substitution of the cash bond with the property
bond.  The affidavit of justification of
sureties executed by bondsmen Julio Lim and Aureo Limcuando was signed and
sworn to before respondent Judge on December 8, 1977 (back of p. 97, rec.);
respondent Judge issued the Order for the withdrawal of the cash bond on
December 12, 1977 (p. 92, rec.).  But the
actual approval of the property bond was signed by respondent Judge on December
12, 1978 (back of p. 97, rec.).  It would
therefore appear that the collection of the amount of P800.00 by virtue of the
Court Order dated December 12, 1977 was done one year before the property bond
was signed and approved on December 12, 1978.

Respondent Judge tried to explain the apparent discrepancy on the
dates alleging that the same was due to probable typographical error which
occurs with the passing of the old year on to the new year.  But the investigating Judge found
respondent’s explanation contrary to what is customary in the ordinary course
of events.  With the advent of a new
year, the common mistake committed with respect to dates is to write the old
year although the new year has already set in. 
The contrary was claimed by the respondent in his explanation.

There were other incongruities found on the original
certification attached to the bail bond. 
In the first place, there was absence of the sig­nature of the
certifying officer Municipal Treasurer Jones C. Cambonero.  In the second place, there is the unfilled
space provided for the official receipt number evidencing payment of the
certification fees.  And lastly, there is
the contradictory statement that the certification was issued on December 8,
1977 whereas the cited dates of payment of the realty tax on the properties
offered as bond were February 11, 1978 and January 30, 1978, respectively.  These obvious discrepancies could have been
satisfactorily explained by the respondent thru additional evidence, but he did
not attempt to do so.  These facts led
the investigat­ing Judge to believe the complainant’s assertion that the cash
bond was ordered withdrawn without the sub­stitute property bond actually
approved and submitted.

The investigating Judge, with respect to the second charge of
alleged solemnization by respondent of a marriage without a marriage license,
observed that the accusation was without legal basis.  The original copy of the alleged marriage
contract between Eliseo Lipnica and Editha Solano, which is at issue, was never
presented at the investigation.  Although
complainant’s principal witness Cecilia Magsino was given all the opportunity
to present the original copy of the alleged marriage contract, she failed to do
so.  The marriage contract itself was
never registered as evidenced by the certification dated January 10, 1979 (p.
81, rec.) of the Municipal Treasurer, Jones C. Cambonero.  The investigating Judge, comparing the
admitted signature of the respondent with respondent’s alleged signature as
appears on the xerox copy of the marriage contract presented by complainant as
Exhibit “G” (p. 87, rec.), noted a marked difference between the two
signatures.  He found it rather
unbelievable that respondent, if it were his intention to solemnize a fake
marriage, would sign his name so distinctly on said Exhibit “G” when
his true signature is more illegible and harder to decipher.  As a consequence, the in­vestigating Judge
resolved all doubts in favor of the respondent. 
Eliseo Lipnica, one of the supposed contracting party, likewise denied
that the signature on the xerox copy of the marriage contract is his which
complainant did not rebut.  Cecilia
Magsino’s contention that it was Eliseo Lipnica who lent her the original copy
of the marriage contract between him and Editha Solano would run contrary to
simple common sense, con­sidering that Lipnica is Magsino’s estranged
husband.  She would be the first person
from whom he would conceal his subsequent marriage.

When respondent ordered the withdrawal of the cash bail bond,
there was no property bond filed in substitution for the cash bond.  The property bond was filed and approved much
later, evidently after the complaint was filed against the respondent Judge.

Because of the failure of complainant to substantiate his
charges, respondent cannot be said to be guilty of falsification and forgery as
to the signature of Ang Lo appearing on the voucher.  Respondent turned over the amount of P800.00
cash bond to the mother of the accused and respondent never solemnized the
marriage be­tween Eliseo Lipnica and Editha Solano.

However, We disagree with the recommendation of the investigating
Judge that respondent be reprimanded only in view of his finding that
respondent allowed the withdrawal of the cash bail bond with­out first
requiring the accused to substitute the same with a property bond.  Because of respondent’s action, the accused
was out of jail without bail from the time he withdrew the cash bail on
December 13, 1977 up to December 17, 1978 when the property bond was
approved.  This act is a serious offense
that requires a stiffer penalty.

WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL JUDGE JAIME VALEÑA OF
CALAUAG, QUEZON IS HEREBY FOUND GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT AND IS HEREBY
DIRECTED TO PAY A FINE EQUIVALENT TO SIX (6) MONTHS SALARY, WITH A WARNING THAT
A REPETITION OF THE SAME OR ANALOGOUS ACT WILL BE DEALT WITH MORE SEVERELY.

LET A COPY OF THIS DECISION BE ATTACHED TO HIS PERSONAL RECORD.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Fernandez, Guerrero, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.