LILIA C. RAGA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR, RESPONDENT.

Raga versus Usman

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Lilia Raga, a Court Process Server of the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 28, charges her presiding judge, Judge Sibanah Usman, with dishonesty, violation of the anti-graft law, gross misconduct, violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, unjustified absences without leave, and untruthful statements in his certificate of service. The heart of the charge is simple and serious: the judge certified that he had complete attendance for September 2001 when, according to the records, he was absent on two days of that month. The case matters because it tells us what a certificate of service really is in the life of the judiciary, and how the Court weighs a judge's attempt to blame his own subordinates for his administrative lapses.

Procedural History

The complainant wrote a letter-complaint dated December 28, 2004, addressed to the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the complaint to the respondent judge for his comment, and he filed an Answer denying the charge. The Office of the Court Administrator then evaluated the case and, in a report dated April 20, 2007, found the complaint meritorious and recommended a fine of 11,000 pesos with a warning. The Supreme Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for decision on the pleadings. The complainant asked for a reception of evidence, so the Court referred the case to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. After a hearing, the Investigating Justice agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator and recommended the same fine and warning. The case then came before the Supreme Court for final resolution, and the Court adopted the findings but raised the penalty.

Facts

In September 2001, the respondent judge was the presiding judge of Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar. The complainant was a Court Process Server in the same branch, and the Branch Clerk of Court was Atty. Ireneo Escobar, Jr. On September 7, 2001, the judge was absent. Because of that absence, the Branch Clerk of Court issued a first indorsement forwarding the records of two criminal cases to Judge Cesar Cinco of Branch 29 for the disposition of an accused's application for bail. On September 21, 2001, the judge was again absent, and the Branch Clerk of Court signed several constancias, or written notations, resetting cases to other dates. One of those constancias expressly stated that a criminal case had to be reset because the judge was absent.

Despite these absences, the judge's certificate of service for September 2001 stated that he had rendered complete attendance and incurred no absence for that month. The complainant presented the first indorsement, the constancias, and a certified true copy of the certificate of service bearing the dry seal of the Office of the Clerk of Court. A certification from the Leave Division of the Office of the Court Administrator likewise showed that the judge incurred no leave of absence in September 2001.

In his defense, the judge denied being absent on September 7, 2001, claiming he was inside his office and that the complainant deliberately bypassed him in assisting the accused. He also claimed that his signature on the certificate of service was forged, and that the complainant was retaliating against him because he had indorsed a complaint against her. He failed, however, to present any copy of the certificate bearing what he claimed was his authentic signature, and he did not dispute the authenticity of the indorsement and constancias signed by his own Branch Clerk of Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of making untruthful statements in his certificate of service for September 2001.
• Whether or not the respondent judge may escape administrative liability by blaming his subordinate, the complainant, for the preparation of the certificate of service.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator and the Investigating Justice is the proper penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, classifies the act and fixes its penalties:

Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies the act of making untruthful statements in the certificate of service as a less serious charge which carries any of the following sanctions: suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

This provision supplies both the classification of the offense and the range of penalties, which the Court uses to test the recommendation below.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complainant proved by substantial evidence that the judge was absent on September 7 and 21, 2001, yet stated in his certificate of service that he incurred no absences for that month. His bare denial was weak against the documentary proofs, namely the indorsement and the constancias signed by his own Branch Clerk of Court, whose authenticity he did not assail. His claim of forgery was unsubstantiated, as he never produced a copy of the certificate bearing his genuine signature.

On the second issue, the Court refused to let the judge pass the blame to his subordinate. It held that he cannot use the alleged inefficiency and antagonistic attitude of his staff as a defense. Whatever blame he tried to impute to the complainant ultimately went back to him, because it showed his inability to control and discipline his staff and his weakness in administrative supervision. The Court reminded judges that a certificate of service is not merely a means to receive one's salary; it is part of the sacred task of dispensing justice and an instrument essential to the duty to dispose of cases speedily.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the findings but not with the recommended penalty. It noted that the judge had previously been penalized in related administrative cases, including one for delay in the submission of a certificate of service. Although this was his first offense of this particular nature, his false certification amounted to a repeated disregard of the rule on certificates of service, which warranted a penalty higher than that recommended.

Doctrine

A certificate of service is not a mere payroll document; it is an instrument of the constitutional duty of judges to dispose of cases speedily, and a false statement in it is a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, punishable by suspension of one to three months or a fine of more than 10,000 pesos but not exceeding 20,000 pesos. A judge cannot shield himself from administrative liability by blaming the inefficiency or hostility of his subordinates, for that only proves his failure in administrative supervision. Substantial evidence, such as the indorsements and constancias of the Branch Clerk of Court, suffices to establish the falsity of a certificate of service, and a bare claim of forgery, unsupported by any authentic copy, cannot overcome it.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Sibanah Usman guilty of making untruthful statements in his certificate of service for September 2001 and suspended him from office without salary and other benefits for one month from receipt of the resolution.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a certificate of service is part of the sacred task of dispensing justice, not a mere means to receive one's salary. Examiners use this case to test the classification and penalty for untruthful certificates of service under Rule 140, and to test whether a judge may deflect liability onto his staff, which he cannot.