OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Burgos,
Pangasinan, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 June 7, 2011
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2621-RTJ)
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
FACTS:
Sometime on July 2, 1998, while [Atty. Aguilar] was still the Legal Officer of Olongapo City,
mortgagor Lourdes Sison and mortgagee Angelina Cuevas came to her office together, asking her to
notarize a prepared real estate mortgage contract. The document showed that it was a security for a
loan of ₱120,000.00. [Atty. Aguilar] acceded. Later, Sison and Cuevas returned with a different
document. It was obviously the same real estate mortgage contract between the parties but the
amount of the loan was now raised to ₱140,000.00. The parties explained that this is the real
agreement between them. [Atty. Aguilar] notarized it in replacement of the previous document,
deeming the first cancelled. Hence, the second document carried the same entries like document
number, book number and the like as the first document. Either by oversight or inattentiveness, the
secretary of Atty. Aguilar put the two documents together.
Sometime in 2002, Arnel Sison, the son of mortgagor Lourdes Sison, discovered the existence of the
two documents with different amounts but one notarial document number. He filed complaints for
Falsification of Public Document, Perjury and Estafa against Atty. Aguilar and Angelina Cuevas
before (1) the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor of Bataan AND (2) the Office of the
Ombudsman.
After preliminary investigation, Angelito V. Lumabas, Acting City Prosecutor of Olongapo City, issued
a Resolution dated March 2, 2004, dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause.
Meanwhile, proceedings on Arnel Sison’s complaint for Dishonesty and Misconduct against Atty.
Aguilar, filed before the Ombudsman. Following her retirement as City Legal Officer of Olongapo
City effective December 13, 2003, Atty. Aguilar, through a letter dated September 3, 2004,
addressed to the JBC Chairman, applied for the position of judge, preferably at the RTC Branch 71,
of Iba, Zambales. In support of her application, Atty. Aguilar accomplished and submitted a Personal
Data Sheet (PDS), which consisted of four pages. Question No. 23 of the PDS asked: "Is there any
pending civil, criminal or administrative (including disbarment) case or complaint filed against you
pending before any court, prosecution office, any other office, agency or instrumentality of the
government, or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines?" In answer to said question, Atty. Aguilar wrote
"None.", continued. Atty. Aguilar filed her counter-affidavit therein on October 2, 2003.
Atty. Aguilar was appointed as RTC Judge of Burgos, Pangasinan, on October 15, 2005.
After her appointment to the Judiciary, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon rendered a Decision on
November 29, 2005, finding no liability on Atty. Aguilar’s part for dishonesty but only for misconduct.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Aguilar be DISMISSED from the service
HELD:
No. Since respondent has been in the service for fourteen (14) years and since this is her first
offense during employment in the judiciary, the Court deems it proper to impose the penalty of
suspension for six (6) months without pay.
Under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, a judge found guilty of a serious charge, such as
dishonesty, may be subjected to any of the following penalties:
Sec. 11. Sanctions. — A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following
sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, 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;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not
exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than ₱20,000.00 but not exceeding ₱40,000.00.
Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to impose a suspension of six months without pay in light
of the above discussed extenuating circumstances.
