A.M. No. 1888-CFI October 30, 1981
FRANCISCO I. PULIDO, complainant, vs. JUDGE MAGNO B. PABLO, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Francisco I. Pulido filed a verified complaint against Judge Magno B. Pablo of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, Branch XIII, for serious misconduct. The complaint detailed six specifications, primarily alleging the judge falsified official court documents in Criminal Case No. 266-A. The charges included: (1) causing the preparation and insertion of false minutes for a May 17, 1974 hearing; (2) making a false statement within those minutes regarding the court stenographer’s identity; and (3) most critically, issuing conflicting commitment orders for the accused, Benjamin Bantolino, and altering the dispositive portion of a Court of Appeals decision. Specifically, the judge was accused of changing the affirmed penalty from “with subsidiary imprisonment” to “without subsidiary imprisonment” in the commitment order and backdating the commencement of the imprisonment.
The case was referred to Associate Justice Milagros German of the Court of Appeals for investigation. Despite a joint petition by the parties to dismiss the case, the investigation proceeded. Both parties subsequently failed to appear at scheduled hearings. Justice German, evaluating the documentary evidence on record, found a strong prima facie case against Judge Pablo for falsification of public documents on three counts and recommended forwarding the case to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, while noting the complainant’s failure to substantiate the complaint in a formal hearing.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Magno B. Pablo is administratively liable for serious misconduct and conduct unbecoming a judge based on the allegations of falsifying court documents.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Magno B. Pablo guilty of serious misconduct and ordered his dismissal. The Court held that the charges were fully substantiated by official records, notwithstanding the lack of a formal hearing where the complainant presented evidence. The respondent judge was given ample opportunity to present countervailing evidence but chose to waive this right, which the Court interpreted as an indication that he had no evidence to support his innocence or rebut the documentary proofs.
The legal logic centers on the incontrovertible documentary evidence. The Court found that Judge Pablo admittedly signed two conflicting commitment orders for the same accused, with different commencement dates for the imprisonment. Furthermore, the alteration of the Court of Appeals’ decision from “with” to “without” subsidiary imprisonment was a deliberate falsification. His explanations for these acts were deemed vain attempts to evade guilt. Such deliberate acts of falsehood constitute dishonesty and grave misconduct, violating the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust. This conduct erodes public faith in the judiciary and warrants the severest penalty. Consequently, the Court dismissed Judge Pablo from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement in any government branch or agency.