A.M. No. P-09-2621 [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-2939-P] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS, CAGAYAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly because she beiieved that the subject documents were non-existent and fabricated because at the time the RTC decision was allegedly rendered on June 20, 2005, she and Ramil were still living together in Batangas and never in Ballesteros, Cagayan. At the OCA level In a letter, [6] dated August 28, 2008, the OCA informed Noemi that Judge Tangonan, Jr. had compulsorily retired on April 26, 2006 and that it could no longer exercise supervision over him, but assured her that Umblas and Atty. Aquino would be required to comment on the complaint. On September 8, 2008, in its 1 st Indorsement, [7] the OCA required Umblas and Atty. Aquino to suqmit their respective comrnents within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy. On October 9, 2008, Atty. Aquino filed her Comment [8] and explained that she was on leave on the day complainant Noemi arrived at the RTC office; that she was not familiar with the case as the document was dated June 2005 and she assumed office only in July 2005; that she asked Noemi to leave copies of the document but she did not; that she made contact with Noemi and got the information regarding the case; that she verified the same and on August 21, 2008, she issued a certification [9] attesting that the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage of Ramil and Noemi was not filed with their court; and that she performed her duties as Clerk of Court diligently, promptly and religiously. In his Comment, [10] dated December 12, 2008, Umblas claimed that he neither issued nor consented to the . issuance of the subject documents considering that there was no such case filed with the RTC; that his signatures appearing in the subject documents were imitations; that the lack of proof of payment for the certificate of finality meant that the same was fraudulent; and that it was Ramil's duty to provide an explanation as to how the subject documents came into existence consistent with the doctrine that the person in possession of a falsified document, who used it and who benefited therefrom, was presumed to be the author thereof. In the Court's Resolution, [11] dated March 25, 2009, it was resolved that the complaint against Umblas be re-docketed as a regular administrative case and assigned to the Executive Judge of the- RTC of Ballesteros, Cagayan, for investigation, report and recommendation. The Court, in the same resolution, dismissed the complaint against Atty. Aquino as it was not substantiated. Later on, Noemi moved for. change of venue because Umblas was one of the staff members of the Executive Judge. The Court, in its November 23, 2009 Resolution, [12] granted the motion and assigned the case to Executive Judge Vilma Pauig ( Judge Pauig ) of RTC, Tuguegarao City. On August 11, 2010, a motion for inhibition was filed by Umblas on the ground that Judge Pauig admitted that she was personally familiar with Atty. Aquino, and that the latter, as Clerk of Court of the RTC, would have an inevitable role .in the said inquiry. Thus