1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V.

rado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…

Fast and e cient

We provide Process Service to clients who

need process serving in the Philippines.
Process Service Network

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

November 2005 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Search Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2005 > November 2005 Decisions > ADM.
MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38,
Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Docket Clerk, et al.:
ChanRobles Professional Review,
Inc.

ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Docket Clerk, et al.

EN BANC

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review [ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 November 25, 2005]

[Formerly A.M. No. 03-12-703-RTC]

(RE: Alleged Anomaly that transpired in LRC Case No. 181 tried before RTC, BRANCH
31, Cabarroguis, Quirino) EXECUTIVE JUDGE MENRADO V. CORPUZ, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 38, MADDELA, QUIRINO, Complainant, v. MAX RAMITERRE, Civil
Docket Clerk, and VIRGILIO T. BUNAO, JR., OIC-Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino, Respondents.

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

Dishonesty has no place in the judiciary and this Court will not hesitate to remove from among
its ranks those found guilty thereof.

ChanRobles CPA Review Online The antecedents of this case are as follows:

Alfredo A. Balajo, Jr. (Balajo), 2nd Assistant Prosecutor of the Province of Quirino, sent a letter
to this Court dated December 4, 2002 alleging that an anomaly happened in Land Registration
Commission (LRC) Case No. 181, entitled, "In Re: Petition for the Reconstitution of the Owner's
Duplicate Copy of O.C.T. No. P-3834 of the Registry of Deeds of Quirino, Rolando Dapon,

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 1/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
Petitioner," assigned to Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cabarroguis, Quirino. He
explains that when he borrowed the records of LRC Case No. 181 due to a perjury case against
Rolando Dapon (Dapon), the petitioner in said case, he discovered that an Order, dated
January 17, 1997, granting the petition was issued even though no hearing was conducted in
said case and that the signature of then Judge Wilfredo P. Ambrosio was forged as confirmed

by the latter. 1

This Court indorsed the matter to Judge Moises M. Pardo, Executive Judge of RTC, Cabarroguis,

Quirino for his investigation and report. 2 Upon request of Prosecutor Balajo, however, Judge
Pardo inhibited himself and the case was assigned to Judge Menrado Corpuz, Executive Judge,

RTC, Branch 38 of Maddela, Quirino. 3

Judge Corpuz submitted his Report dated August 14, 2003, pertinent portions of which are
ChanRobles Special Lecture reproduced below:
Series
During the series of hearings that were conducted, present and past personnel of RTC-31 were
subpoenad and the highlights of their testimonies are as follows:

1. MAX RAMITERRE - 'narrated that he was appointed as clerk incharge of civil cases, in RTC-
31 on January 20, 1997, but he reported for work only on the last week of January, 1997.
Upon assumption, he conducted a physical inventory of civil cases where he had gone over
each folder page by page. At that time, LRC Case No. 181 was still pending although there was
a previous setting for December 17, 1996 by the former civil docket clerk, Divine Grace J.
Naval. From 1997 up to 1999, the said case did not move on and when he informed Jeremy
Sulio, the OIC Branch Clerk of Court, about it, the latter told him that it was the responsibility
of the petitioner to follow up his case. When Judge Moises Pardo assumed his post as the new
presiding judge of RTC-31, he also conducted a physical inventory of all cases and noted on the
folder of LRC Case No. 181 that it was pending as of August 25, 1999. He then directed the
then OIC Branch Clerk of Court Virgilio Bunao, Jr., to set for hearing all pending cases. Thus,
the setting of LRC Case No. 181 on October 11, 1999. Before the hearing, the witness
[Ramittere] informed Mr. Bunao that such case had no order of publication yet, but the latter
advised him to wait for the hearing so that if petitioner appears that is the time that they will
inform him of such deficiency. However, a week before October 11, Mr. Dapon came in court
and informed him (witness) that his case was already finished and he even obtained a loan
from the PNB using the reconstituted title as collateral. The witness asked Mr. Dapon for a copy
of the court order but the latter could not produce any, and promised to present it upon
securing it from the office of the Registry of Deeds. On the date of hearing, Mr. Dapon
appeared and furnished Mr. Ramiterre with a duplicate copy of the order of Judge Ambrosio
dated January 17, 1997 which the latter attached to the record (Folder I, p. 14). Mr. Ramiterre
did not furnish the Office of the Solicitor General and other interested parties of a copy thereof,
but he informed Mr. Bunao about the termination of Mr. Dapon's case. Thereafter, LRC Case
No. 181 was reported in the monthly report of case for October, 1999 (Folder I, p. 45) and the
semestral inventory for July, 1999 to December, 1999 (Id., pp. 68-73) as a terminated case.
He further testified that he is familiar with the signature of Judge Ambrosio, his former boss,
who signs in a long stroke as distinguished from the one appearing in the order of January 17,
1997 which was short. He believes that said order is spurious because the signature of Judge
Ambrosio is fake. He did not inform anybody of his observation because he relied on the
representation of Mr. Dapon that his case was already finished plus the fact that the court
order appears authentic because it bears the seal of the court. Now, he realized that it was his
fault in doing so.

2. JUDGE WILFREDO P. AMBROSIO - 'stated that he is now a practicing lawyer, but was a
previous judge of RTC-31, Cabarroguis, Quirino. While still a judge, it was his practice to sign
his full signature, not initials, in every decision or order which he needs to sign. He also
prohibited the use of the rubber stamp with inscription "original signed." He is not aware of the
January 17, 1997 order and it is a spurious one because the signature there is not his. To
prove his point, he readily gave his specimen signature for comparison with the one appearing
in the order (Id., p. 90).

3. VIRGILIO T. BUNAO, JR. ''averred that he was appointed as court interpreter of RTC-31 on
August 21, 1997, but assumed office only on September 1, 1997. From July, 1998 to
December, 1999, he was the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court thereat replacing Mr. Sulio. He came to
know of LRC Case No. 181 only in (sic) August 25, 1999 when physical inventory of all cases
was conducted by Judge Pardo, the newly appointed presiding judge in said court. He was
instructed by the latter to set for hearing all pending cases and in turn, the witness directed
the criminal and civil docket clerks to comply therewith: hence, LRC Case No. 181 was set for
hearing by Mr. Ramiterre on October 11, 1999 (Id., pp. 12 & 13). He was not familiar with the

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 2/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
requirement of publication in cases of reconstitution of title because in the MTC where he came
from, there were no cases of such nature and when he joined the RTC, his appointment was
that of an interpreter which also did not expose him to such kind of cases. When he was
designated as OIC-Branch Clerk of Court, he was not well versed with his duties and
responsibilities as such, and whenever confronted with difficult problems, he sought assistance
from lawyers or previous court personnel who had occupied such position. He is familiar with
the signature of Judge Wilfredo Ambrosio because the latter was his boss from September 1,
1997 to March 27, 1998 and had seen his signature in several court documents. The signature
on the January 17, 1997 order did not belong to the said judge whose signature is long,
occupying 1/3 of his name unlike the questionable signature which was small. He did not notice
that when LRC Case No. 181 was set for hearing on October 11, 1999, there was no
compliance with the jurisdictional requirement because what he had in mind was to calendar
for hearing all pending cases not being followed-up by parties or counsel so that the judge can
dismiss them, thereby unclogging the docket of the court. He denied having signed any
certification on the existence of the original copy of the questionable court order because this
could have not been possible since he was not yet the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court of RTC-31 in
January, 1997 (Id., p. 37).

4. DIVINE GRACE J. NAVAL - 'recounted that she was appointed as civil docket clerk of RTC-31
on August 1, 1996. She was familiar with LRC Case No. 181 because she was still with the
court when it was filed on December 2, 1996. Upon receipt thereof, she gave it to the OIC-
Branch Clerk of Court Jerry Sulio, who instructed her to set it for hearing. Consequently, she
included it in the calendar for the December 17, 1996 hearing and sent notices and subpoena
to all concerned affixing her signature therein for Mr. Sulio (Id., p. 11). It was the practice in
their court that docket clerks can sign for the Branch Clerk of Court (Id., pp. 78 to 82).
However, such hearing did not pursue (sic) because it was already the court's Christmas
program. She did not make a subsequent setting of the case because of her intended transfer
to RTC-38, Maddela, Quirino where, indeed, she transferred on January 22, 1997 as court
stenographer (Id., p. 77). She formally turned over to her successor, Mr. Ramiterre, all the
pending civil and other cases plus the exhibits (Id., pp. 83 to 87). The documents in the folders
of cases were provided with pagings and at that time, LRC Case No. 181 consisted only of eight
(8) pages without the questionable order.

5.'

6. EDDIE VERA - a records officer of the office of the Registry of Deeds submitted two (2)
certified xerox copies of the January 17, 1997 court order. One is a carbon copy (Id., p. 36)
and the other, bearing the certification of Virgilio T. Bunao, Jr. (Id., p. 37). He explained that
the stamp marks on the left bottom portion of the certified carbon copy bearing the date
January 21, 1997 corresponds to its date of entry in the primary book. The other stamp marks
on the right bottom portion bearing the same date, indicates when the Register of Deeds
signed the document which is also the date of its annotation in the title. He does not know who
brought subject documents to the office because the registrant may bring the documents
directly to the Register of Deeds or the examiner. Their office did not require from the court a
certificate of finality of the court order because this requirement was implemented only in
1998. He was the one who filed in the archive the subject documents but the date appearing
therein (January 21, 1997) was not the date of filing because from time to time, he has to
compile first all documents received, then archived them for records keeping.

7.'

8. ROLANDO DAPON, a resident of Burgos, Cabarroguis, Quirino, a businessman and a 2nd

year Mechanical Engineering student, alleged that he filed a petition for reconstitution of title
(LRC Case No. 181) (Id., p. 8) because when he and his wife were about to fully pay Nenita
Tan, who got their title (Id., p. 10) as collateral for their loan, the latter told them that it was
lost. With this predicament, he suggested to Ms. Tan that he will have the lost title
reconstituted and once this is done, he will then mortgage the title so that he can pay her of
the remaining balance of their loan. Ms. Tan acceded so the witness looked for someone who
can help him in his problem. He met a certain Cesar, whose family name he does not know, in
the hallway of RTC-31 and the latter assured him that he can solve his problem. Although he
doesn't know Cesar personally and his profession, the witness believed his representation
because he showed him several documents. Subsequently, Cesar came to their house bringing
the prepared petition and even promising that he will be the one to follow it up in court. He did
not appear during the December 17, 1997 hearing for lack of notice. Neither did he present
any evidence in court because of Cesar's assurance that he could take care of everything. On
the October 11, 1999 hearing, he received the corresponding subpoena therefor and one week
before said date, he went to the court and informed a lady personnel thereat that he had

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 3/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
Start trading CFDs
with a broker with
integrity
November-2005 Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 5039 - Spouses Eduardo
and Teresita Garcia v. Atty. Rolando
S. Bala.
A.C. No. 5708 - Bernardo A. Tadlip
v. Atty. Fidel H. Borres, Jr.
https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318
already a court order granting his petition. He was asked to produce a copy thereof, but he
could not locate his copy so he proceeded to the office of the Registry of Deeds to secure one.
Armed with a copy of the January 17, 1997 order of Judge Ambrosio, he appeared in court on
October 11, 1999 and presented to the lady personnel his copy of the order. He paid Cesar
P10,000.00 for his services. He did not doubt the authenticity of the court order despite the
fact that he did not testify in court and was not represented by a counsel because he trusted
Cesar.
9. 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Alfredo Balajo, Jr. 'While he was the "whistle blower" in
this anomalous transaction, he has no specific person in mind as to who should be blamed
therefor. However, he believes that this could have not been committed without the connivance
of court personnel taking into account that there was a similarity in the typewriter used in the
questionable order and the one's used in court. Rolando Dapon is now facing a criminal case for
perjury regarding this transaction (Id., pp. 15 to 21).
The court did not subpoena anymore Jeremy Sulio, the former OIC Branch Clerk of Court of
RTC-31 and Estrella Magat, former court interpreter, because they were already abroad long
before this investigation. 4
Judge Corpuz then concluded that:
While the two (2) [Max Ramiterre and Virgilio T. Bunao, Jr.] may not be criminally charged,
however, their administrative indictments are proper. Mr. Ramiterre knew that there was no
compliance with the jurisdictional requirement in LRC Case No. 181; that there was no hearing
conducted; that there was no presentation of evidence; that he was familiar with the signature
of Judge Ambrosio; and that the order of January 17, 1997 was spurious because the signature
of the signer was faked. Yet, he attached it to the record when presented to him by Mr. Dapon
during the October 11, 1999 hearing giving it the impression that it was authentic and done by
the judge in the regular performance of his duty which was not so. Worse, he even made such
order as basis for considering the petition as terminated and in fact, he reported it to be so in
the monthly report of cases for October, 1999. This is dishonesty, plain and simple.
As for Mr. Bunao, he should be equally charged for dishonesty for issuing a certification
asserting that the original copy of the order dated January 17, 1997 is on file with the court
giving the false impression that there was, indeed, such a copy which was prepared by the
judge in the regular performance of his duty. Mr. Bunao is well aware of the spurious nature of
the document he was certifying because like Mr. Ramiterre, he is familiar with the signature of
Judge Ambrosio and he even asserted that the signature therein was not that of his former
boss. Obviously, there was deceit in the issuance thereof and it will not matter that the
certification was undated. 5
On December 3, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the
investigation report of Judge Corpuz be treated as a complaint against Ramiterre and Bunao
and that the two be required to manifest to this Court whether they are submitting the matter
for resolution based on their statements before Judge Corpuz. 6 The recommendation was
adopted by this Court per Resolution dated February 9, 2004. 7
On March 29, 2004, Ramiterre filed his Manifestation, submitting the matter for resolution and
further stating that: the fact that he did not inform anyone of his observation regarding the
January 17, 1997 order, granting the petition for reconstitution of title, is merely an isolated
case of erroneously considering the case as terminated based on the representation of Dapon
and was bolstered by the fact that he (Ramiterre) relied on the fact that a loan was obtained
by Dapon from the Philippine National Bank using the subject land as collateral; he asked
Dapon for a copy of the alleged court order and the latter could not produce the same but
"promised to present it from the Office of the Register of Deeds;" he (Ramiterre) acted in good
faith in carrying out the duties of his office as shown by the fact that he informed Bunao about
the termination of the case before the same was reported as terminated. 8
Bunao submitted a "Manifestation with the Brief of the True Facts Surrounding the Case" dated
April 2, 2004, in addition to the statements made before the Investigating Judge, and stating
that: he was still with the Municipal Trial Court of Diffun, Quirino as Docket Clerk when the
Order, dated January 17, 1997, was submitted to the Register of Deeds for the Province of
Quirino together with the certified true copy from files allegedly signed by him which was the
basis of reconstituting the title of Dapon; it was only on September 1, 1997 that he assumed
the duties as Interpreter III of RTC, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino and was designated as
OIC Branch Clerk of Court in July 1998 to December 1999; upon the inquiry of present Clerk of
Court Lornabeth Ucol, Ramiterre categorically stated that he took it upon himself to attach the
court order given to him by Dapon to the case folder and caused its subsequent disposal
4/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
without ever informing him (Bunao); in June 2003, he (Bunao) learned that the wife of
A.C. No. 6026 - Godofredo C. Ramiterre got hold of an alleged certification of the forged document signed by him (Bunao)
Pineda v. Atty. Teddy C. Macapagal. from the Register of Deeds which prompted him (Bunao) to immediately go thereto, together
with Ritchard Calpito, a Process Server, to inquire as to when the Register of Deeds got hold of
A.C. No. 6296 - Atty. Evelyn J. such certification; the personnel of the Register of Deeds answered that they received it
Magno v. Atty. Olivia Velasco-Jacoba. together with the court order which became their basis in reconstituting the title of Dapon in
January 1997; when he (Bunao) told them that he was not yet with the RTC at that time, they
A.C. No. 6538 - Alicia E. Asturias started to become evasive with his questions; Balajo, who initiated this proceedings, also never
v. Atty. Manuel Serrano, et al. encountered in the course of his investigation the certificate of true copy allegedly bearing his
(Bunao's) signature; it must also be noted that it was only between May 20, 2000 to June 5,
A.M. No. 05-8-539-RTC - Re: 2000 that Ramiterre forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of Court the complete records of LRC
Judicial Audit Conducted in the Case No. 181 long after he (Bunao) ceased being the OIC Branch Clerk of Court; Judge Corpuz
Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, erred in recommending his dismissal since nowhere in the course of Corpuz's investigation that
Lapu-Lapu City. an evidence was presented where he affixed his signature in a forged court order; from out of
the blue, a certified true copy bearing his signature appeared; he (Bunao) does not know
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1617 Formerly Dapon and there is no reason for him (Bunao) to certify a forged document to benefit Dapon;
A.M. No. 02-1342-MTJ - Perfecto K. Eddie Vera, Records Officer of the Registry of Deeds, implied in his testimony that the court
Estrada, Jr., v. Judge Kames Stewart order and the certified true copy served as bases for the reconstitution of title of Dapon on
Ramon E. Himalaloan, et al. January 21, 1997, but he became ambivalent as to the exact date of their receipt of said
documents and as to who submitted them to their office; it is safe to conclude therefore that
ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - his (Bunao's) signature on the certified true copy was forged. 9
Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Attached to Bunao's Manifestation are the sworn statements of Lornabeth Ucol, current Branch

Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Clerk of Court of Branch 31, stating in part that Ramiterre admitted to her that Ramiterre did

Civil Docket Clerk, et al. not bother to inform Bunao about Ramiterre's receipt of the forged document and its

subsequent disposal; 10 the sworn statement of Ritchard Calpito stating that he was with Bunao
A.M. No. P-05-2056 Formerly OCA when the latter went to the Register of Deeds to inquire about the certified true copy of the

I.P.I. No. 02-1395-P - Luz C. Adajar court order bearing Bunao's signature and that he noticed that the employees of the Register

v. Teresita O. Develos, Clerk III, et of Deeds started exchanging glances and would not directly answer Bunao's questions when

al. Bunao told them that he could not have signed said copy as he was not yet with the RTC on
said date; and the sworn statement of Balajo stating that during the course of his investigation

A.M. No. P-05-2088 - Hernando O. he never came across the alleged certified true copy which bears the signature of Bunao, it was

Sibulo v. Muriel S. San Jose, Sheriff only in June 2003 that said document surfaced, and to his mind, Bunao is being made as a

III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, scapegoat in the anomaly in the reconstitution of Dapon's title. 11 A certification from the Office
Branch 1, Naga City. of the Clerk of Court, signed by Atty. Jessie Tuldague, states that the complete record of LRC
Case No. 181 was received from Ramiterre by their office between May 20, 2000 to June 5,
A.M. No. P-05-2090 - Estrella V. 2000. 12
Alvarez v. Joy Albert B. Bulao,
Process Server, Municipal Circuit Trial On September 6, 2005, the OCA submitted its Report with the following evaluation and

Court, Libmanan Cabusao, Camarines recommendation:

Sur.
We agree with the recommendation of the Investigating Judge that Mr. Max Ramiterre is liable
for DISHONESTY. Except for his averment of good faith nothing new was raised by Mr.
A.M. No. P-93-808 - Court
Ramiterre in his manifestation dated 29 March 2004. Judge Corpuz correctly pointed out the
Employees of the Municipal Circuit
basis of the subject's liability to wit - - -
Trial Court, Ramon Magsaysay,
Zamboanga del Sur v. Earla C. Sy, He knew that there was no compliance with the jurisdictional requirement in LRC Case No.
Court Stenographer I, Municipal 181; that there was no hearing conducted; that there was no presentation of evidence; that he
Circuit Trial Court, Ramon was familiar with the signature of former Judge Ambrosio; and that the order of 17 January
Magsaysay, Zamboanga del Sur. 1997 was spurious because the signature therein was faked. Yet, he attached it to the record
when presented to him by Mr. Dapon during the 11 October 1999 hearing giving it the

A.M. No. RTJ-02-1738 Formerly impression that it was authentic and done by the judge in the regular performance of his duty

OCA IPI No. 01-1325-RTJ - Atty. which was not so. Worse, he even made such order as basis for considering the petition as

Juliana Adalim-White v. Hon. Judge terminated and in fact, he reported it to be so in the monthly report of cases for October 1999.

Arnulfo O. Bugtas, Presiding Judge, This is dishonesty, plain and simple.

RTC, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern

As to the liability of Mr. Virgilio T. Bunao, Jr. we have our reservations considering that, at the
Samar.
time of the falsification of the document which was probably committed between 02 December
1996 date of filing of the petition and 21 January 1997 date of issuance of the reconstituted
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1875 - Silas Y.
title to Mr. Dapon. Mr. Bunao, Jr. was not yet connected with the RTC, Branch 31. He became
Ca'ada v. Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte.
the Court Interpreter of said court on 01 September 1997 and was later on designated Officer
in Charge - Branch Clerk of Court in July 1998.
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1961 Formerly
OCA IPI No. 04-2077-RTJ - Cua Shuk On 15 August 1999 after the appointment of Judge Moises M. Pardo, a physical inventory of all
Yin v. Judge Norma C. Perello, cases was made and subject employee affixed his signature in the folders of all pending cases
Regional Trial Court, Muntinlupa City, and LRC 181 was one of these certified as pending. He instructed respondent Ramiterre to set
Branch 276. it for hearing on 11 October 1999 which did not materialize as the presiding judge was

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 5/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
indisposed. He lost track of the developments of the case since he was replaced as OIC Branch
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1964 - Henry D. Clerk of Court on December 1999. Respondent Bunao became aware that it was allegedly
Arles v. Judge Rolindo D. Beldia, disposed of only when Prosecutor Balajo, Jr. requested for investigation.
Regional Trial Court, Branch 41,
Affidavits submitted by respondent Bunao, Jr. show that he was not aware nor was a party to
Bacolod City.
the anomaly. The affidavit of Atty. Lorna Ucol who was then the newly appointed Branch Clerk
of Court is revealing. She said that she decided to make an inquiry on the case in the presence
G.R. NOS. 118757 - Roberto
of the court personnel "that by way of searching questions and answers, Mr. Max Ramiterre;
Brillante v. Court of Appeals, et al.
Civil Docket Clerk of our branch, categorically admitted that he was the one who received from
Mr. Dapon the forged court order and subsequently caused the disposal of the case; and, "That
G.R. No. 52341-46 - Delia
he further admitted that he did not bother to inform Mr. Virgilio T. Bunao, Jr., Interpreter II
Preagido et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et
and OIC, Branch Clerk of Court during that time about his receipt of the forged document and
al.
its subsequent disposal as according to him, he was still new in the job and it was the usual
practice."
G.R. No. 124779 - Danilo Antonio,
et al., v. Hon. Isagani A. Geronimo, Prosecutor Alfredo A. Balajo, Jr. who brought to light the instant anomaly in his affidavit stated
in his capacity as Presiding Judge of that during the course of his investigation, he never came across the Certificate of True copy
the Municipal Trial Court of Antipolo, from files which bears the signature of Mr. Bunao, Jr.; that it was only on June 2003 that said
Rizal. et al. document surfaced; and that Mr. Bunao is being made as a scapegoat in the anomaly that
transpired in the Reconstitution of Title of Mr. Dapon.
G.R. No. 123346, G.R. NO.
Atty. Jessie N. Tuldague, Clerk of Court VI, OCC, certified that the complete record of LRC Case
134385 and G.R. NO. 148767 -
No. 181 was received by his office between 20 May 2000 to 05 June 2000 from Civil Docket
Manotok Realty, Inc., et al. v. CLT
Clerk Max Ramiterre.
Realty Development Corporation, et
al. The foregoing statements of three disinterested persons clearly show that respondent Bunao,
Jr. had no knowledge and did not participate in the preparation of nor did he use for his own
G.R. No. 134787 - Nicanor T. benefit the spurious order in question.
Santos v. Court of Appeals, et al.
RECOMMENDATION:

G.R. No. 133640, G.R. NO.

Premises considered it is respectfully recommended that:
133661 and G.R. NO. 139147 -
Rodolfo S. Beltran, et al., v. The (1) On the basis of his explanation which we find to be satisfactory as supported by affidavits
Secretary of Health. of his witnesses we recommend the DISMISSAL of charges against Mr. Virgilio T. Bunao, Jr.;
and cralawlibrary

G.R. No. 135507 - Philippine

(2) Mr. Max O. Ramiterre, who is found GUILTY of DISHONETY be DISMISSED from the service
Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc., v. Nelson
with forfeiture of all benefits except earned leaves with prejudice to re-employment in
Goimco, Sr., et al.
government service including government owned and controlled corporations. 13

G.R. No. 136371 - Prudential Bank

We find the recommendation of the OCA to be in order.
v. Chonney Lim.
Dishonesty is the:
G.R. No. 139158 - Chandra O.
"(d)isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of
Cacho v. Joaquin O. Bonifacio, et al.
honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition

to defraud, deceive or betray. 14

G.R. No. 136897 - Private
Development Corporation of the
It is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. 15 Indeed, no other office in the
Philippines, et al., v. The Court of
government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an
Appeals, et al.
employee than in the judiciary. 16 Employees of the judiciary serve as sentinels of justice and
any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the judiciary
G.R. No. 139233 - Spouses Alfredo
and Brigida Rosario v. PCI Leasing and the people's confidence in it. 17 Judiciary demands the best possible individuals in the

and Finance Inc. service and this Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who undermine its efforts
towards an effective and efficient administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes

G.R. No. 139290 - Trade and of the public. 18

Investment Development Corporation
We condemn and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all
of the Philippines v. Roblett Industrial
those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public
Construction Corporation, et al.
accountability and would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the

judiciary. 19
G.R. No. 140752 - Dionisio
Caraan, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et
As stated in Pizarro v. Villegas 20
al.
We stress that the conduct of even minor employees mirrors the image of the courts they
G.R. No. 141241 - Republic of the serve; thus, they are required to preserve the judiciary's good name and standing as a true
Philippines, through its trustee, the temple of justice'.
Asset Privatization Trust v. "G"
Holdings, Inc.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 6/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
'Every one connected in the task of delivery of justice, from the lowliest employee to the
G.R. NO. 141484 - GCP-Manny highest official, must at all times be fully aware of the sacramental nature of their function." 21
Transport Services, Inc. v. Hon.
In this case, Ramiterre, RTC, Branch 31, Clerk assigned in civil cases, admitted that he knew
Abraham Y. Principe, et al.
that no hearing was ever conducted in LRC Case No. 181. He also admitted that the signature
appearing on the Order dated January 17, 1997 was different from the signature of Judge
G.R. NOS. 141675-96 - Jesus T.
Ambrosio, the presiding Judge of Branch 31 at the time, which he is familiar with, yet he
Tanchanco, et al., v. The Honorable
readily accepted the Order given to him by Dapon and attached the same to the record giving
Sandiganbayan (Second Division).
it the impression that the Order was authentic and executed by the judge in the regular
performance of his duty. He even made said Order as basis for considering the petition as
G.R. No. 142729 - Mamsar
terminated and reported it to be so.
Enterprises Agro-Industrial
Corporation v. Varley Trading, Inc. As he admitted during the investigation

G.R. No. 142308 - Sps. Rev. Elmer Q - 'when you received this order you noticed that this is not an authentic signature of the

J. Ba es, et al. v. Lutheran Church in judge? cralawlibrary

the Philippines, et al.

A - Yes, sir.

G.R. NO. 143023 - Eastern Q - When you received it you know that it was not authentic? cralawlibrary

Overseas Employment Center, Inc.,

v. Cecilia Bea. A - Yes, sir.

Q - And what did you do? Did you inform anybody that the order found on page 11 of the
G.R. NO. 142937 - Philippine
folder is a fake document? cralawlibrary

Amusement and Gaming Corporation

v. Marita A. Angara, et al. A - No longer, sir.

G.R. No. 143510 - Roman Catholic Q - Why? cralawlibrary

Archbishop of Caceres v. Heirs of

A - Because I relied on the words of the petitioner that it was already finished.
Manuel Abella, et al.
Q - Why did you rely on the information given to you by the petitioner when as you have
G.R. No. 143647 - Yusuke claimed earlier there was (sic) no minutes and no transcript of the case? cralawlibrary

Fukuzume v. People of the

Philippines. A - Maybe, it was my fault, sir.

Q - So despite the fact that the order on page 11 is fake, it found its way on the folder because
G.R. No. 143772 - Development
according to you it was the petitioner who gave it to you? cralawlibrary

Bank of the Philippines v. Prudential

Bank. A - Yes, sir.

G.R. NOS. 143803 - Creser Q - And that upon receipt thereof, you attached it to the record.

Precision Systems, Inc., v.

A - Yes, sir.
Commission on Audit.
Q - You did not show it to your superior or to your judge? cralawlibrary

G.R. No. 144244 - Ester Deloso v.

A - No more, sir.
Sps. Alfonso Marapao, et al.

Q - And despite the fact that you doubted the authenticity of the order you still transmitted it
G.R. NO. 144374 - Romeo Teston, to the clerk of court as a terminated case? cralawlibrary

et al. v. Development Bank of the

Philippines, et al. A - Yes, sir because there was already the order granting the petition. Meaning, it was already
finished.
G.R. No. 144619 - C. Planas
Q - But you claimed that you doubted the authenticity because the signature there is different
Commercial, et al. v. National Labor
because according to you Judge Ambrosio signs in a long stroke.
Relations Commission, et al.
A - That's it, sir
G.R. No. 144705 - Nancy L. Ty v.
Q - Despite this you still decided to transfer it?
Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage
cralawlibrary

Bank.
A - Yes, sir. 22

G.R. No. 144900 - Domingo Ramiterre's only defense is that he believed the representation of Dapon, the petitioner in the
Marcial v. Hi-Cement Corporation, et reconstitution case, that the case was already terminated and that an order granting Dapon's
al. petition was already issued by the presiding judge. We see through his lack of forthrightness
and are not swayed by his lame defense. Dapon was an interested party and had everything to
G.R. No. 145276 - Rolando Agulto, gain from a favorable order. How Ramiterre could have relied on Dapon's representation
et al. v. William Z. Tecson. despite the fact that Ramiterre knew that no hearing was ever conducted in said case, he being
the clerk assigned to monitor said cases and despite his admission that he knew the signature
G.R. No. 145568 - Heirs of Enrique of the judge on the order to be forged, reeks of malice and bad faith. His heavy reliance on
Tan Sr., et al., v. Reynalda Pollescas. Dapon's statements and his "failure" to report the questionable circumstances surrounding the

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 7/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
January 17, 1997 order lead to no other conclusion than that Ramiterre was involved in the
G.R. No. 145578 - Jose C. Tupaz anomaly.
IV, et al., v. The Court of Appeals, et
While we cannot say for certain the extent of his involvement, what was established by the
al.
investigation was that Ramiterre made it appear that the proper procedure was followed in LRC
Case No. 181 by attaching the order, which he knew to be questionable and reported that the
G.R. No. 145821 - Spouses
case was already terminated. This constitutes dishonesty, as correctly pointed out by Judge
Rosauro Ocampo, Jr. and Fe Ocampo
Corpuz and the OCA, for which Ramiterre must be dismissed from the service.
v. First Metro Leasing and Finance
Corporation, et .al.
Dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense. 23 We have not

hesitated to impose such extreme punishment on employees found guilty thereof, 24 because
G.R. No. 146424 - Albino Josef v.
dishonesty reflects on the fitness of the officer or employee to continue in office and the
People of the Philippines, et al.
discipline and morale of the service. 25

G.R. No. 147861 and G.R. NO.
155252 - Philippine Ports Authority v.
Pier 8 Arrastre and
Services, Inc.
G.R. No. 148152 and G.R. NO.
149450 - International Broadcasting
Corporation v. Jose T. Jalandoon.
G.R. No. 148361 - Rafael Bautista,
et al., v. Maya-Maya Cottages, Inc.
G.R. No. 148411 - Martha R.
Horrigan v. Troika Commercial, Inc.
G.R. NOS. 148682-85 - People of
the Philippines v. Angel A. Enfermo.
As to Bunao, we agree with the findings of the OCA that he should not be held administratively
liable for the anomaly since, at the time the falsification of the document was committed, which
Stevedoring was between December 2, 1996 the date of the filing of the petition, and January 21, 1997, the
date of the issuance of the reconstituted title to Dapon, Bunao was not yet connected with
Branch 31.
The authenticity of the certified true copy of the January 17, 1997 order bearing the signature
of Bunao, which was the basis of Judge Corpuz in recommending Bunao's dismissal, was also
not clearly established. As stated by Balajo, who called the attention of this Court regarding the
anomaly, he never came across the certified true copy of the questioned order with Bunao's
signature and it is his belief that Bunao is only being made as a scapegoat by the people
behind the anomaly. Bunao's culpability not having been sufficiently established, we agree with
the OCA that he should be exculpated from any liability.
WHEREFORE, Max O. Ramiterre is found guilty of DISHONESTY. He is DISMISSED from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except the value of his accrued leaves, and with
prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentalities of the Government including
government-owned and controlled corporations.

G.R. No. 150920 - Child Learning The administrative case against Virgilio T. Bunao, Jr. is DISMISSED for lack of sufficient

Center, Inc., et al., v. Timothy evidence.

Tagario, et al.
SO ORDERED.

G.R. No. 149628 - Edgardo B.

Alcazaren v. Univet Agricultural
Products, Inc.
Endnotes:
G.R. No. 151266 - Spouses
Raymundo and Marilyn Calo v. 1 Rollo, pp. 7 and 14.
Spouses Reynaldo and Lydia Tan, et
al. 2 Id., p. 6.

3 Id., pp. 2-5.

G.R. No. 151326 - St. James
School of Quezon City v. Samahang
4 Investigation and Report, pp. I-V.
Manggagawa sa St. James School of
Quezon City. 5 Investigation and Report, p. VI.

G.R. No. 152346 - Isaias F. 6 December 3, 2003 Report, p. 13.

Fabregas, et al. v. San Francisco Del
7 Rollo, p. 136.
Monte, Inc.

8 Rollo, pp. 152-153.

G.R. NOS. 151373-74 -
Department of Health v. C.V. 9 Rollo, pp. 139-145.
Canchela and Associates, Architects
10 Id., p. 147.
(CVCAA), et al.

11 Id., p. 149.
G.R. No. 152545 and G.R. NO.
165687 - R-II Builders, Inc., v. 12 Id., p. 170.
Construction Industry Arbitration
Commission (CIAC), et al. 13 Rollo, pp. 187-189.

14 Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I,
G.R. No. 152578, G.R. NO.
154487 and G.R. NO. 154518 - and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 8/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
Republic of the Philippines, et al., v. Division, A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & No. 2001-8-SC, July 22, 2005; Office of the Court
Estate of Hans Menzi, et al. Administrator v. Yan, A.M. No. P-98-1281, April 27, 2005; Alabastro v. Moncada,
A.M. No. P-04-1887 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1645-P), December 16, 2004.
G.R. No. 152663 - Edgardo D.
15 Concerned Employee v. Generoso, A.M. No. 2004-33-SC, August 24, 2005; Re:
Dolar v. Barangay Lublub (Now P.D.
Administrative Case for Dishonesty and Falsification of Official Document: Benjamin
Monfort North) of the Municipality of
R. Katly, Information Technology Officer I, Systems Development for Judicial
Dumangas, herein represented by Its
Application Division, MISO, A.M. No. 2003-9-SC, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 236.
Punong Barangay, et al.

16 Concerned Employee v. Generoso, A.M. No. 2004-33-SC, August 24, 2005.

G.R. No. 154115 - Philip S. Yu v.
Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. 17 Ibid.

18 Cabanatan v. Molina, A.M. No. P-01-1520, November 21, 2001, 370 SCRA 16.
G.R. No. 154460 - Lauro C.
Degamo v. Avant Garde Shipping
19 Alabastro v. Moncada, supra; Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against
Corporation, et al.
Elizabeth Ting, and Angelita C. Esmerio, supra.

G.R. No. 154185 - Amelia J. Delos 20 A.M. No. P-97-1243, November 20, 2000, 345 SCRA 42.
Santos v. Jebsen Maritime, Inc.
21 Id., pp. 48-49.
G.R. No. 154554 - Goodyear
22 TSN, pp. 18-20.
Philippines, Inc. v. Anthony Sy, et al.

23 Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which took effect on
G.R. No. 155014 - Crescent
September 27, 1999, provides:
Petroleum, Ltd. v. M/V "LoK
Maheshwari, et al. Section 52. Classification of Offenses. - Administrative offenses with corresponding
penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or
G.R. No. 156969 - Baron Express, depravity and defects on the government service.
et al. v. Roberto F. Umanito, et al.
A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:

G.R. No. 155309 - Josephine M. 1. Dishonesty

Sanchez v. Far East Bank and Trust
1st offense - Dismissal.
Company.

24 Concerned Employee v. Generoso, supra.

G.R. No. 157306 - Republic of the
Philippines v. Anatalia Actub Tiu 25 Alabastro v. Moncada, supra.
Estonilo, et al.

G.R. No. 157399 - People of the

Philippines v. Jose Ting Lan Uy
(Acquitted), et al. Back to Home | Back to Main

G.R. No. 157812 - Rodolfo Santos

v. Ronald C. Manalili, et al.

G.R. No. 157656 - Arnulfo C.

Acevedo v. Advanstar Company, Inc.,
et al.

G.R. No. 157830 - Dante M.

Pascual, et al., v. Marilou M. Pascual.

G.R. No. 158857 - Pfeger R.

Dulay, et al. v. Rodrigo S. Dulay.

G.R. No. 159696 - Civil Service

Commission v. Court of Appeals, et
al.

G.R. NOS. 159969 & 160116 -

Becton Dickinson Philippines, Inc., et
al. v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 160032 - Estela L. Berba

v. Josephine Pablo, et al.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 9/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…

G.R. No. 160109 - Spouses

German and Elisa Balanoba, et al., v.
Manuel D. Madriaga.

G.R. No. 160145 - Republic of the

Philippines v. Pedro O. Enciso.

G.R. No. 160118 - Norberto

Rimasug, et al., v. Melencio Martin,
et al.

G.R. No. 160315 - Lourdes D.

Rivera v. Wallem Maritime Services,
Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 160324 - International

Finance Corporation v. Imperial
textile Mills, Inc.

G.R. No. 160892 - Spouses

Antonio and Lolita Tan v. Carmelito
Villapaz.

G.R. No. 160893 - Sonia P. Ruiz v.

People of the Philippines.

G.R. No. 161357 - Elena P.

Dycaico v. Social Security
Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 161629 - Atty. Ronaldo

P. Ledesma v. Hon. Court of Appeals,
et al.

G.R. No. 161720 - Heirs of Flores

Restar, et al., v. Heirs of Dolores R.
Cichon, et al.

G.R. No. 161973 - Francisco

Ramos v. Stateland Investment
Corporation.

G.R. No. 162461 - Amos P.

Francia, Jr., et al., v. Power Merge
Corporation.

G.R. No. 162187 - Criste B.

Villanueva v. The Hon. Secretary of
Justice, et al.

G.R. No. 162727 - Ssangyong

Corporation v. Unimarine Shipping
Lines, Inc., et al.

G.R. No. 162890 - Heirs of Julian

Dela Cruz, et al., v. Heirs of Alberto
Cruz, et al.

G.R. No. 162934 - Heirs of Belinda

Dahlia A. Castillo, et al. v. Dolores
Lacuata-Gabriel.

G.R. NOS. 163619-20 - In the

Matter of the Petition for

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 10/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
Disqualification of Tess Dumpit-
Michelena, et al.

G.R. No. 164635 - Majurine L.

Mauricio v. National Labor Relations
Commission, et al.

G.R. No. 163988 - Valentina A. Nu

ez, et al., v. GSIS Family Bank, et al.

G.R. No. 164798 - China Banking

Corporation v. Mondragon
International Philippines Inc., et al.

G.R. NOS. 164684-85 - Philippine

Long Distance Telephone Company,
Inc., v. Antonio Q. Tiamson.

G.R. No. 164865 - Roberto P.

Fuentes Jr., v. Office of the
Ombudsman, et al.

G.R. No. 165125 - Cesar T.

Villanueva, et al., v. Mayor Felix V.
Ople, et al.

G.R. No. 165268 - Challenge

Socks Corporation v. Court of
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 165767 - Spouses

William G. Friend and Maria Renee
Friend, et al., v. Union Bank of the
Philippines.

G.R. No. 166333 - Jose E.

Honrado v. Court of Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 165842 - Eduardo P.

Manuel v. People of the Philippines.

G.R. No. 166606 - Guillermo T.

Domondon, et al., v. Hon. First
Division, Sandiganbayan.

G.R. No. 166550 - Robert C.

Casol, et al., v. Purefoods
Corporation.

G.R. No. 166645 - Vicente D.

Herce Jr., v. Municipality of Cabuyao,
Laguna, et al.

G.R. No. 166753 - Angelita Morcal

v. Antonio Lavi a, et al.

G.R. No. 166755 - Elmer F.

Cervantes v. The Honorable Court of
Appeals, et al.

G.R. No. 166883 - Angela

Taguinod, et al. v. Maximino
Dalupang, et al.

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 11/12
1/26/2021 ADM. MATTER No. P-04-1779 - Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Do…
G.R. No. 167206 - Jaime F.
Villalon v. Ma. Corazon N. Villalon.

G.R. No. 167474 - Conrado Banal

III v. Hon. Delia H. Panganiban, in
her capacity as Presiding Judge of
RTC-Makati, Branch 64, et al.

G.R. No. 167748 - Heirs of Rafael

Magpily v. Herminigildo de Jesus, et
al.

G.R. No. 168445 - People of the

Philippines v. Capt. Florencio O.
Gasacao.

Copyright © 1995 - 2021 REDiaz

https://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005novemberdecisions.php?id=1318 12/12