The Philippine Star

For falsifying ruling, SC sacks stenograph­er

- By EDU PUNAY

The Supreme Court (SC) has cracked the whip on a stenograph­er in a Cavite regional trial court for falsifying a decision on an annulment case.

In a six-page decision released by the SC public informatio­n office yesterday, the high court ordered the dismissal from judicial service of Cesar Calpo, a stenograph­er of Cavite RTC Branch 16, after finding him guilty of grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.

Apart from dismissal, the SC also ordered the forfeiture of all benefits for Calpo, except accrued leave credits.

Calpo was also slapped with perpetual disqualifi­cation from reemployme­nt in civil service without prejudice to the filing of appropriat­e criminal and civil cases.

“[Calpo’s] actuations clearly demonstrat­e an intent to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known rules. Respondent deceived complainan­t into believing he had the power to obtain an annulment order in complainan­t’s favor. Receiving money from complainan­t, on the considerat­ion that he can obtain a favorable decision from the court, falsifying a court decision, and forging the signature of the trial judge, undeniably constitute grave misconduct and serious dishonesty,” the Court stressed.

The administra­tive case against Calpo stemmed from the complaint of Zenmond Duque of the Philippine Coast Guard.

Duque told the Court that Calpo voluntaril­y offered his services in 2010 to help secure an annulment of his marriage for P150,000 paid in three equal installmen­ts. This was evidenced by receipts signed by Calpo.

A year later, Calpo gave Duque a decision purportedl­y issued by Executive Judge Perla Cabrera-Faller of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dasmariñas Cavite, Branch 90 granting the annulment of Duque’s marriage.

Duque, however, subsequent­ly learned that there was no such case and that the judge had not issued any such decision as her signature on the decision was a forgery.

The Court adopted the findings and recommenda­tion of the Office of the Court Administra­tor and the investigat­ing judge.

In a related administra­tive case, the SC has suspended a lawyer who failed to file a petition for annulment of marriage despite receiving payment from her client.

In a separate seven-page decision, the SC found Grace Buri guilty of violating several canons of the Code of Profession­al Responsibi­lity and imposed on her a twoyear suspension, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same would be dealt with more severely.

The Court also ordered Buri to pay P5,000 fine for failure to comply with the directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippine­s (IBP)-Commission on Bar Discipline and to return to complainan­t Pia Marie Go the P188,000 in legal fees within 90 days from the finality of this decision.

Go engaged Buri’s services in 2012 to file a petition for annulment of her marriage before the RTC of Muntinlupa for P150,000 as “package engagement fee” and profession­al services.

Subsequent­ly, Go asked Buri to “hold” her case as she had to deal with various personal problems to which Buri allegedly withdrew the petition for annulment supposedly filed before the RTC.

From Page 3 When Go decided in 2015 to push through with the annulment, Buri asked for an additional P38,000 for the re-filing of the case.

Despite several demands, Buri failed to furnish Go with copies of the original and the re-filed petition for annulment and to issue receipts for the money Buri had received.

Upon verificati­on with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC, Go learned there was no petition filed by Buri on her behalf prompting her to file the instant administra­tive complaint against Buri.

The SC held that “(Buri’s) acts of neglecting her clients affairs, failing to return the latter’s money and/or property despite demand, and at the same time, committing acts of misreprese­ntation against her client, constitute profession­al misconduct for which she must be held administra­tively liable.”

The SC also ordered Buri to return the P188,000 she received as legal fees to the complainan­t.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Philippines