View full case

OLGA M. SAMSON v. JUDGE VIRGILIO G. CABALLERO

FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint against Judge Virgilio G. Caballero, a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge, for dishonesty and falsification of a public document. The complainant, Olga M. Samson, alleged that Judge Caballero was not qualified to be appointed as a judge due to lack of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence, and for violating the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) which disqualifies applicants with pending administrative cases. Complainant claimed that Judge Caballero concealed his pending administrative charges during his JBC interviews. The complainant filed criminal and administrative charges against Judge Caballero for grave abuse of authority, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of the Revised Penal Code. The Ombudsman dismissed the charges, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and directed the Ombudsman to pursue the administrative charges. During the complainant's pending petition in the CA, Judge Caballero was appointed as an RTC judge without disclosing his pending cases to the JBC. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Caballero guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document for false statements in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) filed in the RTC Personnel Division. The OCA recommended his dismissal from the service. The Court found Judge Caballero guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document for answering "No" to the question of whether he had been formally charged in the PDS. The Court emphasized the grave offense of dishonesty and the need for judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary. The Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the administrative case against the respondent may be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the Bar.

  2. Whether the respondent's misconduct constitutes a violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath.

  3. Whether the respondent's misconduct constitutes a violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

  4. Whether the respondent judge is guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document.

  5. Whether the respondent judge should be dismissed from the service.

  6. Whether the respondent judge should be disbarred.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the administrative case against the respondent may be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the Bar. The resolution approves the automatic conversion of administrative cases against court officials who are lawyers as disciplinary proceedings against them both as officials and as members of the Bar.

  2. Yes, the respondent's misconduct constitutes a violation of the Canons of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer's Oath. The respondent's dishonest act goes against the lawyer's oath to "do no falsehood" and the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility, such as upholding the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and observing respect for the courts and judicial officers.

  3. Yes, the respondent's misconduct constitutes a violation of Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which prohibits acts of deceit by lawyers. Violation of this provision may result in suspension or disbarment.

  4. The respondent judge is guilty of dishonesty and falsification of an official document.

  5. The respondent judge should be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

  6. The respondent judge should be disbarred for violation of Canons 1 and 11 and Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and his name should be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The administrative case against a court official who is a lawyer may also be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent as a member of the Bar, according to AM No. 02-9-02-SC.

  • Violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary constitutes a breach of the Canons of Professional Responsibility for lawyers.

  • The moral fitness of a judge reflects his moral fitness as a lawyer, as membership in the bar is an integral qualification for membership in the bench.

  • Acts of deceit by lawyers are strictly prohibited and may lead to suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

  • Possession of good moral character is a prerequisite to admission to the bar and a continuing requirement to the practice of law.

  • The Court is strict with judges as they are the visible representation of the law and should set a good example to the bench, bar, and students of the law.

  • The standard of integrity imposed on judges is higher than that of the average person as their integrity gives them the right to judge.