Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cader
P. Indar, City Civil Registrar of Cotabato City and Davao City
and NSO.
CA-G.R. SP. No. 04143-MIN
July 29, 2015
Xxx In this case, it is crystal clear that the only documents
existing in Civil Case No. 09-670 entitled Tenny A. Torrejano v. Emilina
L. Cabatlao-Torrejano, For: Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, are the
petition, the assailed judgment and the certificate of finality. No other
records can be produced by the court a quo. No summons was issued.
No pleadings were filed. No trial was conducted. Everything was a
sham.
Xxx The respondent Regional Trial Court like its predecessor,
the Court of First Instance is a court of record, a court whose
proceedings ought to be enrolled or entered into written records that
they are duty bound to keep and maintain. These judicial records are
thus essential. Judicial records are kept to bear witness to every aspect
of judicial proceedings. In fact, judicial records must be scrupulously
correct and complete. Appellate courts cannot review the findings of
fact of the trial court if there is no record of the evidence taken during
the trial of the case. And so the Supreme Court held in Esperat v. Avila:
xxx the Court of Appeals cannot review the findings of
fact of the trial Court if there is no record of the evidence
taken during the trial of the case. In such absence of
recorded evidence, the decision of the trial Court would
be equally void.
Applying Esperat to the supposed Civil Case No. 09-670 a quo, it
is ineluctable that since the record is nil, null necessarily is the
judgment that supposedly ensued from that nullity.
Besides, we take judicial notice that the same Judge Cader P.
Indar, Al Haj, who rendered the June 24, 2008 Judgment, was found, in
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, to have issued decisions on numerous cases of
declaration of nullity of marriage, which do not exist in the records of
the Regional Trial Court, Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the Office of the
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City. In agreeing
with the investigating justice, the Supreme Court discussed the case in
this wise:
Xxx In this case, Judge Indar issued decisions on
numerous annulment of marriage cases which do not
exist in the records of RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or
the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court,
Cotabato City. There is nothing to show that (1)
proceedings were had on the questioned cases; (2)
docket fees had been paid; (3) the parties were notified of
a scheduled hearing as calendared; (4) hearings had been
conducted; or (5) the cases were submitted for decision.
As found by the Audit Team, the list of case titles
submitted by the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and
Quezon City are not found in the list of cases filed,
pending or decided in RTC, Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, nor
in the records of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court, Cotabato City. In other words, Judge
Indar, who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued