ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 106 -
IMPOSING ON DIMATIMPOS MINDALANO, FORMER REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LANAO DEL
SUR, A FINE EQUIVALENT TO HIS SEVEN (7) MONTHS SALARY TO BE DEDUCTED
FROM WHATEVER RETIREMENT AND OTHER BENEFITS HE MAY RECEIVE FROM THE
GOVERNMENT
This is an administrative case against
Atty. Dimatimpos Mindalano, former Register of Deeds of Lanao del Sur,
for gross neglect of duty.
In the evening of August 16, 1985, burglars entered the Registry of
Deeds, Marawi City, resulting in the loss of the registry's collection
in the amount of P31,844.50, which the collecting clerk, Subosubo
Malawi, failed to remit to the local branch of the Philippine National
Bank.
As an offshoot of the above incident, the Administrator of the National
Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration (NLTDRA) charged
Mindanao with gross neglect of duty. The charge sheet reads as follows:
"On
1 August 1984, upon your assumption as Acting Register of Deeds of
Marawi City, the Office of City Auditor conducted an audit examination
of the cash and account of the Registry and the unremitted amount of
P21,065.25 was discovered in the possession of Subosubo Malawi, the
designated collecting clerk. In addition to this amount, Malawi had
also in his possession the amount of P15,366.25 representing registry
collection for the period of 1 August 1984 to 16 August 1985.
"Malawi did not remit or deposit
all his registry collections, as required by Joint Circular No. 1-81
dated 1 January 1981 of COA and Department of Finance, except on 17
October 1984, in the amount of P1,486.50; and on 20 January 1985, in
the amount of P3,100.50, resulting in their loss.
"Sec. 104 of P.D. 1445,
otherwise known as the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines,
provides:
'Sec. 104.
"In view thereof, you are hereby
charged with, and directed to show cause in writing and under oath
within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt hereof why no administrative
disciplinary action should be taken against you for Gross Neglect of
Duty for your failure to exercise supervision in safeguarding registry
collections as mandated by the existing regulations, particularly
Sec. 104 of P.D. 1445."
Forthwith, respondent filed answer. During the investigation of the case, respondent opted to submit a memorandum and, thereafter, submitted the case for resolution based on the records.
In his report of May 2, 1991, the Investigator designate recommended, with the concurrence of the NLTDRA Administrator, that respondent be adjudged guilty of the charge, observing that:
a.
b.
Then Acting Justice Secretary Eduardo Q. Montenegro, in his letter-report of May 6, 1992, stated:
"Respondent
Mindalano denied the charge in his Answer dated 15 September 1988
wherein he alleged, among others, that on the same day (1 August 1984)
he came to know of the unremitted amount he immediately issued a
memorandum order to the collecting clear to remit immediately without
delay the amount of P21,065.25. One week thereafter he issued another
memorandum again requiring Mr. Malawi to remit the said amount.
Allegedly, thereafter, a series of memoranda were issued by him
directing Mr. Malawi to remit collections in his possession.
xxx
We find the allegations of
respondent not credible.
He could have issued, as he
claims, a memorandum on the very same day he assumed his duties as
Acting Register of Deeds of Marawi City since (1) his first memo
appears to have been issued on 3 1984. Said memo begins with '[h]aving
assumed office as City Register of Deeds . . .', and (2) the memorandum
dated 1 August 1985 could not have been 1 August 1984 as claimed by
respondent — since the said memo states '[i]n the interest of the
public service, you are again reminded of your duties as Cash Clerk.'
If this were his first memo then he would not remind Mr. Malawi again
of his duties. The words of the memoranda apparently do not jibe with
the allegations in his Answer dated 15 September 1988 that:
xxx
It appears that respondent
issued his first memorandum dated 3 September 1984 to Mr. Malawi more
than one month after he assumed his duties as Register of Deeds of
Marawi City; followed by another memo on 7 November 1984; a third memo
on 2 January 1985; a fourth memo on 3 January 1985; and the last memo
on 1 August 1985.
"Aside from the issuance of
these memoranda, however, there is no showing that respondent even
bothered to check whether the designated collecting clerk had been
remitting his collections as instructed. Respondent is not even sure
whether the amount allegedly lost in the burglary was indeed in the
registry steel safe.
It is noteworthy that prior to
the burglary on 16 August 1985 two remittances. P1,486.50 on October
17, 1984 and P3,100.50 on January 29, 1985 — were made by Mr. Malawi.
If the collections allegedly taken were indeed kept in the safe at the
time these remittances were made. Mr. Malawi should have remitted all
the collections as mandated by Joint circular No. 1-81 dated 1 January
1981 of the COA and the Department of Finance thereby relieving himself
of worrying about the said collections. Instead the opted to remit the
measly amount of P1,486.50 and P3,100.50 and left the substantial sum
'in the safe'. It is only logical to conclude that in all probability,
the collections could not have been there as early as when the first
remittance was made. had respondent closely supervised Mr. Malawi —
which he could have easily done considering that there were only the
two of them in the office — then he should have known what actually
happened with the collections in the items taken during the burglary.
He miserably failed to exercise the diligence of a good father of
family in supervising Mr. Malawi to the loss of government funds.
In view of the foregoing,
it is recommended that Atty. Dimatimpos Mindalano be held liable for
gross neglect of duty for which he should be fined in an amount
equivalent to his seven (7) months salary in accordance with CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 8. s. of 1970 then prevailing at the time of
the commission of the offense. The penalty of suspension could not be
imposed considering that he had ceased to be in the election for
membership in the Regional Assembly, 3rd District. Lanao del Sur."
The conclusions of then Secretary Montenegro and the premises on which he based the same are well taken. Respondent knew, or at least is expected to known, that Malawi had the habit of not situation, respondent, as head of office, should have closely supervised his collection clerk. In hindsight, the loss of government funds could have been avoided with the exercise by respondent of sound management.
As represented by the NLTDRA and the Department of Justice, respondent already left the service. Separation from the service, however, does not preclude the disciplining authority from resolving an administrative case. The Supreme Court in Hermosa vs. Paraiso (62 SCRA 361, 362 [1975]) provided the rationale for the above conclusion:
"The Court nevertheless resolves the instant case (notwithstanding that death has separated him from the service) to the end that respondent's heirs may not be deprived of any retirement gratuity and other accrued benefits that they may be entitled to receive as a result of respondent's death in office (as against a possible forfeiture thereof should his guilt have been duly established at the investigation)."
WHEREFORE, Atty. Dimatimpos Mindalano is adjudged GUILTY for gross neglect of duty. Accordingly, and as recommended by the Department of Justice, Mindalano is FINED in an amount equivalent to his seven (7) months salary, to be deducted from any benefits he may be entitled to from the Government on account of his service.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 18th day of January in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Four.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.