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. 78 -
IMPOSING A FINE ON FORMER REGISTER OF DEEDS RAMON G. GARCIA OF ORIENTAL
MINDORO
This is an administrative case for
negligence against Ramon G. Garcia, former Register of Deeds of
Oriental Mindoro.
The records show that, upon investigation of a complaint filed on June
6, 1984, by one Jose Agutaya with the National Bureau of Investigation
(NBI), Calapan Branch Office, Oriental Mindoro, regarding alleged
falsification of official documents which resulted in the irregular
transfer of ownership of certain parcels of land owned by Felisa
Pangilinan to Nelia M. Bunda, the NBI came up with the following
findings:
1)
2)
document;
3)
4)
a)
b)
On the basis thereof, the then Land Registration Commissioner filed
formal charges against herein respondent Ramon G. Garcia and Registry
of Deeds Clerk Menandro Abac for negligence and grave
misconduct/dishonesty, respectively.
After formal hearing, the LRC investigator recommended that respondent
be found guilty of the charges and suspended for two months without
pay. Meanwhile, or on April 3, 1987, Garcia retired from the government
service.
In his letter to the Secretary of Justice, dated November 9, 1987,
Administrator, National Land Titles and Deeds Registration
Administration (NLTDRA, formerly LRC), agreed with the findings of the
LRC investigator. However, considering that respondent had been
compulsory retired from the service, the NLTDRA Administrator
recommended that a penalty of fine equivalent to his two(2) months
salary be imposed on respondent.
After review, the Secretary of Justice found respondent guilty of gross
neglect of duty, instead of simple negligence, and recommended that he
be fined in an amount equivalent to his six (6) months' salary.
According to the Justice Secretary:
"It
is clear that respondent signed the Bunda titles without first
examining their dates. Had he done so he would have noticed that he
would be signing titles based on a deed of sale which is dated 17
months later. It is also clear that respondent violated LRC Circular
No. 356, series of 1979. By his own admission, he did not see the
certificate evidencing payment of the capital gains tax on the
properties being transferred to Bunda.
"As
Registry head, respondent is charged with the enforcement of office
rules and regulations that would ensure the correctness and integrity
of his official acts. He cannot shed said responsibility and expect to
be absolved if a breach occurs. By relying blindly on the examination
performed by Clerk Abac and on the naked assurance of said subordinate
that the capital gains tax on the Bunda properties will be paid,
respondent must be deemed to have abandoned his supervisory duties and
perforce, held responsible for all its consequences."
I concur in the Justice Secretary's findings and recommendation. As an Officer entrusted with responsibility decidedly impressed with public interest, respondent Garcia should have been more circumspect in the performance of his official duties. His dismal failure to observe utmost care in the preparation and issuance of land titles is, to say the least, unpardonable, affecting as it does the integrity of said official documents. For such gross neglect of duty, respondent deserves to be meted out the condign penalty.
While it is true that respondent had already retired from the government service, this circumstance does not render the instant case moot and academic as to preclude the imposition upon him of the penalty of fine. As held in the case of People vs. Valenzuela (L-63950-60, April 19, 1985, 135 SCRA 712), citing Perez vs. Abiera (Adm. Case No. 223-4, June 11, 1975, 64 SCRA 302):
".. [I]t was not the intent of the court in the case of Quintillan to
set down a hard and fast rule that the resignation or retirement of a
respondent judge as the case may be renders moot and academic the
administrative case pending against him; nor did the Court mean to
divest itself of jurisdiction to impose certain penalties short of
dismissal from the government service should there be a finding of
guilt on the basis of the evidence. In other words, the jurisdiction
that was Ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint
was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had
ceased to be in the office during the pendency of his case. The Court
retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official
innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule
would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and
dangerous implications. For what remedy would the people have against a
judge or any other public official who resorts to wrongful and illegal
conduct during his last days in office? What would prevent some corrupt
and unscrupulous magistrate from committing abuses and other
condemnable acts knowing fully well that he would soon be beyond the
pale of the law and immune to all administrative penalties? If only for
reasons of public policy, this Court must assert and maintain its
jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials under
its supervision and control for acts performed in office which are
inimical to the service and prejudicial to the interests of litigants
and the general public. If innocent, respondent official merits
vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which
he served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the
corresponding censure and penalty proper and imposable under the
situation." (Emphasis added).
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, former Register of Deeds Ramon G. Garcia of Oriental Mindoro is hereby FINED in an amount equivalent to his (6) months' salary.
Done in the City of Manila, this 11th day of July, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-eight.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.