Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1994 > July 1994 Decisions > A.M. No. 93-10-1269-RTC July 8, 1994 - ARTEMIO D. CAÑA v. BELEN D. SANTOS:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 93-10-1269-RTC. July 8, 1994.]

ATTY. ARTEMIO D. CAÑA, Complainant, v. BELEN D. SANTOS, Stenographic Reporter of Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Malolos, Bulacan, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; COURT PERSONNEL; RULE ON CONDUCT; CASE AT BAR. — Government employees are prohibited from giving favors to the public in exchange for monetary consideration. Moreover, in entering into this arrangement with Flores, respondent would necessarily have to leave her post at Branch 6 to attend to the processing of the subject petitions pending before another sala of the same court. Thus, under the circumstances, respondent and no business following-up or processing the subject petitions for reconstitution. Undoubtedly, her conduct and deportment had been prejudicial to the interest of the service. Indeed, a public servant should refrain from financial dealings which would interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. Persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. The conduct of every personnel connected with the courts, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should at all times be circumspect to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts of justice.

2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; DESISTANCVE IN A CRIMINAL CASE; DOES NOT BAR AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE. — The withdrawal of the Informations for falsification of public documents of Gerardo Flores and Alfredo de Guzman, complainants in said cases, with the consent of the provincial prosecutor did not bar the continuation of the investigation of the present administrative case. The records are bereft of any document to show that the said complainants likewise desisted from continuing or pursuing this case. Indeed, desistance cannot divest this Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth of the matter alleged in the complaint against respondent Santos. The Court has an interest in the conduct of the officials and employees of the judiciary and in improving the delivery of justice to the people and its efforts in that direction cannot be frustrated by any private arrangement of the parties.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:


This administrative case arose from a letter-report of then Acting Register of Deeds of Bulacan, Atty. Artemio D. Caña, dated May 25, 1993, 1 regarding the alleged falsification of an Order dated September 25, 1992, purportedly issued by Judge Camilo D. Montesa, Jr., presiding judge of Branch 19, Malolos RTC.

The record shows that an Order for reconstitution of title (TCT No. T-250603), dated September 25, 1992, purportedly issued and signed by Judge Montesa, Jr., was presented to the Office of Atty. Caña by Enrico Fombo. 2 The alleged Order was issued in connection with a petition for reconstitution of TCT No. T-250603 filed by Alfredo de Guzman 3 before the Malolos RTC, Branch 19. The alleged Order directed the Register of Deeds: (1) to reconstitute the original copy of the subject TCT in the name of petitioner, and (2) to issue the corresponding owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title to petitioner.

Inquiry made by Atty. Caña disclosed that the said Order was given to Fombo by Mr. Gerardo Flores, the attorney-in-fact of petitioner de Guzman. 4 The subject Order was, in turn, given to Flores by respondent Belen Santos, a stenographic reporter of Branch 6, Malolos RTC. 5 Further probing revealed that no such Order or Entry of Judgment was issued by Judge Montesa, Jr., in said case. 6 Having confirmed that the Order was spurious, reconstitution was denied by the Acting Register of Deeds and further action on the case was held in abeyance.

On July 6, 1993, Sinfronio Barranco, Clerk of Court, Branch 19, Malolos RTC, transmitted to Executive Judge Natividad Dizon two (2) other spurious Orders, both dated February 15, 1993. It was made to appear that the said Orders were issued by Judge Montesa, Jr., in connection with two (2) other separate petitions for reconstitution of title pending before the same judge: one filed by Angel Vasallo and Aurelia Jose, and the other filed by Rosalina Gabriel. 7 Petitioners Vasallo, Jose and Gabriel were likewise represented in said cases by their attorney-in-fact, Mr. Gerardo Flores. 8

Upon receipt of said letter-report, Executive Judge Dizon referred the matter to Vice-Executive Judge Demetrio B. Macapagal and to the Criminal Investigation Service (CIS), PNP, for investigation.

After the investigation, CIS Chief Inspector Nario informed Executive Judge Dizon that on August 26, 1993, their Office filed the corresponding Information against respondent Belen Santos for three (3) counts of falsification of public documents 9 in connection with the above three (3) spurious Orders. A recommendation that proper administrative action be taken against said employee was likewise made. 10 Similarly, in a letter dated September 3, 1993, Vice-Executive Judge Macapagal, Sr., recommended the filing of administrative charges against respondent Santos. 11 The entire records of said case were then referred to this Court for appropriate action.

Accordingly, in a Resolution dated October 26, 1993 12 the Court directed respondent Belen Santos to comment on the letter-report of Atty. Caña. In compliance therewith, respondent Santos filed her unsigned and unverified Comment denying the falsification charges imputed against her. The Court then referred the case to Executive Judge Dizon for investigation, report and recommendation. 13

After several resettings, investigation of the case was conducted on April 19, 1994 where both parties were present. Complainant Atty. Caña manifested that he would submit to the investigating judge an affidavit to serve as his direct testimony against respondent Santos. Accordingly, on April 26, 1994, complainant submitted and identified his affidavit before the investigating judge, the contents of which reiterated his letter-report to Executive Judge Dizon dated May 25, 1993.

At the last scheduled hearing on May 3, 1994, respondent Santos submitted and identified in court her affidavit, dated May 3, 1994, where she denied the charges against her. 14 She claimed that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

"2. . . . (she) has nothing to do with the issuance of the alleged spurious orders since she cannot, in all candidness, have a hand on the same considering that she is not a personnel of the court concerned and that she has no knowledge whatsoever whether said orders are really spurious or not;

"3. Assuming without admitting that said orders are really spurious, the status of the same were rendered moot by the withdrawal of Mr. Flores’ complaint against the undersigned as reflected in the herein attached certified true copy of the resolution issued by 4th Asst. Provincial Prosecution Benjamin R. Caraig, with the approval of the Provincial Prosecutor Liberato L. Reyes;

"4. . . . (she) has to stress and participated in any anomalous transactions of this nature and that she has no intention nor the heart nor the guts to even contemplate on involving herself with this kind of scandalous scheme involving government servants."cralaw virtua1aw library

In his report and recommendation dated May 6, 1994, Executive Judge Dizon mad the following findings and recommendations, which this Court adopts, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Based on the affidavit of Atty. Artemio B. Caña, then Acting Register of Deeds of Tabang Registry in Bulacan, that there was no Order or Entry of Judgment issued by RTC Branch 19 in the Petition of Alfredo de Guzman for the reconstitution and issuance of the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-250603 (as attested by the Branch Clerk of Court of said branch); that the Order dated September 25, 1992 of said Court appeared to be fake or emanating from dubious/illicit source; that respondent Belen D. Santos was the person who was able to get hold and gave said Orders to Gerardo Flores, Atty.-in-fact for the other petitioners Angel Vasallo and Aurelia Jose and Rosalina Gabriel (P-179-92 and P-578-91, respectively); and, the records of investigation conducted and submitted by the Chief, 303rd CISFO, PNP, Malolos, Bulacan, relative to the involvement of Belen D. Santos in the discovery of said fake Orders, clearly show that respondent is highly suspected to have a hand or knowledge in the fake/spurious orders in Civil Cases Nos. P-27-92, P-578-91 and P-179-92 purportedly issued by RTC Branch 10. The records on hand, however, do not concretely show that Belen D. Santos was the author of said fake/spurious order but her involvement in the transactions covering the reconstitution and issuance of owner’s duplicate copies of TCTs for monetary consideration have been affirmed in the affidavits of Alfredo de Guzman and Gerardo Flores."cralaw virtua1aw library

In his sworn statement, dated July 14, 1993, 15 Mr. Gerardo Flores categorically declared that he and respondent Santos agreed that the latter would attend to the filing and processing of the subject petitions for reconstitution and that it was respondent who gave him the three Orders for reconstitution which he discovered to be spurious.

We note that in her Comment, respondent Santos merely denied participation in the issuance of the spurious orders. She did not, however, deny the fact that she acceded to the request of Gerardo Flores to process the three (3) petitions for reconstitution of titles pending before another branch of the same court for P3,500.00 each or an aggregate amount of P10,500.00.

Respondent Santos is not an employee of the branch of the court where the subject reconstitution cases were pending. Neither was she a party to the actions/petitions. What is more, it appears clearly from the records that respondent’s arrangement with Flores was for an equivalent monetary consideration. Although there is no direct proof that respondent authored the spurious Orders or directly participated in the issuance thereof, the fact remains that respondent’s act of processing the reconstitution cases was prejudicial to the best interest of the service. For one, government employees are prohibited from giving favors to the public in exchange for monetary consideration. Moreover, in entering into this arrangement with Flores, respondent would necessarily have to leave her post at Branch 6 to attend to the processing of the subject petitions pending before another sala of the same court.

Thus, under the circumstances, respondent and no business following-up or processing the subject petitions for reconstitution. Undoubtedly, her conduct and deportment had been prejudicial to the interest of the service. Indeed, a public servant should refrain from financial dealings which would interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. Persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. The conduct of every personnel connected with the courts, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should at all times be circumspect to preserve the integrity and dignity of our courts of justice.

Finally, the withdrawal of the Informations for falsification of public documents of Gerardo Flores and Alfredo de Guzman, complainants in said cases, with the consent of the provincial prosecutor did not bar the continuation of the investigation of the present administrative case. The records are bereft of any document to show that the said complainants likewise desisted from continuing or pursuing this case. Indeed, desistance cannot divest this Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth of the matter alleged in the complaint against respondent Santos. The Court has an interest in the conduct of the officials and employees of the judiciary and in improving the delivery of justice to the people and its efforts in that direction cannot be frustrated by any private arrangement of the parties. 16

PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent Belen D. Santos, stenographic reporter, Branch 6 of the Malolos RTC, is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government owned or controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Reglado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, p. 10.

2. Rollo, pp. 50-51.

3. Docketed as P-27-92, Rollo, pp. 20-22.

4. See Affidavit of Alfredo de Guzman y de la Cruz, dated August 10, 1993, Rollo, p. 44.

5. See affidavit of Gerardo Flores y Cruz, dated July 14, 1993, Rollo, pp. 45-47.

6. See letter of Sinfronio A. Barranco, Clerk of Court, Branch 19, Malolos RTC, Rollo, p. 16.

7. Docketed as P-179-92 and P-578-91, respectively.

8. Rollo, p. 39.

9. Docketed as IS Nos. 93-1554, 93-1555 and 93-1556.

However, as per the Resolution of Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin R. Caraig, the complaint for falsification filed by Gerardo Flores and Alfredo de Guzman were withdrawn by the complainants with the approval of the prosecutor after the parties agreed to amicably settle the case (see Rollo, p. 71).

10. See letter dated September 1, 1993, Rollo, p. 42.

11. Rollo, p. 61.

12. Rollo, p. 69.

13. Resolution, dated January 24, 1994, Rollo, p. 72.

14. Rollo, p. 70.

15. Rollo, pp. 45-47.

16. Cabandong v. Judge Calderon, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-89-343, En Banc, Minute Resolution.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1994 Jurisprudence                 

  • COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

    [G.R. NO. 167689]

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, PETITIONER, VS. FILINVEST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • G.R. No. 103272 July 4, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO M. ALHAMBRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107432 July 4, 1994 - ERLINDA B. CAUSAPI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111179 July 4, 1994 - DAVID ODSIGUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-93-935 July 5, 1994 - ILDEFONSO ONG v. MAXIMO A. MEREGILDO

  • G.R. Nos. 65957-58 July 5, 1994 - ELEAZAR V. ADLAWAN, ET AL. v. RAMON AM. TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105685 July 5, 1994 - ORLANDO T. MENDOZA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109703 July 5, 1994 - REALTY EXCHANGE VENTURE CORPORATION v. LUCINA S. SENDINO

  • G.R. Nos. 85248-49 July 6, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY BALANON

  • G.R. No. 96510 July 6, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMIR CARIZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 97044-46 July 6, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENER TURDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102009-10 July 6, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO DE GRACIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110265 July 7, 1994 - FREEMAN, INC., ET AL. v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112734 July 7, 1994 - SPS. NAZARIO P. PENAS, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 92-12-916-RTC July 8, 1994 - RE: COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2521

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-728 July 8, 1994 - PERLITA LIBARDOS v. ABDULLAH M. CASAR

  • A.M. No. 93-10-1269-RTC July 8, 1994 - ARTEMIO D. CAÑA v. BELEN D. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 109012 July 8, 1994 - AIDA TUAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-92-863 and AC. No. 3815 July 11, 1994 - JOHNSON LEE, ET AL. v. RENATO E. ABASTILLAS

  • G.R. No. 108453 July 11, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONALD P. DISMUKE

  • G.R. No. 111426 July 11, 1994 - NORMA DIZON-PAMINTUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 97412 July 12, 1994 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 108802 July 12, 1994 - ISAGANI MERCADO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 100228 July 13, 1994 - PAZ DE JESUS MESINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 73047 July 14, 1994 - GABRIEL CAPILI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 108718 July 14, 1994 - GENARO R. REYES CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109672 July 14, 1994 - EDUARDO VACA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110042 July 14, 1994 - FELIMON IDANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111077 July 14, 1994 - VIRGILIO B. GESMUNDO v. JRB REALTY CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 92-10-425-OMB July 15, 1994 - IN RE: OMBUDSMAN CASE NO. OMB-ADM-5-92-0100

  • A.M. No. P-93-795 July 18, 1994 - MARIA AÑONUEVO v. ROLANDO E. PEMPENA

  • G.R. No. 97214 July 18, 1994 - ERNESTO NAVALLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102553 July 18, 1994 - PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112547 July 18, 1994 - DENNIS T. GABIONZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112731 July 18, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR CARAS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-93-944 July 20, 1994 - RIZALIA CAPUNO, ET AL. v. AUSBERTO B. JARAMILLO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 96687 July 20, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO S. BONGADILLO

  • G.R. No. 109633 July 20, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NORMANDO L. DEL ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 111097 July 20, 1994 - PABLO P. MAGTAJAS, ET AL. v. PRYCE PROPERTIES CORPORATION, INC.

  • G.R. No. 113107 July 20, 1994 - WILMAR P. LUCERO v. COMMISSIONER OF ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103092 July 21, 1994 - BANK OF AMERICA NT & SA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103586 July 21, 1994 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 105289-90 July 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO D. LUALHATI

  • G.R. No. 106097 July 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106611 July 21, 1994 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107069 July 21, 1994 - LEANDRO OLIVER v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109644 July 21, 1994 - ZETINO D. CANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-93-762 July 25, 1994 - NIEVES D. IGNACIO v. WILHELMINA T. MELANIO-ARCEGA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-93-823 July 25, 1994 - DAVID ORTIZ v. LUCIO P. PALAYPAYON

  • A.M. No. RTJ-93-1082 July 25, 1994 - SERAFIN B. CASTILLO v. LIBERATO C. CORTES

  • A.M. No. P-94-1003 July 25, 1994 - MARCIANO T. VIROLA v. EMMANUEL A. LATORZA

  • G.R. No. 100910 July 25, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO SALANGGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102308 July 25, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN LAYAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105410 July 25, 1994 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106027 July 25, 1994 - BPI CREDIT CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109645 July 25, 1994 - ORTIGAS & COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO

  • A.M. No. 93-11-1311-RTC July 26, 1994 - REPORT ON THE AUDIT INVENTORY OF CASES IN THE RTC, BRANCH 11 OF BATANGAS

  • G.R. No. 76452 July 26, 1994 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. ARMANDO ANSALDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102130 July 26, 1994 - GOLDEN FARMS, INC. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. Nos. 85512-13 July 28, 1994 - ALEX JUMAWAN, ET AL. v. DIOMEDES M. EVIOTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 93926-28 July 28, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEGUNDO MANUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112309 July 28, 1994 - NAPOLEON V. FERNANDO, ET AL. v. PATRICIA STO. TOMAS

  • G.R. No. 930280 July 29, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN SIMON

  • G.R. No. 97547 July 29, 1994 - ROLANDO T. DIWA v. ARNOLD L. DONATO

  • G.R. No. 110276 July 29, 1994 - ORLANDO G. UMOSO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION