September 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > September 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-07-2378 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2550-P) : September 26, 2007] ROMEO O. ESTORES, COMPLAINANT VERSUS ATTY. PERLITA VITAN-ELE, EXECUTIVE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT (RTC-OCC), QUEZON CITY AND TERESITA S. FABILA, RECORDS OFFICER III AND SECTION HEAD, NOTARIAL AND ARCHIVES SECTION, SAME OFFICE, RESPONDENTS. :
[A.M. No. P-07-2378 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2550-P) : September 26, 2007]
ROMEO O. ESTORES, COMPLAINANT VERSUS ATTY. PERLITA VITAN-ELE, EXECUTIVE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT (RTC-OCC), QUEZON CITY AND TERESITA S. FABILA, RECORDS OFFICER III AND SECTION HEAD, NOTARIAL AND ARCHIVES SECTION, SAME OFFICE, RESPONDENTS.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 26 September 2007:
A.M. No. P-07-2378 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2550-P) - ROMEO O. ESTORES, complainant versus ATTY. PERLITA VITAN-ELE, Executive Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court (RTC-OCC), Quezon City and TERESITA S. FABILA, Records Officer III and Section Head, Notarial and Archives Section, same office, respondents.
For resolution is a verified complaint for disbarment[1] against respondent Atty. Perlita Yitan-Ele, Executive Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for alleged violation of Republic Acts Nos. 3019[2] and 6713,[3] filed by Romeo O. Estores before the Office of the Court Administrator.
The facts are as follows:
On April 19, 2005, respondent Teresita S. Fabila received from complainant Estores a letter,[4] addressed to the Clerk of Court, requesting a "xerox copy" of a document denominated Cancellation of Mortgage as entered in the Notarial Book of Atty. Joel G. Gordola as Doc. No. 176, Page No. 36, Book [No.] 29, Series of 2001, Quezon City. Fabila introduced Estores to Gabriel "Jojo" Refe to whom verification of the request was assigned. Fabila then informed Estores to follow-up his request with Refe and gave him Refe's telephone number. Fabila also told Estores that she or Atty. Vitan-Ele need not respond in writing in view of the foregoing arrangement.
Estores claimed that he called more than ten times to follow-up his request, but no one answered the phone.
On May 23, 2005 and June 1, 2005, the Office of the Clerk of Court received Estores's follow-up letters. Respondent Atty. Vitan-Ele referred the first letter to Fabila while the Assistant Clerk of Court also referred the second letter to Fabila. Fabila did not answer any of the letters in view of her earlier arrangement with Estores.
In his Complaint dated November 15, 2006, Estores bewailed Atty. Vitan-Ele's inaction on his request and sought her disbarment and dismissal from government service. Later, in a letter[5] dated January 29, 2007 addressed to the Court Administrator, Estores also sought Fabila's dismissal from government service on the ground of laziness and laxity in her job.
Immediately upon receipt of the 1st Indorsement[6] of the Office of the Court Administrator requiring her comment, Atty. Vitan-Ele issued Memorandum/Circular No. 92 dated January 4, 2007 directing Fabila to comment on Estores's complaint.
In her January 8, 2007 explanation[7] to Atty. Vitan-Ele, Fabila recalled her arrangement with Estores and expressed her surprise over Estores's disbarment complaint against Atty. Vitan-Ele.
On January 12, 2007, Atty Vitan-Ele filed her letter-comment.[8] Atty. Vitan-Ele stated that Estores appears to have forgotten said arrangement. She also said that Fabila, as Records Officer III and Section Head of the Notarial and Archives Section, can act on Estores's request. It is only after a document is retrieved that it is presented to her for certification, with the letter-request attached. In her view, Estores's request was properly acted upon by Fabila. Atty. Vitan-Ele also averred that she was not even aware of the letter-request if not for the first follow-up letter.
On January 24, 2007,[9] Atty. Vitan-Ele also informed Estores of the status of his request. She made reference to Fabila's explanation, to wit:
First, as regards respondent Fabila, we find that she has not been properly notified and informed of Estores's complaint seeking her dismissal from government .service on the ground of laziness and laxity in her job.
We note that Estores's complaint dated November 15, 2006 was for the disbarment of Atty. Vitan-Ele. He charged Fabila only in his January 29, 2007 letter-reply to Atty. Vitan-Ele's explanation. Nothing in the records shows that Fabila knows Estores's subsequent complaint against her.
Extant in the records are Fabila's explanation dated January 8, 2007 on the disbarment complaint against Atty. Vitan-Ele,[12] and Fabila's explanation dated January 22, 2007 as to her action on Estores's letter-request.[13] Both were in response to two memoranda issued by Atty. Vitan-Ele. Both were also dated earlier than Estores's letter dated January 29, 2007. Certainly, both were not Fabila's answer to Estores's complaint against her.
We cannot simply penalize Fabila who is uninformed of the complaint against her. Due process requires that we give her an opportunity to answer Estores's complaint. Thus, Fabila is hereby directed to answer Estores's allegations in his letter dated January 29, 2007 within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution.
Second, as regards respondent Atty. Vitan-Ele, the established facts of this case do not support a finding that she is guilty of deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct.[14] Hence, we dismiss the disbarment charge against her for lack of evidence.
We also dismiss the charge against Atty. Vitan-Ele for alleged violation of Rep. Act No. 3019. The Office of the Court Administrator maintains that it has no authority to make a finding of guilt or innocence on this criminal charge, and states that the record is bereft of any evidence that Atty. Vitan-Ele has violated said law. After our own careful study of the records and Rep. Act No. 3019, we agree with the Office of the Court Administrator that Atty. Vitan-Ele did not commit any unlawful and corrupt practice under Section 3(a)to(k)[15] of the law.
We reserve our ruling on the charge of violation of Rep. Act No. 6713 against Atty. Vitan-Ele. We shall dispose this aspect of the case together with Estores's complaint against Fabila, after we shall have considered Fabila's required answer.
Third, the Office of the Court Administrator calls our attention to the case docketed as CPL-L-07-0067 (Romeo O. Estores v. Perlita Vitan-Ele), the complete records of which were referred to it by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon for appropriate action. As far as the Ombudsman is concerned, said case is considered closed and terminated.[16]
In Estores's complaint[17] in CPL-L-07-0067, he said that on September 13, 2006, he sent a letter to Atty. Vitan-Ele requesting a certified true "xerox copy1' of a Deed of Partition of Co-Ownership With Waiver of Rights as Notarized by Notary Public Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel with PTR No. A-7291411/01-23-06, Quezon City. While he said that his letter is Annex "A" of the complaint, we did not find it.[18] What we found were Annexes "B" and "C" or his follow-up letters dated September 20, 2006 and September 27, 2006. These follow-up letters, however, were vague since the letters did not indicate the date when the document requested was executed and notarized, or state the notarial entries such as Document No.; Page No.; and Book No. Moreover, the records do not show if Atty. Vitan-Ele received Estores's three letters. Hence, we dismiss CPL-L-07-0067 for lack of merit prima facie.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED:
(1) That (a) Estores's complaint against respondent Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele, insofar as the charges for disbarment and violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 are concerned be DISMISSED for lack of evidence; and (b) the case CPL-L-07-0067 which was referred by the Ombudsman be deemed CLOSED & TERMINATED;
(2) That the Office of the Court Administrator immediately FURNISH respondent Teresita S. Fabila a copy of the letter-complaint dated January 29, 2007, filed by complainant Romeo O. Estores, and that respondent Fabila COMMENT on the aforesaid letter within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
(3) As to the charge of violation of Rep. Act No. 6713 filed against Atty. Vitan-Ele, it will be resolved together with Estores's complaint against Fabila after the submission by the parties of the requisite pleadings.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. P-07-2378 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2550-P) - ROMEO O. ESTORES, complainant versus ATTY. PERLITA VITAN-ELE, Executive Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court (RTC-OCC), Quezon City and TERESITA S. FABILA, Records Officer III and Section Head, Notarial and Archives Section, same office, respondents.
For resolution is a verified complaint for disbarment[1] against respondent Atty. Perlita Yitan-Ele, Executive Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, for alleged violation of Republic Acts Nos. 3019[2] and 6713,[3] filed by Romeo O. Estores before the Office of the Court Administrator.
The facts are as follows:
On April 19, 2005, respondent Teresita S. Fabila received from complainant Estores a letter,[4] addressed to the Clerk of Court, requesting a "xerox copy" of a document denominated Cancellation of Mortgage as entered in the Notarial Book of Atty. Joel G. Gordola as Doc. No. 176, Page No. 36, Book [No.] 29, Series of 2001, Quezon City. Fabila introduced Estores to Gabriel "Jojo" Refe to whom verification of the request was assigned. Fabila then informed Estores to follow-up his request with Refe and gave him Refe's telephone number. Fabila also told Estores that she or Atty. Vitan-Ele need not respond in writing in view of the foregoing arrangement.
Estores claimed that he called more than ten times to follow-up his request, but no one answered the phone.
On May 23, 2005 and June 1, 2005, the Office of the Clerk of Court received Estores's follow-up letters. Respondent Atty. Vitan-Ele referred the first letter to Fabila while the Assistant Clerk of Court also referred the second letter to Fabila. Fabila did not answer any of the letters in view of her earlier arrangement with Estores.
In his Complaint dated November 15, 2006, Estores bewailed Atty. Vitan-Ele's inaction on his request and sought her disbarment and dismissal from government service. Later, in a letter[5] dated January 29, 2007 addressed to the Court Administrator, Estores also sought Fabila's dismissal from government service on the ground of laziness and laxity in her job.
Immediately upon receipt of the 1st Indorsement[6] of the Office of the Court Administrator requiring her comment, Atty. Vitan-Ele issued Memorandum/Circular No. 92 dated January 4, 2007 directing Fabila to comment on Estores's complaint.
In her January 8, 2007 explanation[7] to Atty. Vitan-Ele, Fabila recalled her arrangement with Estores and expressed her surprise over Estores's disbarment complaint against Atty. Vitan-Ele.
On January 12, 2007, Atty Vitan-Ele filed her letter-comment.[8] Atty. Vitan-Ele stated that Estores appears to have forgotten said arrangement. She also said that Fabila, as Records Officer III and Section Head of the Notarial and Archives Section, can act on Estores's request. It is only after a document is retrieved that it is presented to her for certification, with the letter-request attached. In her view, Estores's request was properly acted upon by Fabila. Atty. Vitan-Ele also averred that she was not even aware of the letter-request if not for the first follow-up letter.
On January 24, 2007,[9] Atty. Vitan-Ele also informed Estores of the status of his request. She made reference to Fabila's explanation, to wit:
x x x xThe Office of the Court Administrator, in its Memorandum of July 13, 2007 to this Court, found Atty. Vitan-Ele and Fabila administratively liable and recommended the imposition of penalties on them:
2. That based on the notarial reports submitted by Atty. Joel G. Gordola for the year 2001, there was no Notarial Book No. 29 that was submitted as shown in the attached lists of notarial reports submitted in this office, hence, the inability to issue xerox copy of the requested Cancellation of Mortgage...;
3. Such that the undersigned had informed Atty. Joel G. Gordola about the requested document, however, according to Mrs. Gordola, in- charge of his notarial records, their files [had] been destroyed thru an unforeseen circumstance, hence, they cannot confirm as to the existence of Book No. 29.[10]
x x x x
In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele be REPRIMANDED and Teresita S. Fabila be SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) month without pay and they be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.[11]After a full review of the records of this case, we find that modifications of the above recommendation are in order.
First, as regards respondent Fabila, we find that she has not been properly notified and informed of Estores's complaint seeking her dismissal from government .service on the ground of laziness and laxity in her job.
We note that Estores's complaint dated November 15, 2006 was for the disbarment of Atty. Vitan-Ele. He charged Fabila only in his January 29, 2007 letter-reply to Atty. Vitan-Ele's explanation. Nothing in the records shows that Fabila knows Estores's subsequent complaint against her.
Extant in the records are Fabila's explanation dated January 8, 2007 on the disbarment complaint against Atty. Vitan-Ele,[12] and Fabila's explanation dated January 22, 2007 as to her action on Estores's letter-request.[13] Both were in response to two memoranda issued by Atty. Vitan-Ele. Both were also dated earlier than Estores's letter dated January 29, 2007. Certainly, both were not Fabila's answer to Estores's complaint against her.
We cannot simply penalize Fabila who is uninformed of the complaint against her. Due process requires that we give her an opportunity to answer Estores's complaint. Thus, Fabila is hereby directed to answer Estores's allegations in his letter dated January 29, 2007 within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution.
Second, as regards respondent Atty. Vitan-Ele, the established facts of this case do not support a finding that she is guilty of deceit, malpractice, or gross misconduct.[14] Hence, we dismiss the disbarment charge against her for lack of evidence.
We also dismiss the charge against Atty. Vitan-Ele for alleged violation of Rep. Act No. 3019. The Office of the Court Administrator maintains that it has no authority to make a finding of guilt or innocence on this criminal charge, and states that the record is bereft of any evidence that Atty. Vitan-Ele has violated said law. After our own careful study of the records and Rep. Act No. 3019, we agree with the Office of the Court Administrator that Atty. Vitan-Ele did not commit any unlawful and corrupt practice under Section 3(a)to(k)[15] of the law.
We reserve our ruling on the charge of violation of Rep. Act No. 6713 against Atty. Vitan-Ele. We shall dispose this aspect of the case together with Estores's complaint against Fabila, after we shall have considered Fabila's required answer.
Third, the Office of the Court Administrator calls our attention to the case docketed as CPL-L-07-0067 (Romeo O. Estores v. Perlita Vitan-Ele), the complete records of which were referred to it by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon for appropriate action. As far as the Ombudsman is concerned, said case is considered closed and terminated.[16]
In Estores's complaint[17] in CPL-L-07-0067, he said that on September 13, 2006, he sent a letter to Atty. Vitan-Ele requesting a certified true "xerox copy1' of a Deed of Partition of Co-Ownership With Waiver of Rights as Notarized by Notary Public Atty. Adonis V. Gabriel with PTR No. A-7291411/01-23-06, Quezon City. While he said that his letter is Annex "A" of the complaint, we did not find it.[18] What we found were Annexes "B" and "C" or his follow-up letters dated September 20, 2006 and September 27, 2006. These follow-up letters, however, were vague since the letters did not indicate the date when the document requested was executed and notarized, or state the notarial entries such as Document No.; Page No.; and Book No. Moreover, the records do not show if Atty. Vitan-Ele received Estores's three letters. Hence, we dismiss CPL-L-07-0067 for lack of merit prima facie.
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED:
(1) That (a) Estores's complaint against respondent Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele, insofar as the charges for disbarment and violation of Rep. Act No. 3019 are concerned be DISMISSED for lack of evidence; and (b) the case CPL-L-07-0067 which was referred by the Ombudsman be deemed CLOSED & TERMINATED;
(2) That the Office of the Court Administrator immediately FURNISH respondent Teresita S. Fabila a copy of the letter-complaint dated January 29, 2007, filed by complainant Romeo O. Estores, and that respondent Fabila COMMENT on the aforesaid letter within ten (10) days from receipt thereof.
(3) As to the charge of violation of Rep. Act No. 6713 filed against Atty. Vitan-Ele, it will be resolved together with Estores's complaint against Fabila after the submission by the parties of the requisite pleadings.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 14-15.
[2] The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
[3] The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
[4] Rollo, p. 16.
[5] Id. at 27-28.
[6] Id. at 13.
[7] Id. at 10-11.
[8] Id. at 6-8.
[9] Id. at 19.
[10] Id. at 20-21.
[11] Id. at 4.
[12] Supra note 7.
[13] Supra note 10.
[14] RULES OF COURT, Rule 138, SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefore. - A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
[15] SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
[16] Rollo, p. 47.
[17] Id. at 49-50.
[18] Id. at 49-53.
