June 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > June 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. NO. P-07-2378 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 07-2550-P) : June 10, 2009] 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) : June 10, 2009]
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 10 June 2009:
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.
Romeo O. Estores filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a verified Complaint for Disbarment[1] against Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele for violation of Republic Acts Nos. 3019[2] and 6713[3] for allegedly failing to act on his letter-request for an issuance of certified photocopy of a notarized document. Later, Estores also charged respondent Teresita S. Fabila of laziness and laxity in her job and sought her dismissal from government service.
On September 26, 2007, we dismissed the charges for disbarment and violation of Rep. Aci No. 3019 ugaiusl respondent Atty. Vitan-Ele for lack of evidence, and required respondent Fabila to submit her comment on Estores's complaint after noting that respondent Fabila had not been given the chance to comment on the charges against her. We likewise resolved to defer the resolution of the charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 6713 against Atty. Vitan-Ele until after respondent Fabila has filed her comment.[4]
Now that the requisite pleadings had been filed, we can proceed to resolve the remaining charges. But first, we restate the facts:
In compliance with our September 26, 2007 Resolution, Fabila filed her Comment[6] dated November 12, 2007. She confirmed her arrangement with Estores which was intended to facilitate the transaction of business. She asserted that nothing was irregular in her delegation of the task to Refe, the Records Verifier of the Notarial Section. She also pointed out that Estores's request did not state the date of notarization of the document requested and that Estores ignored her instruction to provide this detail. Still, she made an exhaustive search for the document. However, because the notarial registry submitted by Atty. Gordola for 2001 did not contain the document, compliance with Estores's request became impossible. Fabila also disputed Estores's claim that his phone calls were not answered and cited the standard operating procedure in their office to answer all calls. She further said that she acts promptly on all requests. Her employment record in the past ton years is unblemished by my charge of laziness, laxity, neglect of duty or corruption. Thus, she played for the dismissal of the complaint.
On January 23, 2008, we required the parties to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.[7] Respondents complied and submitted the case for resolution. Atty. Vitan-Ele, however, added in her Manifestation and Comment[8] dated July 28, 2008, that Estores's request and follow-up letters were referred to Fabila as a matter of procedure because under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, it is Fabila's duty to prepare an answer to Estores. Atty. Vitan-Ele also maintained that she was never remiss in her duties as Clerk of Court and has not violated Rep. Act No. 6713. Estores, for his part, failed to comply with the January 23 and August 11, 2008 Resolutions. Hence, the filing of his manifestation was considered waived on October 6, 2008.
Considering the established facts and the parties' submissions, we find that Fabila failed to respond properly to Estores's request as required by Section 5(a)[9] of Rep. Act No. 6713.
So much more can be desired on how Estores's request was handled. Per Section 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 6713, the simplest but sufficient action was to respond to Estores within 15 working days from receipt of his request, regardless of Fabila's arrangement with Estores to follow-up his request with Refe. The reply required is not even complicated. It must only contain the action taken on the request: after a thorough search, the document cannot be found. Estores's first follow-up letter, referred to Fabila by Atty. Vitan-Ele, should have impelled Fabila to act with dispatch.
However, Fabila failed to at least inform Atty. Vitan-Ele that the document requested could not be found. Their procedure was to present a document retrieved to Atty. Vitan-Ele for certification. If Fabila thought that Atty. Vitan-Ele was also the proper officer to respond to Estores, Fabila should have informed Atty. Vitan-Ele that the document was not on file so that the latter could respond. As Records Officer III and Section Head/officer-in-charge of the Notarial and Archives Section, Fabila could also have shown some initiative by drafting the reply. After all, one of her functions is to prepare answers to correspondence and communications relative to the records kept by the Records Section.[10] It is the Notarial Section which she heads that issues authenticated and certified copies of documents filed by commissioned notaries public.[11]
Actually, considering Fabila's position, she herself could have responded to Estores, within the period required by Section 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 6713. Unfortunately, she did not. Fabila explained that the Notarial Section cannot issue the requested photocopy of the cancellation of mortgage because the notarial reports submitted by Atty. Gordola did not contain such document. But Atty. Vitan-Ele's letter to Estores dated January 24, 2007, which cited Fabila's explanation, came 1 year and 9 months after Estores's request on April 19, 2005 or 1 year and 8 months after Estores's first follow-up letter on May 23, 2005.
While Fabila acted immediately on Estores's request by assigning Refe to retrieve the document she failed to respond and inform Estores of the action taken within the period required by law.
We emphasize the State policy under Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees:
Obedience to a simple rule as acting promptly on letters and requests under Section 5 (a) of the Code would further the avowed policy.
We also note that in Pamintuan v. Ente-Alcantara,[12] the Court cited Administrative Circular No. 8-99, issued by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (Ret.), reminding all officials and personnel of the Judiciary of Section 5(a) and (d) of Rep. Act No. 6713. The circular was issued because of instances when letters, complaints or requests from the public addressed to officials of the Judiciary were bolnledly answered or not answered at all.[13]
Regarding thu penalty, our September 20, 2007 Resolution modified the recommendation of the OCA to suspend Fabila. This is not the first time that a court employee violated Section 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 6713. In Pamintuan, this Court has reprimanded a first-time offender who violated said Section 5 (a), which is classified as a light offense penalized by reprimand for the first offense under Section 52(C)(13), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Since this is Fabila's first offense, the appropriate penalty is reprimand.[14]
In the case of Atty. Vitan-Ele, she did what she had to do: refer the first follow-up letter she received to Fabila who is the officer responsible for attending to Estores's request. Ideally, Atty. Vitan-Ele could have monitored the progress of her referral. In this case, however, it was already Fabila's duty to act on Atty. Vitan-Ele's referral and to respond to Estores. Hence, we exonerate Atty. Vitan-Ele.
On another matter, we note that respondents, especially Atty. Vitan-Ele, never questioned Estores's motives. Aside from this case, Estores also filed a case before the Ombudsman due to Atty. Vitan-Ele's alleged inaction on his request for a copy of another notarized document. In our September 26, 2007 Resolution, we dismissed the case for lack of merit prima facie and declared closed and terminated the case filed with the Ombudsman who referred it to the OCA. in this vuso, Estores requested a copy of a document that is not on file and his request lacked the date of notarization of the document, as pointed out by Ftlblln, Aside from these observations, however, we found no other basis to reasonably conclude that Estores is filing harassment suits against Atty. Vitan-Ele. Nonetheless, in any future request, Estores must provide the complete details to facilitate document search. He is also reminded to heed this Court's orders because he ought to substantiate his complaints and he risks an adverse consequence for disobeying a court order.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele, Executive Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Quezon City, for lack of merit.
Respondent Teresita S. Fabila, Records Officer III and Section Head, Notarial and Archives Section, of that office, is REPRIMANDED for her violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713. She is warned that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future will merit a stiffer penalty.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (additional member per Special Order No. 645 in lieu of Carpio Morales, I, on official leave), Minita Chico-Nazario (designated additional member per Special Order No. 658), Arturo D. Brion, and Teresita L. De Castro (designated additional member per Special Order No. 635), Members, Second Division, this 10th day of June, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHl YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
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.
Romeo O. Estores filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a verified Complaint for Disbarment[1] against Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele for violation of Republic Acts Nos. 3019[2] and 6713[3] for allegedly failing to act on his letter-request for an issuance of certified photocopy of a notarized document. Later, Estores also charged respondent Teresita S. Fabila of laziness and laxity in her job and sought her dismissal from government service.
On September 26, 2007, we dismissed the charges for disbarment and violation of Rep. Aci No. 3019 ugaiusl respondent Atty. Vitan-Ele for lack of evidence, and required respondent Fabila to submit her comment on Estores's complaint after noting that respondent Fabila had not been given the chance to comment on the charges against her. We likewise resolved to defer the resolution of the charge for violation of Rep. Act No. 6713 against Atty. Vitan-Ele until after respondent Fabila has filed her comment.[4]
Now that the requisite pleadings had been filed, we can proceed to resolve the remaining charges. But first, we restate the facts:
On April 19, 2005, respondent Teresita S. Fabila received from complainant Estores a letter, 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...
x x x x
[In her Comment,] Atty. Vitan-Ele stated that Estores appears to have forgotten [his] arrangement [with Fabllaj, She also said that Fabila, as Records Officer III and Section Head of the Notarial and Archives Section, can act on Estore'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, Atty. Vitan-Ele also informed Estores of the status of his request. She made reference to Fabila's explanation, to wit: [(1) the notarial reports submitted by Atty. Joel G. Gordola for 2001 did not contain Notarial Book No. 29, hence, the inability to issue the document requested; and, (2) Mrs. Gordola, in-charge of Atty. Gordola's notarial records, cannot confirm the existence of Book No. 29 because their files had been destroyed through an unforeseen circumstance.]
[In another Letter-Complaint 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.][5]
In compliance with our September 26, 2007 Resolution, Fabila filed her Comment[6] dated November 12, 2007. She confirmed her arrangement with Estores which was intended to facilitate the transaction of business. She asserted that nothing was irregular in her delegation of the task to Refe, the Records Verifier of the Notarial Section. She also pointed out that Estores's request did not state the date of notarization of the document requested and that Estores ignored her instruction to provide this detail. Still, she made an exhaustive search for the document. However, because the notarial registry submitted by Atty. Gordola for 2001 did not contain the document, compliance with Estores's request became impossible. Fabila also disputed Estores's claim that his phone calls were not answered and cited the standard operating procedure in their office to answer all calls. She further said that she acts promptly on all requests. Her employment record in the past ton years is unblemished by my charge of laziness, laxity, neglect of duty or corruption. Thus, she played for the dismissal of the complaint.
On January 23, 2008, we required the parties to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.[7] Respondents complied and submitted the case for resolution. Atty. Vitan-Ele, however, added in her Manifestation and Comment[8] dated July 28, 2008, that Estores's request and follow-up letters were referred to Fabila as a matter of procedure because under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, it is Fabila's duty to prepare an answer to Estores. Atty. Vitan-Ele also maintained that she was never remiss in her duties as Clerk of Court and has not violated Rep. Act No. 6713. Estores, for his part, failed to comply with the January 23 and August 11, 2008 Resolutions. Hence, the filing of his manifestation was considered waived on October 6, 2008.
Considering the established facts and the parties' submissions, we find that Fabila failed to respond properly to Estores's request as required by Section 5(a)[9] of Rep. Act No. 6713.
So much more can be desired on how Estores's request was handled. Per Section 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 6713, the simplest but sufficient action was to respond to Estores within 15 working days from receipt of his request, regardless of Fabila's arrangement with Estores to follow-up his request with Refe. The reply required is not even complicated. It must only contain the action taken on the request: after a thorough search, the document cannot be found. Estores's first follow-up letter, referred to Fabila by Atty. Vitan-Ele, should have impelled Fabila to act with dispatch.
However, Fabila failed to at least inform Atty. Vitan-Ele that the document requested could not be found. Their procedure was to present a document retrieved to Atty. Vitan-Ele for certification. If Fabila thought that Atty. Vitan-Ele was also the proper officer to respond to Estores, Fabila should have informed Atty. Vitan-Ele that the document was not on file so that the latter could respond. As Records Officer III and Section Head/officer-in-charge of the Notarial and Archives Section, Fabila could also have shown some initiative by drafting the reply. After all, one of her functions is to prepare answers to correspondence and communications relative to the records kept by the Records Section.[10] It is the Notarial Section which she heads that issues authenticated and certified copies of documents filed by commissioned notaries public.[11]
Actually, considering Fabila's position, she herself could have responded to Estores, within the period required by Section 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 6713. Unfortunately, she did not. Fabila explained that the Notarial Section cannot issue the requested photocopy of the cancellation of mortgage because the notarial reports submitted by Atty. Gordola did not contain such document. But Atty. Vitan-Ele's letter to Estores dated January 24, 2007, which cited Fabila's explanation, came 1 year and 9 months after Estores's request on April 19, 2005 or 1 year and 8 months after Estores's first follow-up letter on May 23, 2005.
While Fabila acted immediately on Estores's request by assigning Refe to retrieve the document she failed to respond and inform Estores of the action taken within the period required by law.
We emphasize the State policy under Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees:
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy.-It is the policy of the State to promote a high standard of ethics in public sendee. Public officials and employees shall at all times be accountable to the people and shall discharge their duties with utmost responsibility, integrity,, competence, and loyalty, act with patriotism and justice, lead modest lives, and uphold public interest over personal interest. [Underscoring supplied.]
Obedience to a simple rule as acting promptly on letters and requests under Section 5 (a) of the Code would further the avowed policy.
We also note that in Pamintuan v. Ente-Alcantara,[12] the Court cited Administrative Circular No. 8-99, issued by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (Ret.), reminding all officials and personnel of the Judiciary of Section 5(a) and (d) of Rep. Act No. 6713. The circular was issued because of instances when letters, complaints or requests from the public addressed to officials of the Judiciary were bolnledly answered or not answered at all.[13]
Regarding thu penalty, our September 20, 2007 Resolution modified the recommendation of the OCA to suspend Fabila. This is not the first time that a court employee violated Section 5(a) of Rep. Act No. 6713. In Pamintuan, this Court has reprimanded a first-time offender who violated said Section 5 (a), which is classified as a light offense penalized by reprimand for the first offense under Section 52(C)(13), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Since this is Fabila's first offense, the appropriate penalty is reprimand.[14]
In the case of Atty. Vitan-Ele, she did what she had to do: refer the first follow-up letter she received to Fabila who is the officer responsible for attending to Estores's request. Ideally, Atty. Vitan-Ele could have monitored the progress of her referral. In this case, however, it was already Fabila's duty to act on Atty. Vitan-Ele's referral and to respond to Estores. Hence, we exonerate Atty. Vitan-Ele.
On another matter, we note that respondents, especially Atty. Vitan-Ele, never questioned Estores's motives. Aside from this case, Estores also filed a case before the Ombudsman due to Atty. Vitan-Ele's alleged inaction on his request for a copy of another notarized document. In our September 26, 2007 Resolution, we dismissed the case for lack of merit prima facie and declared closed and terminated the case filed with the Ombudsman who referred it to the OCA. in this vuso, Estores requested a copy of a document that is not on file and his request lacked the date of notarization of the document, as pointed out by Ftlblln, Aside from these observations, however, we found no other basis to reasonably conclude that Estores is filing harassment suits against Atty. Vitan-Ele. Nonetheless, in any future request, Estores must provide the complete details to facilitate document search. He is also reminded to heed this Court's orders because he ought to substantiate his complaints and he risks an adverse consequence for disobeying a court order.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the complaint against Atty. Perlita Vitan-Ele, Executive Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, Quezon City, for lack of merit.
Respondent Teresita S. Fabila, Records Officer III and Section Head, Notarial and Archives Section, of that office, is REPRIMANDED for her violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713. She is warned that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future will merit a stiffer penalty.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (additional member per Special Order No. 645 in lieu of Carpio Morales, I, on official leave), Minita Chico-Nazario (designated additional member per Special Order No. 658), Arturo D. Brion, and Teresita L. De Castro (designated additional member per Special Order No. 635), Members, Second Division, this 10th day of June, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHl 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, approved on February 20, 1989.
[4] Rollo, pp. 60-64.
[5] Id. at 60-61.
[6] Id. at 66-72.
[7] Id. at 87.
[8] Id. at 92-93.
[9] SEC. 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees.-In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to:
(a) Act promptly on letters and requests.-All public officials and employees shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond to letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public. The reply must contain the action taken on the request.
x x x x
[10] THE 2002 REVISED MANUAL FOR CLERKS OF COURT 196 (2002),
... Records Officer III...
x x x x
2.1.4.6. prepares answers to correspondence and communications relative to the records kept by the Section;
x x x x
[11] Id. at 207-208.
3.1.2.2. Notarial Section
x x x x
b. issues authenticated and certified copies of documents filed by commissioned notaries public;
x x x x
[12] A.M. No. P-04-1912, December 17, 2004, 447 SCRA 277.
[13] Id. at 282-283.
[14] Id. at 284-285.
