31. AM No. P-07-2337 Aug.

3, 2007
Rolly Pentecostes vs. Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan

Facts:
Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan (respondents) Clerk of Court VI of the
Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan, North
Cotabato, stands administratively charged with grave misconduct and conduct
unbecoming a public officer for the loss of a motorcycle-subject matter of a
criminal case which was placed under his care and custody.
The administrative case against respondent stemmed from a sworn
affidavit-complaint filed by Rolly Pentecostes the owner of a Kawasaki
motorcycle, which was recovered by members of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) of Mlang, North Cotabato from suspected carnappers against whom a
criminal case for carnapping was lodged at Branch 22, RTC, Kabacan,
North Cotabato.
On the order of the trial court, the chief of police of
Mlang, North Cotabato turned over the motorcycle to respondent who
acknowledged receipt thereof on August 1, 1995.
After the conduct of hearings to determine the true owner of the
motorcycle, the trial court issued an Order of November 15, 2000 for its release
to Pentecostes.
Pentecostes immediately asked respondent to release the motorcycle to
him. Respondent, however, told him to wait and come back repeatedly from
2001 up to the filing of the complaint.

A. Regional Trial Court Decision

By Resolution of October 19, 2005,this Court referred the case to the

Executive Judge of RTC, Kabacan, North Cotabato, for investigation, report and
recommendation.

Then Executive Judge Francisco G. Rabang, Jr. of the RTC, Kabacan,

North Cotabato submitted on January 16, 2006 his findings
and recommendation for the dismissal of the administrative complaint against
respondent.
B. The office of the court administrator findings
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the investigating judges
recommendation to be sufficiently supported by the evidence.

The OCA thus concurred with Judge Rabangs recommendation for the
dismissal of the complaint against respondent, subject to certain qualifications
with respect to the physical condition of the vehicle upon its delivery to
respondent and the latters lack of authority for the turn over of the vehicle to
the PNP of Kabacan.

Although the OCA agreed with the investigating judge that the evidence
sufficiently proved that the vehicle was turned over to the PNP of Kabacan
where it got lost, it noted that respondent failed to ask prior authority from the
trial court to transfer its custody.

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that respondent be reminded to

secure prior authority from the court before evidence is turned over to any
authorized government office or agency and that he be warned to be more
careful to prevent any similar incident from arising in the future.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent clerk of court committed an act of misconduct.

Held:
Yes. The finding of the OCA insofar as respondents lack of authority to
transfer the motorcycle is well taken, on account of which
respondent is administratively liable for simple misconduct.
It is the duty of the clerk of court to keep safely all records, papers, files,
exhibits and public property committed to his charge. Section D (4), Chapter
VII of the 1991 Manual For Clerks of Court (now Section E[2], paragraph 2.2.3,
Chapter VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court) provides:

All exhibits used as evidence and turned over to the court and before the
case/s involving such evidence shall have been terminated shall be under the
custody and safekeeping of the Clerk of Court.

Similarly, Section 7 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, provides:

SEC. 7. Safekeeping of property. The clerk shall safely keep all record, papers,
files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge, including the
library of the court, and the seals and furniture belonging to his office.
From the above provisions, it is clear that as clerk of court of the RTC,
Kabacan, respondent was charged with the custody and safekeeping
of Pentecostes motorcycle, and to keep it until the termination of the case,
barring circumstances that would justify its safekeeping elsewhere, and upon
the prior authority of the trial court.
No explanation was offered by respondent, however, for turning over the
motorcycle. But whatever the reason was, respondent was mandated to secure
prior consultations with and approval of the trial court.
This Court has repeatedly emphasized that clerks of court are essential
and ranking officers of our judicial system who perform delicate functions vital
to the prompt and proper administration of justice. Their duties include the
efficient recording, filing and management of court records and, as previously
pointed out, the safekeeping of exhibits and public property committed to their
charge.
Clearly, they play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot
be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another. They
cannot err without affecting the integrity of the court or the efficient
administration of justice.
The same responsibility bears upon all court personnel in view of their
exalted positions as keepers of public faith.
By transferring Pentecostes motorcycle without authority, respondent
failed to give premium to his avowed duty of keeping it under his care and
possession. He must, therefore, suffer the consequences of his act or omission,
which is akin to misconduct.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of
action; more particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. The
misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption,
willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be
proved by substantial evidence. Otherwise, the misconduct is only simple, as in
this case.
The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999) classifies simple misconduct as
a less grave offense, punishable by suspension of One Month and One Day to
Six Months. Considering that this is respondents first offense and no taint of
bad faith has been shown by his actuations, a 15-day suspension without pay
is deemed appropriate.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Clerk of Court Hermenegildo Marasigan, is
found guilty of Simple Misconduct. He is SUSPENDED for 15 days without pay,
with a stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.
 32. AC No.5095 Nov. 28,2007
Father Ranhilio C. Aquino et al vs. Atty. Edwin Pascua

Facts:
Father Ranhilio C. Aquino, then Academic Head of the Philippine Judicial
Academy, joined by Lina M. Garan and the other above-named complainants
filed a complaint against Atty. Edwin Pascua, a Notary Public in Cagayan. In
his letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two
documents committed as follows:

(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the Affidavit-Complaint of one

Joseph B. Acorda entering the same as Doc. No. 1213, Page No. 243, Book III,
Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998.

(2) He also made it appear that he had notarized the Affidavit-Complaint of

one Remigio B. Domingo entering the same as Doc. No. 1214, Page 243, Book
III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998.

Father Aquino further alleged that on June 23 and July 26, 1999, Atty.
Angel Beltran, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, certified that
none of the above entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty. Pascua; that
the last entry therein was Document No. 1200 executed on December 28,
1998; and that, therefore, he could not have notarized Documents Nos. 1213
and 1214 on December 10, 1998.
In his comment on the letter-complaint dated September 4, 1999,
Atty. Pascua admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10,
1998, but they were not entered in his Notarial Register due to the oversight of
his legal secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli, whose affidavit was attached to his
comment.
The case was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for Investigation,
report and recommendation.

A. Office of the Bar Confidant Report and Recommendation

The office of the Bar Confidant issued its report and recommendation
partly reproduced as follows:
 A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its
face. For this reason, notaries public must observe the utmost care to comply
with the formalities and the basic requirement in the performance of their
duties (Realino v. Villamor, 87 SCRA 318).

Under the notarial law, the notary public shall enter in such register, in
chronological order, the nature of each instrument executed, sworn to, or
acknowledged before him, the person executing, swearing to, or acknowledging
the instrument, xxx xxx. The notary shall give to each instrument executed,
sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in
his register, and shall also state on the instrument the page or pages of his
register on which the same is recorded. No blank line shall be left between
entries (Sec. 246, Article V, Title IV, Chapter II of the Revised Administrative
Code).
Failure of the notary to make the proper entry or entries in
his notarial register touching his notarial acts in the manner required by law
is a ground for revocation of his commission (Sec. 249, Article VI).
In the instant case, there is no question that the subject documents
allegedly notarized by Atty. Pascua were not recorded in his notarial register.
Atty. Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but due to oversight
of his staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape liability. His
failure to enter into his notarialregister the documents that he admittedly
notarized is a dereliction of duty on his part as a notary public and he is bound
by the acts of his staff.

The claim of Atty. Pascua that it was simple inadvertence is far from
true.
As a lawyer commissioned to be a notary public, Atty. Pascua is
mandated to subscribe to the sacred duties appertaining to his office, such
duties being dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest.
A member of the Bar may be disciplined or disbarred for any misconduct
in his professional or private capacity. The Court has invariably imposed a
penalty for notaries public who were found guilty of dishonesty or misconduct
in the performance of their duties.
It appearing that this is the first offense of Atty. Pascua, a suspension
from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months may be considered
enough penalty for him as a lawyer.Considering that his offense is also a
ground for revocation of notarial commission, the same should also be imposed
upon him.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is most respectfully recommended that
the notarial commission of Atty. EDWIN V. PASCUA, if still existing, be
REVOKED and that he be SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of
six (6) months

Issue:
Whether or not Atty Pascua is guilty of Misconduct.

Held:
Yes. After a close review of the records of this case, we resolve to adopt
the findings of facts and conclusion of law by the Office of the Bar
Confidant. We find Atty. Pascua guilty of misconduct in the performance of his
duties for failing to register in his Notarial Register the affidavit-complaints of
Joseph B. Acorda and Remigio B. Domingo.
Misconduct generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. The term,
however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent
The penalty to be imposed for such act of misconduct committed by a lawyer is
addressed to the sound discretion of the Court.
In the present case, considering that this is Atty. Pascuas first offense,
we believe that the imposition of a three-month suspension from the practice of
law upon him is in order. Likewise, since his offense is a ground for revocation
of notarial commission, the same should also be imposed upon him.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of misconduct
and is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely. His notarial commission, if still existing, is ordered REVOKED.
33. JBC No.013 Aug. 22, 2007
Judge Jaime V. Quitam

Facts

Judge Jaime Vega Quitain was appointed Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 10, Davao City on May 17, 2003.Subsequent thereto, the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received confidential information that
administrative and criminal charges were filed against Judge Quitain in his
capacity as then Assistant Regional Director, National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM), Regional Office 11, Davao City, as a result of which he was
dismissed from the service per Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 183 dated April
10, 1995

In the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) submitted to the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC) on November 26, 2001, Judge Quitain declared that there were five
criminal cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 18438, 18439, 22812, 22813, and 22814)
filed against him before the Sandiganbayan, which were all dismissed. No
administrative case was disclosed by Judge Qutain in his PDS.

To confirm the veracity of the information, then Deputy Court Administrator

(DCA) Christopher O. Lock (now Court Administrator) requested from
the Sandiganbayan certified copies of the Order(s) dismissing the criminal
cases. On even date, letters were sent to the NAPOLCOM requesting for
certified true copies of documents relative to the administrative complaints filed
against Judge Quitain, particularly A.O. No. 183 dated April 10,
1995 dismissing him from the service. Likewise, DCA Lock required Judge
Quitain to explain the alleged misrepresentation and deception he
committed before the JBC.

In a letter dated November 28, 2003, the NAPOLCOM furnished the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) a copy of A.O. No. 183 showing that respondent
Judge was indeed dismissed from the service for Grave Misconduct for
falsifying or altering the amounts reflected in disbursement vouchers in
support of his claim for reimbursement of expenses.
In a letter dated October 22, 2003 addressed to DCA Lock, Judge Quitain
denied having committed any misrepresentation before the JBC. He alleged
that during his interview, the members thereof only inquired about the
status of the criminal cases filed by the NAPOLCOM before
the Sandiganbayan, and not about the administrative case simultaneously filed
against him. He also alleged that he never received from the Office of the
President an official copy of A.O. No. 183 dismissing him from the service.

A. OCA Recommendation

As borne out by the records, Judge Quitain deliberately did not disclose the
fact that he was dismissed from the government service. At the time he filled
up and submitted his Personal Data Sheet with the Judicial and Bar Council,
he had full knowledge of the subject administrative case, as well as
Administrative Order No. 183 dismissing him from the government service.

On the strength of his misrepresentation, Judge Quitain misled the Judicial

and Bar Council by making it appear that he had a clean record and was
qualified to join the Judiciary. His prior dismissal from the government service
is a blot on his record, which has gone [worse] and has spread even more
because of his concealment of it. Had he not concealed said vital fact, it could
have been taken into consideration when the Council acted on his
application. His act of dishonesty renders him unfit to join the Judiciary, much
less remain sitting as a judge. It even appears that he was dismissed by the
NAPOLCOM for misconduct and dishonesty.

OCA recommended that: (1) the instant administrative case against respondent
be docketed as an administrative matter; and (2) that he be dismissed from the
service with prejudice to his reappointment to any position in the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, and with forfeiture of
all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits.

Issue:
Whether or not Judge Quitain is guilty of misconduct.
Held:
Yes. The Court fully agrees with the disquisition and the
recommendation of the OCA.
It behooves every prospective appointee to the Judiciary to appraise the
appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial office,
including such circumstances as may reflect on his integrity and probity. These
are qualifications specifically required of appointees to the Judiciary by Sec.
7(3), Article VIII of the Constitution.

In this case, Judge Quitain failed to disclose that he was administratively

charged and dismissed from the service for grave misconduct per A.O. No. 183
dated April 10, 1995 by no less than the former President of the Philippines.
Thus, we find respondent guilty of dishonesty. Dishonesty means
disposition to lie, cheat or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity.
Section 8(2), Rule 14 of the Rules of Court classifies dishonesty as a
serious charge. Section 11, same Rules, provides the following sanctions:

SEC. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following sanctions may be imposed:

1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the
Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment
to any public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations. Provided, however, That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case
include accrued leave credits;

2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three
(3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or

3. A fine of not less than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00

We cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and integrity on the part
of all those who are in the service of the Judiciary. We have often stressed that
the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the
lowliest clerk of court, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any
suspicion that may taint the Judiciary. We condemn, and will never
countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in
the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public
accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the
people in the Judiciary. Considering the foregoing, Judge Quitain is hereby
found guilty of grave misconduct. He deserves the supreme penalty of
dismissal. However, on August 9, 2007, the Court received a letter from Judge
Quitain addressed to the Chief Justice stating that he is tendering his
irrevocable resignation effective immediately as Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 10, Davao City. Acting on said letter, the Court Resolved to
accept the irrevocable resignation of Judge Jaime V. Quitain effective August
15, 2007, without prejudice to the decision of the administrative case.

Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by the Court
without prejudice does not render moot and academic the instant
administrative case. WHEREFORE, in view of our finding that JUDGE JAIME
V. QUITAIN is guilty of grave misconduct which would have warranted his
dismissal from the service had he not resigned during the pendency of this
case, he is hereby meted the penalty of a fine of P40,000.00. It appearing that
he has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges, if any, the
Court likewise ORDERS the FORFEITURE of all benefits, except earned leave
credits which Judge Quitain may be entitled to, and he is PERPETUALLY
DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement and appointment to any branch,
instrumentality or agency of the government, including government-owned
and/or controlled corporations.