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. 28 -
FINDING THE LATE ATTY. TITO R. CAÑEDO, JR., FORMER REGISTER OF
DEEDS OF AGUSAN DEL SUR, GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND DISHONESTY
(ILLEGAL EXACTION).
This refers to the administrative case
against Atty. Tito R. Cañedo, Jr., Register of Deeds of Agusan
del Sur, for grave misconduct and dishonesty (illegal exaction).
Records show that the case arose from the telegram of Atty. Ceferino
Paredes, Jr., Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur, dated March 13,
1978, informing the Land Registration Commission of certain acts of
respondent consisting of, among others, the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
The Acting Commissioner of Land Registration in an Assignment Order,
dated March 20, 1978, directed Atty. Domingo Cristobal of the
Commission to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the matters
alleged in the aforesaid telegram of Atty. Paredes. Atty. Cristobal
conducted a fact-finding investigation. In his written Report and
Recommendation, he recommended as follows:
"In view of the foregoing circumstances and findings which undoubtedly
provide clear and strong evidence to support the charges of Atty.
Ceferino Paredes, Jr., against Register of Deeds Tito R. Cañedo,
Jr., it is most respectfully recommended to the Honorable Acting
Commissioner that formal administrative charges be filed immediately
against Tito Cañedo, Jr. It is further recommended that
certified zerox copies of all titles and documents involved in the case
be forwarded this Commission and the original thereof on file in the
Registry be safe-guarded against tampering and loss, As an alternative,
however, his resignation filed under Letter of Instruction No. 11, be
recommended for acceptance to the President."
Accordingly, the Acting Commissioner of Land Registration Commission
filed the corresponding charges against Atty. Tito R. Cañedo,
Jr., and directed the latter to explain within 72 hours from receipt of
the communication why no administrative disciplinary action should be
taken against him for grave misconduct, illegal exaction and
dishonesty.
On May 11, 1978, the Acting Land Registration Commissioner received
another letter for Atty. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., dated May 8, 1978,
informing him that Atty. Tito R. Cañedo, Jr., had committed
falsification of public documents in his official capacity as chief by
causing the issuance of several certificates of title covering several
parcels of land which comprised a substantial portion of Barangay Mate,
San Francisco, Agusan del Sur, without any lawfully issued patents upon
which to base the issuance of the titles. The Acting Commissioner in
his letter dated May 24, 1978, directed respondent to submit his answer
to their charges.
Respondent Tito R. Cañedo, Jr., submitted his answers on June
17, 1978 and June 27, 1978, respectively, where he denied culpability
by either shifting the blame to the witnesses against him or to his
subordinates in the office and some personnel in the Bureau of Lands,
or by denying having any knowledge and information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations against him.
With the issues joined, an investigation was then conducted and, on
August 20, 1980, the hearing officer found the respondent guilty of the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The hearing officer recommended that the penalty of dismissal from the
service be imposed on respondent.
The Acting Commissioner of Land Registration concurred in the above
findings and recommended that respondent be found guilty of grave
misconduct and dishonesty (illegal exaction) and penalized with
dismissal from the service. Upon review, the Minister of Justice
affirmed the findings and recommendation on respondent's guilt and
dismissal from the service.
While this case was under consideration in this Office, respondent died
on May 9, 1983. Consequently, his son, Atty. Tito Cañedo III,
requested that the instant case be dropped to enable respondent's
surviving heirs to avail of whatever benefits the deceased may be
entitled under existing laws.
In our 2nd Indorsement to the Ministry (now Department) of Justice,
dated April 29, 1986, for an updated comment and recommendation on the
administrative case against respondent, Minister (now Secretary)
Neptali A. Gonzales recommended that the case at bar be decided on the
merits notwithstanding the death of the respondent on May 9, 1983,
considering that the penalty of dismissal from the service as
recommended by the Ministry in its 1st Indorsement, dated November 27,
1980, carries with its certain administrative disabilities affecting
whatever benefits there may be accruing to the heirs of the said
respondent. The Justice Minister likewise reiterated his recommendation
for the dismissal of the respondent from the service for the reasons
set forth in his 1st Indorsement.
On the propriety of proceeding with the instant administrative case,
considering that the respondent had died in the meantime, the Supreme
Court has held that an administrative complaint should be resolved
notwithstanding the death of the respondent during the pendency of the
administrative case to the end that respondent's heirs may not be
deprived of any retirement gratuity and other accrued benefits that
they may be entitled to receive as a result of respondent's death in
office, as against a possible forfeiture thereof should his guilt be
established at the investigation. (Hermosa vs. Paraiso, Adm. Case No.
P-189, February 14, 1975 62 SCRA 361.)
We find no reversible error in the finding of the hearing officer, as
subsequently concurred in by the Commissioner of Land Registration and
the Minister of Justice. Absent any taint of irregularity, the findings
of fact of the Land Registration Commission officials must be upheld,
such officials being in a better position to consider and evaluate the
evidence in the light of the authority vested in them by law. (Ganitano
vs. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources et al, L-21167,
March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 543, 546-547). Moreover, the records are
replete with documentary and testimonial evidence which after a
meticulous and circumspect evaluation conclusively sustain the findings
of guilt of respondent.
The mere fact that respondent had been absolved from the criminal
complaint against him based on the same set of facts due to the motion
of the prosecuting fiscal to drop the case, did not necessarily absolve
the respondent in the administrative case. The acquittal of an accused
in a criminal case is no bar to his conviction in the administrative
charges filed against him based on the same facts which failed to
sustain conviction in the former, in view of their differences in
objectives and the quantum of evidence required in each. (Manikad et.
al., vs. Tanodbayan, et. al. L-65097, February 20, 1984, 127 SCRA 724,
729.)
In the case at bar, the hearing officer was so persuaded by the
overwhelming documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the
prosecution that he was constrained to conclude that the guilt of the
respondent has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Though, as
aforestated, in administrative cases it is enough that substantial
evidence is obtained showing the culpability of the respondent.
Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as evidence to
support a conclusion. (Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 40 O.G. 7th Sup 129.)
WHEREFORE, I hereby find the late Atty. Tito R. Cañedo, Jr.,
former Register of Deeds of Agusan del Sur, guilty of grave misconduct
and dishonesty (illegal exaction). Accordingly, his heirs are
disqualified from claiming retirement and other benefits under existing
laws and regulations.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 10th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
eighty-seven.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.