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. 34 -
IMPOSING A FINE ON ELENITA E. CORPUZ, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF BULACAN
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by Carmelita Areno against Atty. Elenita E. Corpuz, Register of
Deeds of Bulacan, for Negligence and Violation of LRC Circular No. 182,
dated October 1968.
In his letter of July 30, 1992, the Justice Secretary, in relation to
the above-complaint, submitted his report and recommendation, which
reads:
"Briefly,
the facts of the case are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
"In
her sworn answer dated 18 July 1988, Respondent states that as Register
of Deeds, she is not 'empowered to determine the validity or
authenticity' of documents presented for registration; that the
'seeming erasures in the acknowledgment portion of the kasulatan (were)
inconsequential insofar as the rights and interests of the parties to
the deed of partition (are) concerned'; that the 'forum within which to
challenge the efficacy of the kasulatan will be in court, because the
respondent's duty under the circumstances is purely ministerial'.
Further, she averred that she acted promptly on the request of
Complainant; that she advised Complainant to wait and to give Robert
Bartlett ample time to locate the missing title; and that the delay was
occasioned by extreme pressure of work and excusable under LTC Circular
No. 182.
"The LRA Administrator finds
Respondent guilty only of violation of LRC Circular No. 182 and
recommends the imposition of fine equivalent to her two (2) months'
salary with an admonition to exercise prudence in registering documents
with erasures by means of a thorough verification and examination to
avert a repetition of the same or similar incident in the future.
"LRC
Circular No. 182 dated 31 October 1965 provides, as follows:
'One of the primary concerns of
this Commission is to have all papers submitted or coursed to it acted
upon promptly . . . all concerned are hereby directed to dispatch
within twenty-four (24) hours or at most seventy-two (72) hours from
receipt thereof all official papers assigned or referred to them for
actions . . . ."
"We believe that Respondent
should not be held liable for violation of the aforecited circular. The
Record shows that on 30 June 1987 when complainant first made her
request, Respondent called the attention of the vaultkeeper, Robert
Bartlett who had custody of the titles. Mr. Bartlett explained that the
titles could not be located at the moment, and besides there were
others who came ahead of Complainant, hence, he was unable to attend to
her immediately. At this point, Complainant allegedly left the Office
in an angry manner, threatening to report the matter to a 'certain
judge of the Sandiganbayan', prompting Respondent to make an official
record of the incident.
"We find that the alleged delay
in the issuance of the certificate was not attributable to Respondent.
As the supervisor of Mr. Bartlett, she had performed her duty by
calling the vaultkeeper's attention when Complainant sought her
assistance. Under the circumstances, it was impossible for Respondent
to give personal attention to each and every request for certified
copies. It cannot be gainsaid that the tasks of a Register of Deeds as
head of a Registry of Deeds Branch are innumerable. Besides she had
other duties outside the said Branch inasmuch as she was not a
full-time Register thereat, reporting only on Tuesdays and Thursdays,
or twice a week. It would therefore be unreasonable to expect
Respondent to neglect her other duties in order to personally search
for the misplaced titles.
"Moreover,
it is evident that Complainant herself did not take steps to follow
through her request. The Record indicates that she came back to the
Office in the morning of 17 July 1987 or sixteen (16) days after she
initially filed her request. It is noted that Respondent was not
present on that day inasmuch as it was a Friday. As it happened,
Complainant had to come back on 21 July 1987, (a Tuesday) in order that
she could confront Respondent with the Directive of the LRA
Administrator. Perhaps if Complainant had manifested the urgency of the
request by returning before sixteen days had elapsed, her request could
have been acted upon with more dispatch.
"On the other hand, we find the
charge of negligence against Respondent to be meritorious. As
Complainant contends, Respondent acted negligently in giving effect to
a tampered document thereby causing damage to her. Indeed a mere glance
at the document's third page or acknowledgment portion reveals most
glaringly the erasures and alterations thereon such that no one who
would look at the document could fail to take immediate notice.
"Respondent's
denial or her inability to remember any erasures on the 'Kasulatan' is
self-serving. The document speaks for itself. Likewise the testimony of
the two (2) examiners who processed the 'Kasulatan' before presenting
it to Respondent for her signature that they do not remember anything
unusual in the document cannot be relied upon. The facts remain that
their initials as well as Respondent's signature are affixed on the
said document and that none of them bothered to have the alterations
authenticated showing a careless disregard of basic or elementary
procedure.
"As aptly stated in the report
of the investigating officer, '(I)t is an elementary procedure that
when a document presented for registration, like the subject document
('Kasulatan'), contains erasures, the Register of Deeds should exercise
caution in effecting its registration. He/she should first require the
authentication of the erasures/corrections by requiring the presentor
to submit pertinent papers explaining the corrections. It is admitted
by Respondent Register of Deeds that she did not pay attention to the
erasures/corrections on the document, instead, proceeded with its
registration, claiming that her duty is only ministerial.' (Record p.
8, Underscoring supplied) During the hearing of the case, Respondent
even declared that she did not care whether the instrument is 'valid or
not' . . . .
"Wherefore,
premises considered, we recommend that Atty. Elenita Corpuz be
exonerated of the charge of violation of LRA Circular 182. However, she
should be found guilty of negligence for registering an instrument
containing erasures/alterations without requiring the authentication
thereof. Accordingly, she should be meted the penalty of fine
equivalent to three months' salary, in accordance with the CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 8, series of 1970, with the stern warning that
a repetition of the same offense in future shall be dealt with more
severely."
Taking into account the foregoing report and documents relevant to the case, there is hardly no prima facie basis to administratively proceed against respondent for violation of LRC Circular 182. However, from the evidence adduced, I find that respondent's actuation constitutes negligence in the performance of her duties as Register of Deeds warranting administrative sanction.
Administrative negligence is lack of due care and failure to perform a duty that one owes to the injured party. Negligence arises out of an omission to act when there is an obligation to perform some facts (Recto vs. Racelis, 70 SCRA 438).
It was established that respondent who is in charge of registering documents did not exercise caution in effecting registration of the subject tampered document. As admitted, respondent "did not pay attention to the names/corrections on the document, instead, proceeded with its registration, claiming that her duty is only ministerial." This actuation is compounded by the fact that, during the hearing, respondent "even declared that, she did not care whether the instrument is valid or not." Respondent betrayed a total lack of concern for the welfare and interest of the party dealing with the Registry of Deeds when she did not exert effort to authenticate the erasures/corrections by requiring the presentor to submit pertinent papers explaining the corrections. By her omission, she had not caused only damage to complainant, but more importantly has placed the office where she works in a bad light. By ordinary standards, respondent's omission constitutes negligence which justifies the penalty recommended by the Justice Secretary.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Elenita E. Corpuz is adjudged guilty of negligence and, as recommended, she is hereby meted the penalty of fine equivalent to three months salary, with the warning that the same or similar inaction in the future will be dealt with more severely, effective fifteen (15) days after receipt of a copy hereof.
Done in the City of Manila, this 4th day of February in the year of Our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety-three.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.