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. 89 -
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL EMILIO CECILIO
OF NUEVA ECIJA FOR (1) "DISHONESTY, BAD FAITH, IMMORAL USE OF AUTHORITY
OR INFLUENCE INHERENT TO HIS OFFICE, AND MALICIOUS CONNIVANCE WITH
ANOTHER PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO SUPPRESS PUBLIC DOCUMENT" AND (2) CONDUCT
UNBECOMING A PUBLIC OFFICIAL
This refers to the administrative case
filed by Rafael Pambid against former Assistant Provincial Fiscal
Emilio Cecilio of Nueva Ecija for (1) "dishonesty, bad faith, immoral
use of authority or influence inherent to his office, and malicious
connivance with another public official to suppress public document"
and (2) conduct unbecoming a public official.
Anent the first charge, complainant Pambid alleged that respondent,
knowing that Emilio Valdez falsified a "Kasulatan ng Pagkakaloob,"
dated May 14, 1961, whereby Beatriz Altuberos (who died on August 8,
1952) purportedly donated to Valdez a parcel of land in Bongabon, Nueva
Ecija, covered by TCT No. 5918, nevertheless purchased from Valdez said
parcel of land; that, in connivance with the Register of deeds of Nueva
Ecija and using his influence as Assistant Provincial Fiscal, he
succeeded in having TCT No. 5918 reconstituted although the said title
was not missing at all but was only suppressed by the Register of
Deeds; that the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija ordered the
reconstitution of TCT No. 5918; that subsequently, in collusion with
the Register of Deeds, respondent obtained TCT No. NT-66670 in his
name; and that after a few days, respondent mortgaged the property for
P9,500.00 to the Philippine National Bank (PNB).
On the second charge, it is averred that, sometime in October and
November 1977, respondent utilized PC Sgt. R.B. Joson to illegally
wrest possession of the land from the tenants and forced them to sign a
contract of tenancy with him.
After investigation conducted by City Fiscal Manuel R. Maza of San Jose
City, respondent was found innocent of the first charge, but guilty of
non-payment of real estate taxes, non-payment of just debt to the PNB
and forcibly taking possession of the land from the tenants.
The then Secretary of Justice agreed with the findings of the City
Fiscal. As to the first charge, it was established that Emilio Valdez
could not be guilty of estafa thru falsification of public document, as
he presented a death certificate showing that Beatriz Altuberos died on
January 31, 1969, and not on August 8, 1952. With a valid deed of
donation, Valdez could transfer ownership to respondent at the time of
the execution of the deed of sale.
It further appears that respondent was issued TCT No. NT-66670 on the
basis of a valid deed of sale and not because of collusion with the
Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija. Indeed, there was no need for such
collusion, since respondent had a valid deed of sale to present.
Neither was there any collusion between respondent and the Register of
Deeds regarding the reconstitution of TCT No. 5918. Upon a finding of
the court that reconstitution is in order, the duty of the Register of
Deeds to reconstitute TCT No. 5918 is only ministerial.
Anent the second charge, while respondent may have a title to the land,
he had no right to take possession of the land forcibly from the
tenants, who were in continuos occupation thereof long before he
acquired title to it, in a matter other than that prescribed by law.
Certainly, there was no necessity for the presence of PC Sgt. Joson, if
the purpose was only to advise the tenants that they had no right to
stay in the land. Precisely, the presence of said PC sergeant,
displaying physical power or threat of use of the same, instilled such
fear upon the tenants as to compel them to surrender possession of the
land. Such forcible taking of possession from the tenants constitutes a
violation or obstruction of their right to be respected in their
possession. Be that as it may, it appears that the tenants themselves
decided to enter into a contract of tenancy with respondent in order to
take advantage of the right to purchase the portions they cultivate
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27.
Accordingly, the Secretary of Justice found respondent guilty of
non-payment of real estate taxes, non-payment of just debt to the PNB,
and forcibly taking possession of the land from the tenants, and
recommended that respondent be suspended from office for one(1)year
without pay.
On August 29, 1985, this Office requested the Ministry (now Department)
of Justice for updated comment/recommendation on the administrative
case against respondent, as well as information on his current
personnel status, considering that respondent's case was not acted upon
by the former President.
In a 2nd indorsement to this Office, dated July 25, 1986, the Ministry
of Justice commented that the pending administrative case against
respondent was "considered abated by reason of his retirement from the
government service on June 30, 1975, in the spirit of the President's
memorandum to the Secretary of Justice dated December 14, 1972 in the
case of Judge Vivencio M. Ruiz, considering the administrative case
against him as moot and academic because of his retirement." It was
also opined that since respondent is no longer connected with the
government in any capacity whatsoever, his official ties therewith
having been completely severed with his retirement from the service on
June 20, 1975, as stated in the aforesaid 2nd indorsement dated July
25, 1986, the instant case may be deemed moot and academic.
On the issue of respondent's status after his retirement, the better
and more recent rule is that which was pointed out in the later case of
People vs. Valenzuela (L-63950-60 April 19, 1985, 135 SCRA 712), citing
Perez vs. Abiera (Adm. Case No. 223-J, June 11, 1975, 64 SCRA 302), to
the effect that the doctrinal pronouncement in the Andula vs. Lucero
case (Adm. Matter No. 679-ACJ, December 19, 1974, 61 SCRA 416) is
abandoned and is not to be applied with undeviating rigidity,
considering that:
". . It was not the intent of the court in the case of Quintillan to
set down a hard and fast rule that the resignation or retirement of a
respondent judge as the case may be renders moot and academic the
administrative case pending against him; nor did the Court mean to
divest itself of jurisdiction to impose certain penalties short of
dismissal from the government service should there be a finding of
guilt on the basis of the evidence. In other words, the jurisdiction
that was Ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint
was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had
ceased to be in the office during the pendency of his case. The Court
retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official
innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule
would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and
dangerous implications. For what remedy would the people have against a
judge or any other public official who resorts to wrongful and illegal
conduct during his last days in office? What would prevent some corrupt
and unscrupulous magistrate from committing abuses and other
condemnable acts knowing fully well that he would soon be beyond the
pale of the law and immune to all administrative penalties? If only for
reasons of public policy, this Court must assert and maintain its
jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials under
its supervision and control for acts performed in office which are
inimical to the service and prejudicial to the interests of litigants
and the general public. If innocent, respondent official merits
vindication of his name and integrity as she leaves the government
which he served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive
the corresponding censure and penalty proper and imposable under the
situation.' (Emphasis added.)
After a careful review of the case, I concur in the findings of the Department of Justice that respondent is guilty of non-payment of real estate taxes, non-payment of just debt to the PNB and forcibly taking possession of the land from the tenants.
However, since respondent is no longer in the government service, the penalty of suspension from office for one (1) year without pay is no longer administerable. On the other hand, to make him refund to the government the equivalent of his one (1) year salary is too harsh. At most, respondent should be fined with one (1) month of his salary.
WHEREFORE, former Assistant Provincial Fiscal EMILIO CECILIO of Nueva Ecija is hereby fined in an amount equivalent to his one (1) month salary at the time the administrative complaint was filed, and is hereby ordered to pay the corresponding amount to the government within fifteen (15) days from his receipt hereof.
Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of September, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and eighty-eight.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.