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. 97 -
IMPOSING A FINE ON FRANCISCO ROMERO, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF KALOOKAN CITY
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by administrator Teodoro G. Bonifacio of the Land Registration
Authority (LRA) against Atty. Francisco G. Romero, Register of Deeds of
Kalookan City, for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the
Service.
In his letter of September 22, 1992, the Secretary of Justice, in
relation to the above-complaint, submitted his report and
recommendation, which reads:
"The
show-cause directive dated 21 August 1991, signed by Administrator
Teodoro G. Bonifacio of the land Registration Authority charges that
Respondent allegedly allowed Ms. Virginia C. Salazar, a former
employee, to discharge duties in (your) Registry as custodian of blank
title forms without the written consent or approval of this Authority,
which resulted in the loss in her possession of seventeen (17) sets of
Judicial Forms 109 and 109-D with Serial Nos. 1933454 to 1933470,
inclusive, and other land titles and documents."
"The alleged circumstances
surrounding the loss of the aforesaid judicial forms and other
documents are narrated by Ms. Salazar in her affidavit dated 25 June
1991, as follows:
'That
on Friday, June 21, 1991, I took along with me for homework Saturday
and Sunday some documents and titles in order to relieve me of some
backlog; . . .
'That bad luck intervened as I
lose said documents and titles to a dishonest taxi driver who failed to
return the documents inspite of return addresses indicated in the
documents; . . .' (Record, p. 26).
"In his answer dated 2 September
1991, Respondent explains the reasons why the allowed Ms. Salazar to
discharge the functions of custodian of blank title forms at the
Kalookan City Registry of deeds as follows:
'Ms. Salazar who enjoyed
preferential re-employment status under the reorganization law was
extended a new appointment as Land Registration Examiner in the
Registry of Deeds of Malabon hen stationed also in Kalookan City,
effective June 1, 1986. Pending approval of her new appointment,
I allowed her to continue performing her duties among which is the
custody of blank title forms. I have done this in good faith
expecting that in a matter of days her appointment would be approved
with retroactive effect.
'It
turned out later from statements made by Ms. Salazar herself and other
sources that her appointment papers were mislaid somewhere and steps
were taken to have the same reconstituted and submitted anew. I
lost track of the matter and because there was no communication from
the head office for Ms. Salazar to discontinue her service, she just
kept on rendering services in the Registry of Deeds of Kalookan
City. I allowed her because her services mitigated the acute lack
of manpower in the Registry.
xxx
'I have to state in this
connection that I do not feel competent to declare the removal of Ms.
Salazar from the service. It was a higher authority that admitted
her into the service, so also must her removal be from the higher
authority. I was neither furnished a copy of the notice
supposedly terminating her services nor informed of the impediment to
her new appointment. I expected that the matter should have been
brought to my attention and probably I could have taken steps towards
her relief and separation from the service. She was therefore, in
my view, never discharged from the service and consequently she may not
be termed a 'former employee.' From this perspective no written
consent or approval need be secured from the Land Registration
Authority for Ms. Salazar to keep custody of blank title forms.
That duty attached to the position she had assumed.
'Before
the loss of the judicial forms, there was no controversy in the Land
Registration Authority regarding her employment status. in fact,
I had reliable information that Ms. Salazar was slated for appointment
to the position of Land Registration Examiner in this Registry
(Kalookan) which would in effect supersede and cure whatever defects or
flaws her previous appointment may have.
'The loss of the judicial forms
in her possession supervened and the whole thing just appeared to me as
unfortunate. . . . the loss of the forms is the sole responsibility of
Ms. Salazar and this she readily admits and promises to make all
amends. I allowed her to work under circumstances I found
justifiable (Record, pp. 28-30).'
"It is not disputed that Ms.
Salazar, formerly Special Deputy Register of Deeds II of Malabon, whose
services had been terminated as early as 01 June 1986 pursuant to
Executive Order No. 649 (Reorganizing the Land Registration Commission)
was still reporting to the said Registry and discharging the functions
of her former position as of 27 June 1991, or for a period of five (5)
years without authority from the Administrator.
"The sole issue then in this
case is whether or not Respondent is administratively liable for
allowing Ms. Salazar to report to the Registry and conduct herself as
if she were employee thereat by continuing to perform her former
functions of Special Deputy Register of Deeds which resulted in the
loss of valuable documents.
"In
his transmittal letter dated 8 July 1992, Administrator Bonifacio
recommends that Respondent, who is scheduled to retire compulsorily on
8 February 1993 should be found guilty only of negligence and penalized
with one (1) month suspension from office without pay.
"There is, however, ample
evidence to show that Respondent is liable for conduct grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
"Considering the lapse of an
unreasonable length of time that Ms. Salazar had been allowed to 'work'
at the said registry without an appointment, specifically, for a period
of five (5) years, it is hard to believe that Respondent did not know
the true status of Ms. Salazar's employment. It was plain that
Ms. Salazar had been terminated during the office-wide reorganization
in 1986, as certified to by Atty. Rosalina Alonso, Acting Chief,
Personnel Management Division of the Land Registration Authority
(Record, p. 15 and TSN, p. 16). It was just as clear that she was
never reappointed, despite her and Respondent's expectations. As
admitted by Respondent: 'I have done this in good faith expecting that
in a matter of days her appointment would be approved with retroactive
effect.; (Underscoring supplied). As it happened, the matter of
days turned into years.
"It
was Respondent's primary responsibility as Head of the Registry to
supervise his employees and to ensure their compliance with civil
service laws, rule and regulations. Respondent cannot avoid this
responsibility by simply saying that he 'lost track of the matter' or
that there was no communication from the head office for Ms. Salazar to
discontinue her service. Respondent was not without any recourse
or means to directly verify from Central Office. That Respondent
did not do so within a period of five (5) years is a highly unusual
omission which may no longer be deemed only negligence. It is
also quite incredible that Ms. Salazar continued to serve as an
employee of the said Registry without compensation for a period of five
(5) years, considering that the basis for collecting salary is a duly
issued appointment.
"It is easy to see that
Respondent favored Ms. Salazar's continued employment in the
Registry. By his admission, he 'allowed her (to) continue taking
custody of blank title forms while waiting for her reappointment so
that the continuity of the operation of the registry will not be
deferred.' (TSN, p. 36). He repeatedly affirms faith and trust in
Ms. Salazar's performance of vital office functions, speaking highly of
her in terms of efficiency and honesty. (TSN, p. 36) As a result
of his biased judgment, he completely ignored the obvious fact that Ms.
Salazar had already been separated from the service.
"It
is noted that on 20 June 1989, a complaint was filed with the Office of
the Ombudsman against Ms. Salazar by Mr. Ariston Paraga. In his
letter, Mr. Paragas states: 'As a citizen, I am requesting that your
office verify the activities of a certain Ms. Virginia Salazar in the
Registry of Deeds of Kalookan City, who according to reliable
information is not even an employee of the said office. . . .' (Record,
p. 19). In reply to the Order dated 22 August 1990 of the Office
of the Ombudsman, directing Respondent to explain this matter,
Respondent stated that as far as he was concerned, 'Ms. Salazar is a
permanent employee.' This statement is patently false and absolutely
without basis.
"Respondent further states that
he should not be the one to initiate Ms. Salazar's ouster from office.
Again, Respondent conveniently forgot that it was no longer necessary
to oust Ms. Salazar from the service for the simple reason that she was
not in the service.
"In
passing, it may be relevant to recall that Ms. Salazar whom respondent
alleged to be trustworthy as an employee was previously the subject of
an administrative case for gross negligence filed in connection with
the loss of judicial forms. The decision dated 29 November 1986 on the
said case warned Ms. Salazar to be more circumspect in the discharge of
her duties.' (Record, p. 42). Notwithstanding her exoneration from the
charge of gross negligence in that case, she appears to have a marked
propensity to lose valuable office documents in her custody. This
evidently belies her alleged trustworthiness.
"Under the circumstances, we are
convincing that Respondent did willfully and deliberately permit Ms.
Salazar to work in the said Registry without proper appointment. His
liability stems not from simple negligence but from his conduct grossly
prejudicial to the best interest of the service that, he was
responsible for the highly anomalous, irregular and illegal perpetual
in office of Ms. Salazar which resulted in the loss in her possession
of the seventeen (17) sets of Judicial Forms and other land titles and
valuable documents.
"In view of the foregoing, we
recommend that Atty. Francisco G. Romero be found guilty of conduct
grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service with the
mitigating circumstance of length of service. We also take note that he
is due for compulsory retirement on 8 February 1993. Accordingly, we
recommend that, as penalty he should be fined equivalent to his six (6)
months' salary pursuant to the provisions of CSC Memorandum Circular
No. 30, s. 1989."
After circumspect study, I am in complete accord with the above findings and recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
It was established that respondent allowed Ms. Virginia C. Salazar, a former employee of the Kalookan City registry of Deeds, to discharge the duties of custodian of blank title forms, without the written consent of approval of the LRA, resulting in the loss of seventeen (17) sets of Judicial Forms 109 and 109-D with Serial Nos. 1933454 to 1933470, inclusive, and other land titles and documents. By his omission, respondent had not caused only damage to the government but, more importantly, had placed the Office where he works in a bad light, thus casting a dense pall of doubt on his integrity to discharge the functions of his Office. By any standard, respondent had miserably failed to observe the injunctions attached to his office by allowing a former and without prior authority from the LRA administration. Hence, the penalty recommended by the Secretary of Justice is but proper.
WHEREOF, Atty. Francisco G. Romero is hereby found guilty of Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and, as recommended, is hereby meted the penalty of fine equivalent to six (6) months salary, effective upon receipt of copy hereof.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 28th day of November in the year of Our Lord nineteen hundred and ninety three.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.