EN BANC
ABRAHAM S. PUA,
Complainant,
A.
M.
No. RTJ-92-867
August 31, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE
JULIO R.
LOGARTA,[1*]
MAXIMO CONTRERAS,CLERK OF COURT,
RTC, MAKATI, MARCELO BUENAVENTURA,ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT,RTC, MAKATI, ROGELIO
ACOSTA,[**]
LEGAL RESEARCHER ANDROBERTO MENDOZA, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE,
CLEARANCE UNIT,OFFICE OF THE CLERK
OF COURT, RTC, MAKATI,
Respondents. |
R E S O L U T I O
N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
For resolution is the instant
administrative case against Atty. Maximo Contreras, Marcelo
Buenaventura
and Roberto Mendoza in connection with the issuance of a fake
counter-attachment
bond and clearance in Civil Case No. 88-2193 before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 150, Makati (RTC for brevity).
The records disclose
the following factual antecedents:
On October 17, 1988,
complainant Abraham S. Pua, the managing director of Cascade Commercial
Corporation, filed before the RTC a complaint for Sum of Money with a
prayer
for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment against spouses
Vicente
and Norma Yap, docketed as Civil Case No. 88-2193.[1]
On October 20, 1988, presiding Judge Julio R. Logarta granted the
prayer
for a writ of preliminary attachment conditioned upon plaintiff’s
filing
of an attachment bond in the amount of P2,360,000.00.[2]
On October 26, 1988 the court issued the writ of attachment after
plaintiff
had posted the required attachment bond.[3]
Atty. Vetino E. Reyes,
counsel for defendants, sought the assistance of Rogelio Acosta, Legal
Researcher in RTC (Branch 143) of Makati, in securing a
counter-attachment
bond. Acosta procured a counter-attachment bond purportedly
issued
by the First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Company, Inc. (FIBICI for
brevity), dated November 5, 1988, from one Sonny Tala, a.k.a. Sonny
Sta.
Ana.[4]
On November 7, 1999, Atty. Reyes, filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge
Attachment
with prayer that upon filing of the corresponding counter-attachment
bond,
the writ of preliminary attachment be quashed, dissolved or discharged.[5]
On November 11, 1988 Judge Logarta granted the Urgent Motion to
Discharge
Attachment conditioned upon the filing of a counter-bond in the amount
of P2,360,000.00.[6]
The counter-attachment bond was approved by Judge Logarta based on a
certificate
of clearance dated November 11, 1988 from the Office of the Clerk of
Court
(OCC for brevity).[7]chanrobles virtual law library
Complainant questioned
defendants’ counter-attachment bond based on the Certification, dated
November
16, 1988, of Salvador B. Depante, Executive Vice-President of the
FIBICI,
stating that the defendants’ counter-attachment bond is fraudulent and
fake because his signature had been forged.[8]
An investigation was conducted by Judge Logarta.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
While the investigation
was pending, complainant filed a complaint-affidavit, dated July 7,
1989,
before the Office of the Ombudsman charging Judge Julio R. Logarta,
Atty.
Maximo Contreras, Clerk of Court, RTC, Makati; Atty. Carlos N.
Aguillon,
Jr., Branch Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 150, Makati; Rogelio Acosta,
Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 143, Makati; defendant spouses Vicente
and
Norma Yap; and Atty. Vetino E. Reyes, defendants’ counsel, with
Falsification
of Public Document and Violation of R.A. No. 3019, otherwise known as
the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act.[10]
Marcelo Buenaventura,
Administrative Officer, OCC, RTC, Makati, and Roberto Mendoza,
Officer-In-Charge,
Clearance Unit, OCC, RTC, Makati, were subsequently included as
respondents.cralaw:red
Meanwhile, on March
13, 1990, a judgment based on a compromise agreement was rendered in
Civil
Case No. 88-2193.[11]
On May 8, 1990, complainant filed an affidavit of desistance and
withdrew
his complaint before the Ombudsman claiming that it arose from a simple
misunderstanding.[12]
Nonetheless, the Ombudsman
conducted an investigation based on the complaint and the separate
comments
filed by the respondents therein. On January 27, 1992, it
dismissed
the criminal charges for lack of evidence. However, it forwarded
the records of the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA
for
brevity) for the conduct of administrative inquiry against the court
personnel.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
On August 25, 1992 the
Court docketed the charges as an administrative case and required the
respondents
to comment thereon. The Court also required the NBI to submit to
the Court an investigation report thereon.[14]
In his Comment,[15]
Judge Logarta explained that he approved the counter-attachment bond
because
it contained a clearance from the OCC, as it is the duty of the clerk
of
court to see to it that all bonds are in order, in accordance with the
Memorandum of the OCA dated September 30, 1988.cralaw:red
Atty. Aguillon chose
to adopt his counter-affidavit before the Ombudsman as his comment.[16]
In his counter-affidavit, he denied any participation in the
preparation,
execution and issuance of the bond, as well the certification issued by
the OCC. He admitted that he went to the OCC but denied the
insinuation
that he purposely sought to get a clearance because the clearance was
already
attached to the bond.[17]
In his Comment,[18]
respondent Atty. Contreras denied any intervention or participation in
the issuance of the certificate of clearance to the bonding
company.
He stated that the certificate of clearance issued by respondent
Mendoza
and Buenaventura referred only to the solvency of the bonding company
insofar
as the RTC was concerned and had nothing to do with the genuineness or
authenticity of any surety bond. He claimed that the alleged
alteration
or falsification of the certificate of clearance referred to a file
number
of the certificate which is beyond the control of the OCC. He
argued
that none of the personnel of the OCC had a hand in the subsequent
alteration
of any entry in the certificate as well as in the use of said
certificate.chanrobles virtual law library
In his Comment, Acosta
denied any conspiracy with the respondents and iterated that his only
participation
in the incident was merely to accommodate and assist a long-time
friend,
Atty. Reyes, counsel of the defendants, and to hand to the bonding
agent
the amount of the premium after ascertaining, in the best possible
manner,
the genuineness of the counter-bond through the verification and
certification
by the OCC as to its authenticity pursuant to the Memorandum of the
Court
Administrator dated September 30, 1988.[19]chanrobles virtual law library
On March 20, 1993, the
Court directed respondents Buenaventura and Mendoza to comment on the
complaint
and referred the records of the Ombudsman to the National Bureau of
Investigation
(NBI for brevity) for its investigation and report. In the
meantime,
the evaluation report of the OCA was held in abeyance until receipt of
the comments of Buenaventura and Mendoza, as well as the investigation
report of the NBI.[20]
On May 24, 1993, respondents
Buenaventura and Mendoza filed their joint-comment.[21]
They insisted that they had no intervention in the processing,
execution,
issuance and follow-up of the FIBICI surety bond posted in Civil Case
No.
88-2193 of Branch 150. They maintained that the certificate of
clearance
issued by them is not an integral part of the surety bond but only a
clearance
for the court to allow the bonding company to post their bonds in the
absence
of any pending obligation, and had nothing to do with the authenticity
and genuineness of any surety bond.cralaw:red
On November 25, 1993,
the Court dismissed the administrative matter as far as Judge Logarta
was
concerned.[22]
In a letter-report dated
December 1, 1993, the NBI stated that no evidence was gathered to
substantiate
the charge for Violation of Falsification of Public Documents and R.A.
No. 3019 against Judge Logarta, spouses Vicente and Norma Yap, Atty.
Vetino
Reyes, and Atty. Maximo Contreras.[23]
On March 24, 1994, the
Court dismissed the charges against Atty. Vetino Reyes, spouses Vicente
and Norma Yap, Carlos Aguillon and Rogelio Acosta for lack of merit.[24]
The Court, however, directed the NBI to further investigate Sonny Sta.
Ana, Atty. Contreras, Buenaventura and Mendoza to determine their
involvement,
if any, in the issuance of the fake bond and clearance.chanrobles virtual law library
In a memorandum dated
November 25, 2002 the OCA recommended that the case against respondents
Atty. Contreras, Buenaventura and Mendoza be dismissed for lack of
sufficient
evidence based on the NBI report.[25]
On October 21, 2003,
the Court referred the administrative case to retired Justice Narciso
T.
Atienza, consultant of the OCA, for a thorough investigation with
respect
to respondents Atty. Contreras, Buenaventura and Mendoza and to submit
a report and recommendation thereon.[26]
Justice Atienza conducted
a hearing on January 21, 2004. Respondents Atty. Contreras,
Buenaventura
and Mendoza all disowned any knowledge or involvement in the issuance
or
procurement of the fake counter-attachment bond. They insisted
that
the counter-attachment bond was not verified and examined by the OCC
and
they have not issued any certificate or clearance in connection with
said
counter-attachment bond. They testified in common that a
certificate
was issued for a bond in connection with Civil Case No. 88-2227 only
and
not Civil Case No. 88-2193. Besides, they argued that the
certificate
merely declared that the FIBICI had no pending liability in the RTC
Makati
from November 4, 1993 to November 11, 1998 insofar as confiscated bonds
are concerned, and it did not attest to the genuineness or authenticity
of any counter-attachment bond that may be filed in any RTC Makati
branch.chanrobles virtual law library
Acosta was notified
of the hearing to answer clarificatory questions in view of his role in
procuring the fake counter-attachment bond, but the notation “Deceased”
appears on the Registry Return Receipt. Acosta died on February
21,
1998.cralaw:red
Atty. Aguillon was also
notified of the hearing because he was the one who received the forged
counter-attachment bond and submitted the same to Judge Logarta for
approval,
but according to the Registry Return Receipt Atty. Aguillon is no
longer
connected with RTC, Branch 150, Makati.cralaw:red
Respondents Atty. Contreras
and Buenaventura compulsorily retired from the service on April 10,
1997
and September 4, 1993, respectively, while respondent Mendoza is still
in service as Administrative Officer I, OCC, RTC, Makati City.[27]
In his Investigation
Report, dated July 1, 2004, Justice Atienza found that there is no
evidence
of the complicity of respondents Atty. Contreras, Buenaventura and
Mendoza
in the issuance of the fake counter-attachment bond and
clearance.
The following are the findings of fact and conclusions of Justice
Atienza,
quoted verbatim:
A careful scrutiny of
the records would show that the Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment
dated
November 7, 1988 was submitted for the consideration of the court on
November
11, 1988. The Certification which was purportedly issued by the
Office
of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Makati is dated November 11, 1988.
The
Order issued by the court granting the Motion to Dissolved and
Discharged
(sic) the Writ of Preliminary Attachment is also dated November 11,
1988
but the fake counter-bond posted for the lifting of the writ of
preliminary
attachment was approved by the court on November 5, 1988. In
other
words, even before the Urgent Motion to Discharge Attachment was filed
in court, Judge Logarta had already approved the fake
counter-attachment
bond posted by the defendants which resulted to the lifting of the writ
of preliminary attachment previously issued in favor of the plaintiffs
in Civil Case No. 88-2193. Had the anomalous approval of the fake
counter-attachment bond been discovered during the previous
investigations,
especially those conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman and the NBI,
the author of the falsification including the co-conspirators may
possibly
be identified and prosecuted.chanrobles virtual law library
The existence of the
person whom Rogelio Acosta identified as Sonny Tala from whom he
allegedly
received the fake counter-attachment bond after handing the money was
never
established. What is on record is that Cesar Ramirez overheard an
alleged conversation between Rogelio Acosta and Sonny Tala about the
bond
which the latter would provide. In the report of the NBI, it was
stated that diligent efforts to locate subject Sonny Tala a.k.a. Sonny
Sta. Maria gave negative results.cralaw:red
Atty. Aguillon claimed
that upon receipt of the counter-bond, he immediately consulted Atty.
Contreras
of the Office of the Clerk of Court purposely to inquire from him what
should be done in view of the Memorandum of Court Administrator Maximo
A. Maceren which he received on November 11, 1988. Atty.
Contreras
alleged told him that he has not yet received said memorandum and
instead
referred him to Roberto Mendoza. Unfortunately, Rogelio (sic)
Mendoza
was not in the office and when he came back for the second time, he did
not see Mendoza, so he referred the counter-bond to Judge Logarta, who
later on approved the same.cralaw:red
The statement of Atty.
Aguillon regarding his purpose in consulting Atty. Contreras on
November
11, 1988 is misleading because the fake counter-bond, as shown in its
jurat,
was approved by Judge Logarta on November 5, 1988. So that when
he
went to the Office of the Clerk of Court his purpose was not to inquire
from Atty. Contreras what to do with the counter-bond in view of the
memorandum
of the Court Administrator which he received on November 11,
1988.
Atty. Contreras confirmed that at one time Atty. Aguillon went to his
office
not in connection with what to do with the counter-bond but to check on
the status of a bonding company. The statement of Atty. Contreras
is more credible.chanrobles virtual law library
The Memorandum issued
by Court Administrator Maceren referred to by Atty. Aguillon enjoins
the
Clerk of Court or his authorized personnel to see to it that the bond
is
in order and the signature of the bonding officer is authentic. Since
the
memorandum of Court Administrator mandates that before a bail/judicial
bond is submitted to the judge for approval, the authenticity of the
signature
of the bonding officer must first be determined and, in view of the
fact
that Atty. Aguillon did not see Roberto Mendoza when he went to the
Office
of the Clerk of Court twice, a more prudent Branch Clerk of Court would
have called-up the bonding company by phone and inquire whether the
company
had issued the bond in Civil Case No. 88-2193.cralaw:red
The Certification issued
by the Office of the Clerk of Court was only to the effect that
“according
to the records of this office, and the writs of execution received from
February 14, 1983, to date, the First Integrated Bonding and Insurance
Company, Inc., has no pending obligation in this court insofar as
confiscated
bonds in criminal and civil cases are concerned.”
Rogelio (sic) Mendoza,
testified that he did not see the counter-bond when he issued the
certification.
Atty. Aguillon just asked him if the First Integrated Bonding and
Insurance
Company, Inc. is blacklisted, to which he answered, no. Then,
Atty.
Aguillon asked him if he can issue a certification to the effect that
there
is no pending obligation against the said company. From the
wordings
of the certification, it is clear that Rogelio (sic) Mendoza is not
duty
bound to find out whether the signature of the bonding officer in a
bond
is authentic, genuine or not.cralaw:red
The testimony of Roberto
Mendoza regarding the purpose of the certification is corroborated by
Mr.
Marcelo Buenaventura when the latter testified that their concern then
was the liability of the bonding company. It is not their duty to
determine or verify whether the signature of the person authorized by
the
company to sign the bond is genuine or not. It is not even
necessary
that the bond should be presented.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondents were asked
if they are aware of the memorandum dated September 30, 1988 to all
Clerk(s)
of Court and Branch Clerks of Court issued by Court Administrator
Maximo
A. Maceren, Roberto Mendoza testified that he saw the memorandum only
on
November 14, 1988. The memorandum was received in their office by
Ms. Maria Agnes Sevilla and it was shown to him. On the part of
Mr.
Buenaventura, he claimed that the memorandum was shown to him several
months
after the incident, while Atty. Maximo Contreras, testified that he
cannot
remember whether he received the memorandum but he is sure that all
branches
of the court were furnished copies thereof.cralaw:red
In 1988 when the Office
of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati issued the
questioned certification, Mr. Buenaventura was the Assistant Clerk of
Court
and Supervising Staff Assistant who has supervision over the Clearance
Unit. As Assistant Clerk of Court, he assisted the Clerk of Court
in the supervision of the work of the employees in the office. It
is of public knowledge that the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional
Trial Court of Makati issues hundreds of clearances everyday, not only
those issued to bonding companies but also clearances issued to private
individuals. In view of the volume of his work in the office, Mr.
Buenaventura had to trust and rely on his subordinates. In the
Clearance
Unit alone, if Mr. Buenaventura will not rely on the competence of his
subordinates, he would not be able to do any other work except to
review
clearances already verified and signed by his subordinates before
affixing
his signatures on them.cralaw:red
With respect to Atty.
Contreras, his signature does not even appear in the
certification.
Mr. Buenaventura was assigned to supervise the Clearance Unit precisely
to relieve the Clerk of Court Atty. Contreras of his duty of reviewing
clearances before they are issued/released to applicants.chanrobles virtual law library
Admittedly, the counter
attachment bond posted by the defendants in Civil Case No. 88-2193 was
fake or spurious. It was admitted by Rogelio Acosta that he was
the
one who procured the fake counter-bond allegedly through a person by
the
name of Sonny Tala. No evidence was presented that would show
that
respondent Mendoza who certified that from February 14, 1983 to
November
11, 1988, the First Integrated Bonding and Insurance Co., Inc., has no
pending obligation in court knew the person from whom Rogelio Acosta
procured
the fake counter-bond on or before November 10, 1988 when the
questioned
certification was issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of RTC
Makati.
The signature of Roberto Mendoza on the questioned certification is not
proof that he participated in the planning and preparation of the
spurious
counter-bond. (Emphasis supplied.)
The Investigating Justice
recommended the dismissal of the administrative case.chanrobles virtual law library
We take exception from
Justice Atienza’s findings that the counter-attachment bond had already
been approved by Judge Logarta on November 5, 1988,[28]
that is, two days before defendants filed their Motion to Discharge
Attachment
on November 17, 1988[29]
and without the Certification issued by respondents Mendoza and
Buenaventura
on November 11, 1988.[30]
While the counter-attachment bond is dated November 5, 1998, there is
no
showing that it was approved by Judge Logarta on the same date.
As
explained by Judge Logarta, he approved the counter-attachment bond
based
on the certificate of clearance attached thereto.cralaw:red
There is no evidence
on record showing the involvement of respondents Atty. Contreras,
Buenaventura
and Mendoza on the procurement of the fake counter-attachment
bond.
The records lay bare that it was Acosta who procured the
counter-attachment
bond from one Sonny Tala which turned out to be fake. While
Acosta’s
version of the incident was corroborated by two witnesses, Cesar
Ramirez
and Eddie Santillan, their separate accounts are far from
convincing.
Their constant presence in RTC Makati to witness events material to
Acosta’s
version is certainly doubtful and improbable since both are not
employees
therein. Thus, the existence of Sonny Tala has never been
proven.
Acosta can no longer shed light on his involvement on the procurement
of
the bond or Tala’s existence, his lips having been sealed by death.cralaw:red
Respondents cannot also
be held accountable for issuing a certificate of clearance despite the
Memorandum, dated September 30, 1988, of then Court Administrator
Maximo
Maceren,[31]
which states in part:chanrobles virtual law library
All applications for
bail/judicial bonds, before their approval by the Judge concerned;
shall
be coursed thru the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized personnel who
shall see to it that the bond is in order and the signature of the
bonding
officer is authentic before affixing his signature thereto. He
shall
also indicate therein the outstanding liability of the bonding company,
if any, for the information and guidance of the Court. For this
particular
purpose, the Clerk of Court shall keep a file of specimen signature of
authorized bonding officers, to forestall the frequently reported “fake
bail bonds.”
This particular charge
has not been substantiated by credible evidence on record. Respondents
completely disowned issuance of a certificate of clearance on the
counter-attachment
bond filed in Civil Case No. 88-2193. Respondent Atty. Contreras
had no hand in the preparation of the certificate of clearance and his
signature does not appear therein. With respect to respondents
Buenaventura
and Mendoza, while they admit that they issued a certificate of
clearance
regarding FIBICI, it was for Civil Case No. 88-2227 and not for Civil
Case
No. 88-2193 before Branch 150. We note that the subject
Certificate
merely declared that as of November 11, 1988, FIBICI had no outstanding
liability with the RTC Makati. There is nothing therein that
would
show that respondents guaranteed the genuineness and authenticity of
any
bond filed before RTC Makati.cralaw:red
While the Court will
never tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that would
violate
the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the
judiciary,[32]
nonetheless, we have repeatedly stated that the quantum of proof
necessary
for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is substantial evidence
or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate
to
support a conclusion.[33]
In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the
presumption
that the respondents have regularly performed their official duties.[34]
In this case, substantial evidence is wanting to rebut the presumption
of regularity and hold respondents administrative liable.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the administrative
charge against respondents Atty. Maximo Contreras, Marcelo Buenaventura
and Roberto Mendoza is DISMISSED.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, C.J., Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Corona, Callejo,
Sr.,Tinga
and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
Puno, J., on official leave.
Panganiban,J., on official
leave.
Sandoval-Gutierrez,J., on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[*]
Complaint Dismissed dated November 25, 1993.
[**]
Complaint Dismissed dated March 24, 1994.
[1]
Rollo, p. 40.
[2]
Id., p. 45.
[3]
Id., p. 47.
[4]
Id., p. 53.
[5]
Id., p. 48.
[6]
Id., p. 51.
[7]
Id., p. 121.
[8]
Id., p. 66.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Id., pp. 67-101, 107-108.
[10]
Id., p. 37.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Id., p. 181.
[12]
Id., p. 183.
[13]
Id., pp. 9-11.
[14]
Id., p. 214.
[15]
Id., p. 218.
[16]
Id., p. 250.
[17]
Id., p. 252.
[18]
Id., p. 273.
[19]
Id., p. 277.
[20]
Id., p. 295.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Id., pp. 299-301.
[22]
Id., p. 315.
[23]
Id., p. 319.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
Id., p. 628. Curiously, the Court included Atty. Vetino Reyes and
spouses
Vicente and Norma Yap when they are not court employees.
[25]
Id., p. 641.chanrobles virtual law library
[26]
Id., p. 696.
[27]
Id., p. 655.
[28]
Id., p. 53.
[29]
Id., p. 48.
[30]
Id., p. 121.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
Re: Judgments of Forfeiture and Writs of Execution on Bail/Judicial
Bonds,
Rollo, p. 158.
[32]
Capacete vs. Arellano, A.M. No. P-03-1700, February 23, 2004, p.8,
citing,
Sarmiento vs. Salamat, 364 SCRA 301, 308 (2001).
[33]
Avancena vs. Liwanag, 398 SCRA 541, 546 (2003); Resngit-Marquez vs.
Llamas,
385 SCRA 6, 21 (2002); San Juan, Jr. vs. Sangalang, 351 SCRA 210, 217
(2001);
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bucoy, 235 SCRA 588, 593 (1994).chanrobles virtual law library
[34]
Licudine vs. Saquilayan, 396 SCRA 650, 656 (2003). |