Mabaga v. Quirante

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-16-3461. January 10, 2018.]

TEODORA B. MABAGA, complainant,vs. ROSALITA L. QUIRANTE, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 10, 2018, which reads as follows: SDHTEC

"A.M. No. P-16-3461, Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4305-P (Teodora B. Mabaga v. Rosalita L. Quirante) — In her verified Affidavit-Complaint 1 dated May 6, 2014, complainant Teodora B. Mabaga (complainant) charged respondent Rosalita L. Quirante (respondent), Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Digos City, Davao del Sur (RTC), with dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of the lot offered as property bond for the provisional liberty of accused Reymar Mabaga in Criminal Case No. FC 123 (12) filed before the same RTC.

Complainant's Position

Complainant is the mother of accused Mabaga in Criminal Case No. FC 123 (12) filed before RTC, Branch 19, Digos City, presided by Judge Carmelita Sarno-Davin. To secure accused's provisional liberty, a piece of land owned by Enrique Maguate covered by TCT No. T-9220 was submitted as property bail bond. Complainant's daughter-in-law Angelita Maguate Mabaga (Maguate) was designated as bondswoman through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) containing the thumbmark of Enrique Maguate. The RTC approved the bond on November 23, 2012. Later that day, according to complainant, she was told by respondent that one of the papers pertaining to the bond contains an erroneous entry and must be corrected. Complainant had the error corrected and handed the document over to respondent, along with P1,000.00 as "pasasalamat" for the latter's assistance. Complainant also gave respondent P8,000.00 outside the Hall of Justice for the latter to facilitate the annotation of the bond on the TCT. This amount was given without a receipt being issued in exchange, and in the presence of Maguate. On April 29, 2014, complainant discovered that the TCT was not attached to the records of her son's case.

Respondent's Position

In her Comment 2 dated September 10, 2014 and Explanation 3 dated June 2, 2014 addressed to Judge Sarno-Davin, respondent denied the allegations against her and claimed that they are fabrications obfuscating complainant's own pretenses. She claimed that complainant and Maguate were only looking for someone to blame for the loss of the TCT.

Respondent said that there were no defects or errors in the documents submitted for the property bond, otherwise, the RTC would not have approved the bond. There was thus no truth to the allegation that the property bond was again submitted in the afternoon of November 23, 2012 for approval. She also denied receiving a total of P9,000.00 from complainant. Further, Maguate already received on November 23, 2012 the documents pertaining to the property bond posted. This was signified by the acknowledgment receipt signed by Maguate. Respondent also claimed that sometime in May, 4 during a confrontation in the presence of two other RTC employees, complainant and Maguate admitted that the property's registered owner Enrique Maguate died on March 23, 1998. She submitted a copy of Enrique Maguate's death certificate to support this.

Report and Recommendation

A formal investigation was ordered to parse the conflicting allegations of the parties. The case was thus referred to the Executive Judge of RTC Digos City for investigation. In her Report and Recommendation 5 dated March 29, 2016, Executive Judge Sarno-Davin reported the repeated absence of complainant during the investigation hearing despite being earlier provided a counsel from the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to represent her. As a result, Judge Sarno-Davin was not able to conduct a formal investigation that should have allowed her to observe the parties' witnesses and examine other evidence. Complainant's absence was construed by Judge Sarno-Davin as an indication that the parties entered into an out-of-court settlement.

Later, however, Judge Sarno-Davin found out, while reviewing the calendar of cases scheduled for raffle on February 19, 2016, that a certain Angelita Maguate Mabaga filed a verified petition for issuance of a new owner's copy of TCT No. T-9220, the same TCT subject of the present complaint. The petition alleged that Maguate lost the TCT in her possession. Attached to the petition is her affidavit of loss, narrating that after her father Enrique Maguate died on March 20, 1998 she got hold of the TCT but later lost it. Also attached to the petition was a certified true copy of the TCT which contained an annotation of the said affidavit of loss. Judge Sarno-Davin took note of the contradiction between the petition and its attached affidavit, on one hand, and Maguate's prior affidavit supporting the complaint against the respondent, on the other. AScHCD

The deliberate non-participation of the complainant in the investigation prevented the substantiation of the allegations against respondent. It also prevented Judge Sarno-Davin from observing the demeanor of the parties and their witnesses. Judge Sarno-Davin thus recommended the dismissal of the complaint for dishonesty and grave misconduct; however, she recommended that respondent be reprimanded for simple neglect of duty. Judge Sarno-Davin observed that since respondent herself said she released the TCT to Maguate, it is fairly inconceivable that she did not know that the bond had not been annotated in the title and the TCT not returned to the RTC. She also did not call the attention of the Branch Clerk of Court or Presiding Judge on the matter to allow them to promptly act on it. Judge Sarno-Davin also pointed out that it was only when she ordered the inventory of the criminal case records for another property bond incident involving the respondent that it was discovered that the annotated TCT had not yet been returned to the records one and a half years after the bond was approved. She thus concluded that respondent has been remiss in her duty as criminal docket clerk, and should be meted the penalty of reprimand and be sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

OCA Recommendation

On March 3, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its concurrence with the findings of the investigating judge. It found inconceivable the sudden desistance of complainant to pursue the complaint even when counsel was already provided her. Complainant's loss of interest and Maguate's petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate of the TCT point to the probability that an amicable settlement was reached by the parties. Respondent cannot be held liable for dishonesty and grave misconduct; but she may be held liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to monitor the status of the bond's annotation in the TCT. The OCA considered respondent's tenure with the judiciary since November 1990; her other pending administrative case (OCA IPI No. 15-4410-P) for dishonesty, misconduct and neglect of duty; and her previous admonishment for charges of gross ignorance of the law and negligence in the performance of duty per the Court's Resolution dated October 19, 1994 in A.M. OCA IPI No. P-94-1010 in recommending the penalty of reprimand.

The Court's Ruling

The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA.

Respondent was properly found liable for simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty has been defined as "the failure to give attention to a task, or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference." 6 Ensuring the attachment of the annotated TCT in the case record of Criminal Case No. FC 123 (12) is the duty of respondent as criminal records clerk. She should have been mindful of the integrity of the records in her custody. Her disregard of this basic duty deprived the court of the collateral securing the accused's provisional liberty. It also exposed the unwitting accused to the risk of losing his provisional liberty if the court orders his arrest since he was effectively released without a bail bond.

The Court also agrees with the penalty of reprimand recommended by the investigating judge and the OCA. While Rule 10, Section 46 D (1) 7 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service imposes the penalty of dismissal for a second commission of the offense of simple neglect of duty, the Court considers respondent's 27 years of government service as a mitigating circumstance as allowed under Section 48 of the same Rule. Respondent, however, is sternly warned that the Court will no longer be lenient in imposing the maximum penalty if the same offense is committed again in the future. She must also be reminded that, since she has long been in government service and in light of previous disciplinary actions she was the subject of, she should be more circumspect in the performance of her duties.

WHEREFORE, respondent Rosalita L. Quirante, Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Digos City, Davao del Sur, is REPRIMANDED for simple neglect of duty resulting in the non-attachment in the case record of TCT No. T-9220 containing the annotation of the property bail bond approved by RTC, Branch 19, Digos City for the provisional release of accused Reymar Mabaga in Criminal Case No. FC 123 (12). Additionally, respondent is STERNLY WARNED that commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more harshly. The charges of dishonesty and grave misconduct against the respondent are hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 1-15.

2.Id. at pp. 20-46.

3.Id. at pp. 29-32.

4. Respondent did not state the exact date of the purported confrontation (Id. at p. 31).

5.Id. at pp. 72-78.

6.Office of the Court Administrator v. Rañoco, 571 Phil. 386, 390 (2008).

7. Renumbered as Rule 10, Sec. 50 A (1) under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2017 RACCS), promulgated on July 3, 2017 and which took effect on August 17, 2017.