FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 20-5003-P. May 5, 2021.]
ALEJANDRO P. PUNSALAN, ET AL., complainants, vs.EDNA L. PURI, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PORAC, PAMPANGA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 5, 2021, which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 20-5003-P (Alejandro P. Punsalan, et al. v. Edna L. Puri, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Porac, Pampanga). — In their Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated 07 February 2020, complainants Alejandro, Romeo, Noel and Roldan, all surnamed Punsalan (complainants) charged respondent Edna L. Puri (respondent), Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Porac, Pampanga, with Grave Misconduct.
Complainants alleged that their father, Domingo Punsalan (Domingo), was the agricultural servant of a property registered in the name of Dominador Chantengco, Jr. (Chantengco). On 07 January 2006, Chantengco allegedly forcibly entered the property and prevented Domingo from exercising his rights. Consequently, Domingo filed a case with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO), which was later transferred to the Provincial Adjudicator of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO). Eventually, the PARO ruled that complainants, who succeeded their late father, were the agricultural tenants of the property owned by Chantengco. According to complainants, despite the PARO ruling, Chantengco subdivided the property, slowly disposed of the same, and prevented them from exercising their rights as bona fide tenants.
On appeal, the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) affirmed the decision of the PARO. When his motion for reconsideration was denied by the DARAB on 09 August 2019, Chantengco filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals on 30 September 2019. However, Chantengco passed away on 13 October 2016 or during the pendency of his motion for reconsideration before the DARAB.
Complainants discovered two (2) of the alleged subdivided properties were sold to respondent. However, the Deed of Absolute Sale was signed and notarized on 05 April 2017, or five months after the death of Chantengco. Thus, complainants claimed that the signature of Chantengco was forged by Puri and Lina Nebrida, the wife of Chantengco.
In her Comment, 2 respondent denied that she falsified or caused the falsification of the Deed of Absolute Sale. She claimed to have acquired the property as payment for the loans obtained by Chantengco from her, which, through the years, had accumulated to P1,200,000.00. As a proof, she attached a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on 26 June 2016, or four (4) months before the death of Chantengco. According to respondent, she entrusted the said Deed to a certain Jesus Datu, who, for a fee of P130,000.00, took care of the transfer and titling of the properties before the Registry of Deeds.
Respondent further emphasized that the pendency of a criminal case for Falsification of Public Documents filed against her by complainant necessitates the dismissal of the instant administrative case. Finally, respondent stressed that the alleged act of falsification imputed against her is not work-related, and thus, the allegation of grave misconduct against her has no leg to stand on.
In its Report 3 dated 04 December 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondent without prejudice on account of the pendency of the criminal case for Falsification. The OCA pointed out that any decision which the Court may render in the instant case, whether for or against respondent, might unduly influence the pending criminal case. Moreover, the present administrative case involves factual issues regarding the alleged falsification which are better threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits.
In this regard, the Court finds the recommendation of the OCA as proper. The disposition of this administrative case should be held in abeyance in view of the pendency of the criminal case for Falsification. This is in view of the smooth and orderly disposition of cases, since a decision in the present case might unduly affect the conclusions of the trial court in the criminal case, if not pre-empt the same. 4
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSEDWITHOUTPREJUDICE to the outcome of the criminal case for Falsification of Public Document filed by complainants against respondent Edna L. Puri.
The Report dated 04 December 2020 is likewise NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-7.
2.Id. at 35-41.
3.Id. at 52-54 .
4. See Rallos v. Gako, Jr., 385 Phil. 4 (2000); A.M. No. RTJ-99-1484 (A), 17 March 2000 [Per J. Panganiban].