SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-02-1591. June 21, 2002]
CORAZON B. JOSON, complainant, vs. STENOGRAPHER III RUTH A. MACAPAGAL and STENOGRAPHER III TERESITA C. BURKLEY, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO,
J.:
The Office of the Chief
Justice received on 31 March 2000 a letter-complaint from Corazon B. Joson complaining against Ruth A.
Macapagal and Teresita C. Burkley, both Stenographer III at the Regional Trial
Court, Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, for conduct unbecoming of government employees.
Complainant Joson alleged
that sometime in 1995 she obtained a housing loan from the Government Service
Insurance System (GSIS) for the purchase of a house and lot in Villa Emilia
Subdivision, Cabanatuan City. Due to
financial difficulties she was unable to meet her monthly amortizations with
the GSIS, hence, on 2 May 1996 she decided to transfer her rights over the
property to Noemi V. Alomia, sister of Macapagal. Witnesses to the signing of the documents transferring her rights
were respondent Macapagal herself and Teresita C. Burkley and a certain Elma
Ramos.
After the signing of the
documents, Macapagal volunteered to have them notarized in her office for free
and thereafter to submit the same to the GSIS in Cabanatuan City for
processing. Having developed a trust in
Macapagal, complainant Joson delivered her copies of the documents to her.
On 19 January 2000 Joson
was surprised to receive a letter from the GSIS reminding her of her
accountabilities and at the same time informing her that in case of failure on
her part to pay the monthly amortizations the same would be deducted from her
retirement benefits.
Joson became apprehensive
especially since her retirement was drawing near. She immediately went to the house of Macapagal to inquire about
the status of the documents. It was
only then that she found out that Macapagal never endorsed the papers to the
GSIS; instead, the property was sold to Carmelita Cabigas, sister of respondent
Burkley.
According to Joson, in
the new set of documents transferring her rights over the property, the name of
“Noemi V. Alomia” was erased and superimposed in its stead was the name of
“Carmelita Cabigas.” Joson also said that Burkley went to the extent of forging
the signature of Cabigas who was abroad at the time the new set of documents
was supposedly signed. Joson also
belatedly learned that Cabigas and her family had already been staying in the
premises for quite some time without paying a single centavo to the GSIS.
Macapagal admitted in her
Comment that her sister Noemi V. Alomia bought the rights over the house and
lot from Joson for P16,000.00 and that after the signing of the
documents on 2 May 1996 Joson delivered the keys to the house to Alomia. Macapagal also alleged that after the papers
were signed she submitted the same to the developer for further
processing. Meanwhile, the property
remained unoccupied as Alomia went back to Dubai where she was working.
Later, Alomia informed
her sister Macapagal that she was no longer interested in buying the property
instructing her at the same time to scout for a new buyer. Significantly, Macapagal informed Joson of
her sister’s decision not to proceed with the transaction only after an
apprehensive Joson went to Macapagal’s house to inquire about the documents
after receipt of the letter from the GSIS.
Macapagal assured Joson that she would look for another buyer, to which
Joson supposedly agreed provided that the old documents would be surrendered to
her. When Macapagal informed the
developer of her sister’s decision not to go through with their transaction,
the developer allegedly advised her that it would be better if a new document
could be prepared and signed by Joson herself.
Eventually Macapagal
offered the property to Carmelita Cabigas, sister of Burkley. Upon the arrival of Cabigas in December 1997
from abroad, Cabigas paid Macapagal P25,000.00. After which Macapagal turned over the keys
to the house to Cabigas who immediately occupied the premises and introduced
improvements thereon.
Macapagal retrieved the
old set of documents from the developer for the purpose of giving it back to
Joson. She likewise asked from the
developer blank forms for a “Deed of Assignment, Transfer of Rights and
Assumption of Rights” but she was allegedly informed by the developer that they
had run out forms. She was advised
instead to reproduce them. After
reproducing the forms, Macapagal gave them to Burkley for processing. Macapagal
also entrusted the old set of documents to Burkley, at the same time informing
her that Joson wanted it back before signing the new set.
On 12 January 1999
Macapagal together with Burkley and Joson went to the office of Atty. Jose
Manuel Calderon to have the documents notarized. While in that office, according to Macapagal, she heard Atty.
Calderon inquire from Joson whether the signatures appearing on the documents
were hers. Atty. Calderon likewise made
it clear to Joson that the contract was between her and Cabigas and thereafter, Atty. Calderon notarized the
documents.
Burkley, for her part,
averred that the original buyer of the property from Joson was Noemi V. Alomia,
sister of Ruth A. Macapagal; however, after a year or two (2) Noemi V. Alomia
changed her mind and backed out from
the contract.
Upon learning that
Cabigas was interested in the property, Macapagal immediately offered the same
to her. Hence in December 1997 Cabigas
paid Macapagal P25,000.00 in full consideration of the transfer of
rights over the property to Cabigas.
According further to
Burkley, since Alomia was abroad and could not personally sign the documents,
she and Macapagal decided that the new contract be made and executed between
Joson and Cabigas, and that Joson agreed to this arrangement provided that the
old documents were surrendered to her.
Unfortunately no blank forms were available so they decided to make use
of the old forms instead, hence, the reason why there were erasures in the new
set of documents. Burkley emphasized
that this was done with the knowledge and consent of Joson.
Burkley denied that she
forged the signature of her sister Cabigas.
She insisted that Cabigas was in the Philippines in December 1997 in
time for the signing of the documents.
Cabigas submitted an affidavit attesting to the fact that she was the
one who signed the documents. During
the pendency of this case, Burkley manifested that Cabigas was more than
willing to pay the amortizations in arrears and all the future monthly
amortizations. In fact, according to
Burkley, the husband of Cabigas had already written the GSIS declaring her
intention to assume the outstanding obligations pertinent to the subject
property.
Finding that respondents
Macapagal and Burkley committed acts of impropriety when they reneged on their
promise to have the documents notarized and to submit the same to the GSIS, the
Office of the Court Administrator recommended that both be reprimanded and
warned that commission of the same or similar act would be dealt with more
severely.
We agree with the Office
of the Court Administrator that respondents are guilty of committing acts unbecoming
of government employees. After the
signing of the documents on 2 May 1996 Macapagal never caused their
notarization nor endorsed them to the developer and the GSIS as promised. In fact, she did not give Joson her copy of
the signed documents. Instead,
Macapagal held on to the documents after their signing and even after conveying
the property to Cabigas. Consequently,
and unknown to Joson, the property remained in her name. Hence, we can only surmise the apprehension
and anxiety of Joson upon receiving a letter from the GSIS demanding the
immediate settlement of her accountabilities in the form of monthly
amortizations, otherwise the same would be deducted from whatever benefits she
would be receiving upon her retirement.
In an act tainted with
malice and bad faith, respondent Macapagal reconveyed the property to Cabigas
without first informing complainant Joson.
Macapagal did not even inform Joson, in due course and as a matter of
courtesy, that Alomia had decided to withdraw from the contract. Macapagal only informed Joson of the
subsequent transfer after the latter went to her house to inquire about the
status of the documents upon receipt of the demand letter from the GSIS.
We simply cannot lend
credence to the version of Macapagal that she submitted the necessary documents
to the developer and the GSIS. For, had
the documents been accordingly submitted, the developer and the GSIS would have
already caused the transfer of the rights over the property in the name of
Alomia even before it was reconveyed to Cabigas. Notably, more than one (1) year had lapsed after Joson had sold
the rights over the property to Alomia and before the same was reconveyed to
Cabigas.
Respondents Macapagal and
Burkley brokered the transfer from Joson to Alomia and, subsequently, from
Alomia to Cabigas. They knew fully well
that after buying the rights over the property Cabigas immediately occupied the
premises without the knowledge and consent of Joson. To further aggravate the matter, Macapagal and Burkley knew that
despite her occupation of the premises, Cabigas never paid a single centavo to
the GSIS as the rights over the property continued to be registered in the name
of Joson.
We cannot subscribe to
the insistence of Macapagal that the developer even made the suggestion that
the new set of documents be executed and signed between Joson and Cabigas. Considering that there was already a valid
transfer of rights between Joson and Alomia, it is hardly credible that the second
set of documents be signed by Joson and Cabigas and not by Alomia and Cabigas.
Likewise, we find it very
unlikely for the developer to have suggested that a new contract be entered
into between Joson and Cabigas.
Macapagal did not present any power of attorney from Alomia authorizing
her to cancel the original contract between her and Joson. It would be implausible and contrary to
normal business procedure for the developer to unilaterally allow the retrieval
and cancellation of the original set of documents, assuming in the first place
that indeed Macapagal submitted them to the developer for further
processing. That the developer had run
out of forms is also quite improbable.
These are basic forms for a realty business, but assuming that it was
true that there were really no more blank forms available, then Burkley and
Macapagal being court stenographers could have easily reproduced those forms by
retyping them.
The foregoing
circumstances only bolster our suspicion that Macapagal and Burkley erased the
name of Noemi V. Alomia from the original documents and superimposed in its
place the name of Carmelita Cabigas.
Macapagal was already aware that Joson wanted her copy of the original
documents and yet, by her own admission, she entrusted them instead to Burkley
and not to Joson.
The alleged transfer
between Joson and Cabigas was supposedly consummated sometime in December
1997. Taking into account Joson’s
apprehension and experience in the botched deal with Alomia, we would have
expected her to have the documents immediately notarized and submitted to the
developer and the GSIS. Hence, it
strains credulity why the second set of documents was only notarized more than
one (1) year after its supposed signing.
Considering her previous experience, it was very implausible for Joson
to have voluntarily succumbed a second time to the same ploy. This only strengthens our belief that the
second transfer was done without complainant Joson’s prior knowledge and
consent.
Belatedly and during the
pendency of the case, Cabigas and her husband wrote GSIS asserting their
intention to assume the outstanding obligations relative to the property in
question. Plainly, this indicates that
they tacitly admit that they were somehow remiss in the performance of their
obligations. Nonetheless, it would not
in any way obliterate the fact that Macapagal and Burkley committed acts
prejudicial to the interests of Joson.
If at all, it would only serve to mitigate the penalty to be imposed
upon them.
The conduct and behavior
of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice,
from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with
the heavy burden of responsibility. The
strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service is required
of those involved in the administration of justice.[1]
A court employee, being a
public servant, must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not
only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private
dealings with other people, to preserve the court's good name and standing.[2] Every employee of
the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[3]
WHEREFORE, for committing acts unbecoming of government
employees, respondents Ruth A. Macapagal and Teresita C. Burkley, both Stenographer
III, RTC-Br. 28, Cabanatuan City, as recommended by the Office of the Court
Administrator, are both REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that
commission of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Mendoza, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Quisumbing, J., abroad, on official business.