EN BANC
JUDGE REUBEN P. DE LA CRUZ, A.M. No. P-04-1821
Complainant,
- v e r s u s -
ATTY.
ANNA
LIZA M. LUNA,
Respondent.
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
OFFICE
OF THE COURT A.M. No.
P-05-2018
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- v e r s u s - CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR. and
NACHURA, JJ.
ATTY. ANNA LIZA M. LUNA, Clerk
of
Court, RTC-Branch 18, Tagaytay City,
Respondent. Promulgated:
August
2, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-x
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
At bar are consolidated cases filed
against respondent Atty. Anna Liza M. Luna, clerk of court of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18 of Tagaytay City, for grave misconduct and
dishonesty for falsifying court documents and for her failure to properly
account for court collections amounting to over P12 million.
In
A.M. No. P-04-1281, complainant Judge Reuben de la Cruz, assisting judge of the
RTC, alleged that respondent issued a decision and an order making it appear
that they were duly issued by the trial court. On May 20, 2004, he submitted to
us copies of documents[1]
issued by respondent which were as follows:
1.
copy of the trial court order dated January 22, 2004
dismissing the petition for the issuance of the owner’s certificate of title
filed by one Oscar Grande in PET TG No. 1050 [petition for issuance of owner’s duplicate
of titles];
2.
copy of a fictitious judgment issued on the same date
in PET TG No. 1050; and,
3.
copy of a certification dated March 9, 2004 issued by
respondent certifying to the effect that the fictitious judgment had already
become final and executory.
Judge de la Cruz added that a certain
Zenaida vda. de la Vega had also furnished him a copy of her demand letter[2] to
respondent for the return of P50,000 which the latter solicited for the
issuance of a new owner’s copy of a transfer certificate of title.
On May 31, 2004, respondent tendered her resignation.
On June 8, 2004, the Court issued a
resolution[3] treating
Judge de la Cruz’s complaint against respondent as a regular administrative
complaint for grave misconduct. We also (1) referred it to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation, report and recommendation; (2) required
respondent to file her comment to the complaint; (3) placed her under
suspension pending the outcome of the investigation and (4) directed the OCA to
immediately conduct a judicial audit.
Subsequently, OCA’s audit team
conducted a financial audit which showed a cash shortage of over P12
million. In its report, it made the following recommendations:
1.
This report be DOCKETED as a regular administrative
matter against [respondent] and consolidated with A.M. No. P-04-1821…
2.
[Respondent] be DIRECTED to RESTITUTE shortages
incurred in the Judiciary Development, Special Allowance for the Judiciary
Fund, Clerk of Court General Fund, Sheriffs General Fund and Sheriffs Trust
Fund amounting to P8,269,307.76, P5,176.46, P1,435,131.18,
P93,108.13 and P2,437,750.00, respectively or a total of P12,240,473.53.
xxx
xxx xxx
6.
Hold Departure Order be ISSUED
against [respondent] to prevent her
from leaving the country without settling the shortages found.
7. The LEGAL OFFICE be DIRECTED to file
appropriate criminal charges against [respondent].[4]
In
a resolution,[5] we
adopted OCA’s recommendation. The audit report was then docketed as A.M. No.
P-05-2018 and consolidated with A.M. No. P-04-1821.
Later, the OCA audit team submitted
an amended report incorporating therein a new computation of the respondent’s cash
shortages. The amended report read:
Based
on the records presented, the following are our significant audit
findings/observations with [regard] to extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage
cases:
1.
There was a total shortage of
TWELVE MILLION EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY ONE PESOS and 61/600 (P12,085,831.61).
Cash
shortages were incurred due to the following:
a. Non-collection/under-collection
of filing fees on some extra-judicial foreclosure cases in the amount of Three
Million Seven Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Forty-Six Pesos and
99/100 (P3, 734,746.99).
OCA Circular No. 1-2000 provides that all applications for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage whether under the direction of the Sheriff or Notary Public….shall be filed with the Executive Judge, through the Clerk of Court who is also the Ex-Officio Sheriff . The [Office of the Clerk of Court] was further directed to collect the filing fees…and issue the corresponding [o]fficial [r]eceipt.
Audit disclosed that[,]
[respondent] failed to collect the filing fees on twenty-three (23) foreclosure
cases which would amount to [P3,363,280.90].
It was also evidently observed that the
basis used in the computation of the filing fee was not consistent. Other cases
were based only on the principal amount of the mortgage secured, excluding
interest and other charges…[w]hile in cases wherein the total amounts of
indebtedness were not higher than [P1 million], interest, penalties and
other charges were included in the computation as this would not affect the
amount of filing fee to be paid which is peg at P2,000. Non-inclusion of
interests and other charges in the computation resulted to [an]
under-collection of filing fees in the total amount of [P371,466.07].
b.
Non-collection of advertising fee in the total amount
of Nineteen Thousand Four Hundred Fifty (P19,450.00).
As
provided for under Section 9(h) of …Rule 141 [of the Rules], for advertising a
sale, besides cost of publication, [P50.00] shall be collected upon
filing a case. Advertising fee is to be allocated to the Judiciary Development
Fund [JDF] and the General Fund [GF]…
Although
not properly allocated to the JDF and GF funds, the Court collected an
advertising fee every case filed thereat from…1999 onwards. However, from CY
1995-1998, there was no showing that an advertising fee of P50.00 per
case has ever been collected, which translates to [the] non-collection of P19,450.00...
c.
Non-remittance of posting fee amounting to Six
Hundred Seventy-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Pesos (P677,750.00).
As
evidenced by [a]cknowledgment [r]eceipt found in some case folders,
[respondent] collected posting fee of P250.00 per case for the year[s]
1996-1996 and a minimum of P500.00 per case from 1997 onwards, depending
on the location where the “NOTICE OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL SALE” will be posted.
During her accountability period, [respondent] could have collected a total of
no less than P677,750.00 as posting fee without issuing
[o]fficial [r]eceipt…
d.
Non-collection/under-collection of sheriff’s commission
in the total amount of Five Million Eight Hundred Sixty-Six Thousand Five
Hundred Eighty-Four Pesos and 62/100 (P5,866,584.62).
Based
on the documents presented, there [was] a total of 949 foreclosure
cases filed…from 1995-2002…Of this total, 603 were found to have
been either disposed or withdrawn as evidenced by the Certificate of Sale (COS)
issued and the corresponding sheriff’s commissions collected by the Clerk of
Court…However, it was noted that there were a total of 125 cases which [have] already
been disposed…but there was no proof that [the] sheriff commission in the total
amount of P3,159,541.34…was collected.
Moreover, due to the
unsystematic [record-keeping], the [OCA] Team considered as disposed those
[extra-judicial foreclosure] cases with incomplete set of documents, for it is
irrational to consider them as pending since the cases were filed a long time ago
and that there was no Letter of Withdrawal of petition attached to the case
[folders]. But in the absence of the [COS], instead of bid price, we use the
amount of indebtedness as basis in the
computation of [the] sheriff commission and arrived at an uncollected amount of
P2,603,399.00…
e.
Non-collection of Entry Fee on 91 [extra-judicial
foreclosure cases] in the amount of Twenty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred
Pesos (P27,300.00).
As provided for under Section 20 (d) of
Rule 141, for application for and entries of Certificates of Sale (COS) and
final deeds of sale in extra-judicial foreclosures and mortgages, the [Clerk of
Court] is mandated to collect P300.00. Non-collection of entry fee on 91
[extra-judicial foreclosure] cases resulted to under collection of P27,300.00…in
the Judiciary Development Fund.
f.
Non-remittance of sheriffs fees in the amount of One
Million Seven Hundred Sixty Thousand pesos (P1,760,000.00).
As evidenced by acknowledgement
receipts attached to some case folders, [respondent] used to collect from the
winning bidder a minimum of P5,000 every case disposed as
sheriff’s fee. For the years 2000-2002 alone, she could have collected a total
of P1,760,000.00 (352 cases x P5,000) by issuing only an
acknowledgement receipt. Such collection
should have been deposited to the Sheriff’s Trust Fund account to be later
dispensed with, subject to the disbursement of all the expenses incurred in
administering and executing the process. But what [respondent Clerk of Court]
did was she handled the money and
directly paid the sheriff who executed the process…[6]
The Court later on designated retired
Justice Romulo S. Quimbo as hearing officer in the investigation of the
allegations in A.M. No. P-04-1281. During the investigation, respondent
admitted issuing the spurious court documents. After the hearings were
concluded, Justice Quimbo found respondent guilty not only of grave misconduct but
also of dishonesty.
In its report[7] to
the Court, the OCA echoed Justice Quimbo’s findings and stated further that
respondent’s act was covered by Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code defining
falsification of public documents by a public officer. According to the OCA,
“the issuance in an authenticated form of a document purporting to be a copy of
an original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of the original”[8]
was a violation of the penal provision.
The OCA further ratiocinated:
In
the face of the evidence which respondent did not contest, it is evident that
she is guilty of the most serious misconduct in office for which she deserves
the maximum penalty that may be imposed in an administrative case. The
Investigating Justice recommends that respondent be dismissed from the service
for dishonesty and grave misconduct, with forfeiture of all her
benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporation.
It
is also recommended that the records of this case be referred to the Bar
Confidant and require the respondent to show cause why she should not be
disbarred from the practice of law.
It
is recommended further that the records of this case be referred to the
Ombudsman for possible criminal prosecution.
We
agree with the observation as well as the recommendation of the Investigating
Justice.
xxx xxx
xxx
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, respectfully submitted for the consideration of
the Court are our recommendations that:
1. Respondent
Ana Liza M. Luna, Clerk of Court, RTC-Branch 18, Tagaytay City be DISMISSED
from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued
leave and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations; and
2. The
records of this case be referred to the Bar Confidant and require the
respondent to show cause why she should not be suspended, disbarred or
otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the Bar for issuing
falsified court orders; and
3. The
Ombudsman be furnished with certified true copies of the records of this case
for possible criminal prosecution.[9]
(underscoring supplied)
We adopt the OCA’s findings and recommendations.
In A.M. No.
P-04-1821, respondent improperly and brazenly clothed herself with judicial
authority by issuing a fake court judgment and order. There is a clear
usurpation of a judicial function when a person who is not a judge performs an
act the authority for which has been vested only upon a judge.[10]
Without doubt, respondent’s actuation constituted grave misconduct because the
act complained of was inspired by an intention to violate the law or constituted
flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[11]
She was also
guilty of dishonesty, meaning “a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in
principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud,
deceive or betray.”[12] Moreover,
in falsifying court documents to favor litigants for a fee, she likewise behaved
like an extortionist.
Respondent
deserves no place in the judiciary. Respondent should have known that her
office did not only require competence or efficiency but also integrity,
honesty and uprightness. The men and women who work in the judiciary should
always act with propriety for the image of the courts is mirrored in the conduct
of its personnel.[13] They
should be role models in the faithful observance of the constitutional canon
that public office is a public trust.[14]
Respondent miserably failed to live up to all these standards.
In A.M. No.
P-05-2018, this Court finds that the cash shortage was respondent’s accountability.
As designated custodian of court funds and properties, she was liable for any
loss or shortage thereof.[15]
Clerks of courts
are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. With regard
to the collection of legal fees, they perform a delicate function as judicial
officers entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of
regulations.[16] As
such, respondent was duty-bound to use skill and diligence in the performance
of her officially designated functions. She was the accountable officer vested with
the serious responsibility of collecting and depositing the money belonging to
the Court.[17]
In the OCA audit report,[18]
respondent not only failed to collect required legal fees such as filing fees
on extra-judicial foreclosure cases, advertising fees (including cost of
publication, for foreclosure sales), sheriff’s commissions and entry fees on 91
extra-judicial foreclosure cases,[19] but
also did not remit or immediately deposit the sheriffs’ fees and posting fees
she collected. Under Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95, respondent should have deposited
all her collections within 24 hours with the Land Bank of the Philippines.
Respondent’s repeated failure to remit
court funds, as well as to give a satisfactory explanation for this failure,
constitutes grave misconduct, dishonesty and even malversation.[20]
Clerks of court, being next in rank to judges, are constantly warned that
dishonesty which amounts to malversation of public funds will not be
countenanced as they definitely reduce the image of courts of justice to mere
havens of thievery and corruption.[21]
In sum, we find that respondent is
guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty both in A.M. No. A.M. No. P-04-1821
and A.M. No. P-05-2018. In both instances, the penalty of dismissal from
service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from
re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, ought to be imposed.[22]
In addition, pursuant to A.M. No.
02-9-02-SC,[23] we
deemed these administrative cases as disciplinary proceedings for disbarment as
well. Respondent, as an attorney and officer of the court, may be disbarred (or
suspended) not only for violation of her lawyer’s oath but also on the statutory
grounds enumerated in Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, namely (1) deceit;
(2) malpractice, or other gross misconduct in office and (3) grossly immoral
conduct.
Under the
same rule, respondent “may forthwith be required to comment on the complaint
and show cause why (she) should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise
disciplinary sanctioned as member of the Bar.” Considering, however, that said
comment is not mandatory, that respondent has categorically admitted that she
falsified a court decision/order and that the investigation of Justice Quimbo
showed her guilt beyond the shadow of doubt, we are constrained to disbar her.
Gross misconduct and dishonesty put a
lawyer's moral character in serious doubt and render her unfit to continue in
the practice of law. Possession of good moral character is not only a
prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a continuing requirement to the
practice of law.[24] If the
practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic
ideals, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and
principles but should also accord continuing fidelity to them. The requirement
of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public
is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.[25]
Lastly, the criminal prosecution of
respondent is likewise called for by the circumstances.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Atty.
Anna Liza M. Luna is hereby found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and
Dishonesty both in A.M. No. P-04-1821 and in A.M. No. P-05-2018. Accordingly, she
is (1) DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations; (2) DISBARRED from the
practice of law and (3) ORDERED to restitute the cash shortage in the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 of Tagaytay City, amounting to P12,085,831.61.
Let the records
of this case be forwarded to the Ombudsman for the filing of the appropriate
criminal charge(s) against Atty. Anna Liza M. Luna.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice |
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO
Associate
Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C.
CORONA Associate
Justice |
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate
Justice |
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C.
GARCIA Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo (A.M. No. P-04-1821), pp. 4-6.
[2] Id., p. 7.
[3] Id., p. 8.
[4] Report dated April 14, 2005. Rollo, (A.M. No. P-05-2018), p. 1.
[5] Dated June 7, 2005. Id., pp. 72-73.
[6] The OCA Audit Team Report dated January 26, 2006. Id., pp. 84-95.
The OCA
audit team report also indicated that (1) the RTC did not maintain a docket
book for application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages in violation
of the OCA Circular No. 7-2002; (2) the assignment of docket number on
extra-judicial foreclosure cases was disorganized in violation of A.M. No. 99-10-05-0;
(3) the certificate of sale did not bear the original/authentic signature of
the judge in violation of OCA Circular 7-2002; (4) the excess bid amount over
the amount of indebtedness was not immediately turned over to the mortgagors;
(5) respondent committed unjustifiable delay in the release of redemption money
(P600,000) in one case; (6) several foreclosure cases of the Home
Development Mutual Fund (PAGIBIG) remained not acted on and (7) foreclosure
cases documents were not being kept systematically.
[7] Rollo (A.M. No. P-04-1821), pp. 61-66.
[8] Id., pp. 66-67.
[9] Id., pp. 64-65.
[10] Miñoso v. Pamulag, A.M. No. P-05-2067, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 407.
[11] Salazar v. Barriga, A.M. No. P-05-2016, April 19, 2007.
[12] OCA v. Ibay, 441 Phil. 474 (2002) citing Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., 1990.
[13] Aquino v. Miranda, A.M. No. P-01-1453, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 230.
[14] Id.
[15] Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the MCTC-Mabalacat, Pampanga, A.M. No. P-05-1989, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 456.
[16] Report on the Financial Audit in the RTC, General Santos City, 384 Phil. 155 (2000).
[17] Id.
[18] Supra, at note 5.
[19] Rollo (A.M. No. P-05-2018), pp. 88-89.
[20] See Concerned Citizen v. Gabral, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-2098, 15 December 2005, 478 SCRA 13.
[21] Id.
[22] Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. See also Concerned Citizen v. Gabral, Jr., supra.
[23] Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and members of the Bar.
[24] Heck v. Santos, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, 23 February 2004, 423 SCRA 329.
[25] Ferancullo v. Ferancullo, A.C. No. 2714, November 30, 2006.