FIRST
DIVISION
|
OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN ( Petitioner, – versus – ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA, Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 183507 Present: PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN,
and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: February
24, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Anwar Mohamad Abdurasak and Jovina Tama Mohamad Abdurasak via a petition filed
before the Office of the Register of Deeds of General Santos City sought the
inclusion of the name “Ali Mohamad Abdurasak” in Transfer Certificates of Title
Nos. T-89456 and T-89458.
Without authority from General Santos City Register of Deeds Asteria E.
Cruzabra (respondent), land registration examiner Bienvenido Managuit (Managuit)
acted on the petition by instructing the office clerk to type the name “Ali
Mohamad Abdurasak” on the face of the titles.
Due to the unauthorized intercalation, one Datu Sarip E. Andang[1]
filed a criminal complaint against respondent,
as register of deeds, for falsification of public documents and usurpation of
official functions before the Office of the Ombudsman for
In her Counter-Affidavit, respondent alleged that, inter alia, the intercalation was without her authority and
it occurred outside her cubicle; that upon learning
about it, she did not correct the same
for to do so would subject her or the author thereof to a charge of
falsification of public documents; and that the proper parties to question the
intercalation are those whose interests on the titles were prejudiced thereby.[2]
Ombudsman Prosecutor Liza C. Tan found no probable cause to charge
respondent with usurpation of official functions and accordingly ordered the
withdrawal of the Information for falsification of public documents which
apparently had been filed earlier. On
her recommendation, however, an administrative
case for simple misconduct was filed against respondent.[3]
The Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao (petitioner), through Deputy
Ombudsman’s Antonio E. Valenzuela’s Order[4]
of May 18, 2004, found respondent liable for neglect of duty
and accordingly imposed on her the penalty of suspension for one (1)
month without pay, pursuant to Section 46, Book V,
Title I of Executive Order No. 292 (the Administrative
Code of 1987).
On appeal by respondent, the Court of Appeals, by Decision[5]
of
As Registrar of
Deeds, the primary duties and responsibilities, among other things, of
[respondent] are: (1) directs and
supervises the activities of the Registry of Deeds Office; (2) reviews deeds
and other documents for conformance with legal requirements for registration;
and (3) approves registration of documents and justifies disapproved cases. x x x.
x x x The land
registration examiner, Bienvenido Managuit himself admitted that . . . he
personally ordered the typing of the name “Ali Mohamad Abdurasak” on the face
of the titles, without referring the said petition to [respondent] for
review and proper disposition being the head of office. This fact negates the imputation of neglect
of duty which, as defined, is the failure of an employee to give proper
attention to a task expected of him, signifying “disregard of a duty resulting
from carelessness or indifference (Office
of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 167844,
x x x x
While We are
convinced that [respondent] is not negligent in the performance of her
official duties and responsibilities as Registrar of Deeds, We however admonish
her to be very careful, using prudence and caution in the management of the
affairs in her Office in order to preserve the public’s faith and confidence in
the government. (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed the present
Petition for Review on Certiorari, maintaining that it did not err in finding
respondent administratively guilty of neglect of duty and that its Order
“imposing upon respondent the penalty of suspension for one (1) month
without pay is final, executory and unappealable.”[6]
The Court finds for petitioner.
In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof
required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, “that amount of
relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine
otherwise.”[7]
In the present case, petitioner’s Order of
That it is the duty and responsibility of respondent, as register of
deeds, to direct and supervise the activities of her office
can never be overemphasized. Whether respondent
exercised prudence and vigilance in discharging her duties, she has not
shown.
Respondent’s guilt of neglect of duty becomes more pronounced as note is
taken of her admitted inaction upon learning of the irregularity. Her
justification for such inaction — that to do
so would subject her to a charge of falsification[9]
— reflects her indifference, to say the least,
to her duties and functions.
AT ALL EVENTS, the
SEC.
27. Effectivity and finality of
Decisions.– x x x
x x x x
Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence
are conclusive. Any order,
directive or decision imposing the penalty of a public censure or reprimand, suspension
of not more than one month’s salary shall be final and unappealable. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Corollarily, Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 7 (the
“Rules of Procedure of
the Office of the Ombudsman”), as
amended by A.O. No. 17 dated
Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. – Where
the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where
the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not
more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the
decision shall be final, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be
appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the
requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of
the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
x
x x x (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Given the provisions of law and the Rules of Procedure of the Office of
the Ombudsman, petitioner’s Order faulting respondent for neglect of duty for
which it imposed the penalty of one month suspension without pay is “final,
executory and unappealable.” It follows
that the Court of Appeals had no appellate jurisdiction to
review, rectify or reverse the Order.[10]
WHEREFORE, the
petition is GRANTED. The December 14, 2007 Decision and June 17, 2008
Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] There is no indication in the Court’s rollo of the case and that of the Court of Appeals who he is or in what capacity he filed the complaint.
[2] Cited
in petitioner’s Order of
[3]
[4]
[5] Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Elihu A. Ybanez; id. at 21-29.
[6]
[7] Bascos, Jr. v. Taganahan, G.R. No.
180666,
[8] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 167844,
[9] Assailed CA Decision, rollo, p. 26.
[10] Republic v. Basjao, G.R. No. 160596,