| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
MOP, Bk 6, v.5, 192
[ ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 158, June 27, 1951 ]
REMOVING MR. PRIMO L. CABRERA FROM OFFICE AS CITY ATTORNEY OF ORMOC
This is an administrative case against Mr. Primo L. Cabrera, city attorney of Ormoc, who stands charged with corrupt practices in that (1) he made improper use of his official influence in the settlement of civil cases for personal profit; (2) he filed or dismissed criminal cases for pecuniary considerations; and (3) he illegally issued duplicate certificates of title, charging private fees for his services and took advantage of his position as ex-officio register of deeds in borrowing money from persons transacting official business with his office. The charges were investigated by the Department of Justice and in his report the Secretary of Justice recommends-the dismissal of the respondent.
With respect to the first charge, it appears that sometime in July, 1950, through the intervention of respondent, the husband of one Guillerma Cabiling de Barabad gave to respondent for delivery to his aforenamed wife the sum of P400 as part of her accumulated allowances due from her husband, but respondent gave her only P300, retaining the P100 for himself; that sometime in 1950 respondent intervened in the settlement of an inherited property, as a result of which. Francisca Monte Vda. de Aviles and her sister succeeded in obtaining one-half thereof; that although their share was sold, through the mediation of the respondent, for P250, he gave them only P100 and kept the balance of P150—P100 for himself and P50 for alleged cost of survey.
Respondent admits the occurrence of the above transactions but denies having received any amount for himself in connection therewith and attempted to substantiate his denial. After weighing the evidence for respondent, I find that it failed to overcome the probative value of the testimony of Mesdames Barabad and Aviles. If respondent did not receive the amounts allegedly taken by him, considerations of gratitude would have compelled them to come to his defense. That they acted otherwise by testifying against him strengthens the veracity of the first charge.
The second charge is dropped for lack of merit.
As regards the last charge, Eugenio Go testified that he paid respondent P40 for the issuance of two certificates of title for his two lots; that respondent did not issue any official receipt for the amount; that on December 2, 1950, he obtained a loan of P500 from a Dr. Serafica secured by the mortgage of these two lots, the papers having been drawn up in respondent’s office; that the P500 being a check, Go asked respondent to help him cash it; that together they went to a Bombay store where it was cashed; that respondent gave him P300 only and told him that he was borrowing the P200, for which he signed a .receipt; and that in deference to respondent Go consented thereto. Go also declared that his titles to the lots in question were burned during the war; and that despite the absence of court session and his not having filed a petition with the court for the issuance of duplicate certificates of title, respondent issued the duplicate certificates without the corresponding court order.
Pedro Torralba testified that he and two others bought a piece of land which had been mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank; that although the former owner had already redeemed the mortgage, no annotation to that effect appeared on the title, so he and his co-owners asked respondent to have the mortgage cancelled and a new certificate of title issued in their favor; and that they paid, respondent P200 for his services.
It likewise appears that without proper court order, but merely on the strength of the affidavits executed by Pelagio P. Codilla and Rufino Conui, respondent issued transfer certificate of title No. 339 in favor of Mrs. Luisa Codilla Vda. de Siy.
Respondent admits the occurrence of these three transactions but denies having personally profited by them. I have carefully considered respondent’s evidence, including his explanation, and I find the same unsatisfactory. The issuance by respondent of the duplicate transfer certif-icate of title in the particular case of Mrs. Siy is not only highly irregular and anomalous but also evidently illegal.
The foregoing facts clearly show respondent’s gross misconduct by prostituting his public office. Consequently, I have no alternative but to take drastic action against him for the protection of the public service.
Wherefore, Mr. Primo L. Cabrera is hereby removed from office as city attorney of Ormoc, effective as of the last day of his service with pay, with prejudice to reinstatement in the government service.
Done in the City of Manila, this 27th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the fifth.
By the President:
(Sgd.) MARCIANO ROQUE
Acting Assistant Executive Secretary
With respect to the first charge, it appears that sometime in July, 1950, through the intervention of respondent, the husband of one Guillerma Cabiling de Barabad gave to respondent for delivery to his aforenamed wife the sum of P400 as part of her accumulated allowances due from her husband, but respondent gave her only P300, retaining the P100 for himself; that sometime in 1950 respondent intervened in the settlement of an inherited property, as a result of which. Francisca Monte Vda. de Aviles and her sister succeeded in obtaining one-half thereof; that although their share was sold, through the mediation of the respondent, for P250, he gave them only P100 and kept the balance of P150—P100 for himself and P50 for alleged cost of survey.
Respondent admits the occurrence of the above transactions but denies having received any amount for himself in connection therewith and attempted to substantiate his denial. After weighing the evidence for respondent, I find that it failed to overcome the probative value of the testimony of Mesdames Barabad and Aviles. If respondent did not receive the amounts allegedly taken by him, considerations of gratitude would have compelled them to come to his defense. That they acted otherwise by testifying against him strengthens the veracity of the first charge.
The second charge is dropped for lack of merit.
As regards the last charge, Eugenio Go testified that he paid respondent P40 for the issuance of two certificates of title for his two lots; that respondent did not issue any official receipt for the amount; that on December 2, 1950, he obtained a loan of P500 from a Dr. Serafica secured by the mortgage of these two lots, the papers having been drawn up in respondent’s office; that the P500 being a check, Go asked respondent to help him cash it; that together they went to a Bombay store where it was cashed; that respondent gave him P300 only and told him that he was borrowing the P200, for which he signed a .receipt; and that in deference to respondent Go consented thereto. Go also declared that his titles to the lots in question were burned during the war; and that despite the absence of court session and his not having filed a petition with the court for the issuance of duplicate certificates of title, respondent issued the duplicate certificates without the corresponding court order.
Pedro Torralba testified that he and two others bought a piece of land which had been mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank; that although the former owner had already redeemed the mortgage, no annotation to that effect appeared on the title, so he and his co-owners asked respondent to have the mortgage cancelled and a new certificate of title issued in their favor; and that they paid, respondent P200 for his services.
It likewise appears that without proper court order, but merely on the strength of the affidavits executed by Pelagio P. Codilla and Rufino Conui, respondent issued transfer certificate of title No. 339 in favor of Mrs. Luisa Codilla Vda. de Siy.
Respondent admits the occurrence of these three transactions but denies having personally profited by them. I have carefully considered respondent’s evidence, including his explanation, and I find the same unsatisfactory. The issuance by respondent of the duplicate transfer certif-icate of title in the particular case of Mrs. Siy is not only highly irregular and anomalous but also evidently illegal.
The foregoing facts clearly show respondent’s gross misconduct by prostituting his public office. Consequently, I have no alternative but to take drastic action against him for the protection of the public service.
Wherefore, Mr. Primo L. Cabrera is hereby removed from office as city attorney of Ormoc, effective as of the last day of his service with pay, with prejudice to reinstatement in the government service.
Done in the City of Manila, this 27th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the fifth.
(Sgd.) ELPIDIO QUIRINO
President of the Philippines
President of the Philippines
By the President:
(Sgd.) MARCIANO ROQUE
Acting Assistant Executive Secretary