MOP, Bk 11, v.5, 307
In his answer-affidavit dated July 16, 1987, respondent, while denying misfeasance of Entry No. 99243 the registration of which he attributed to Atty. Raymundo Vergara, admitted having registered the documents covered by the above-enumerated entries, inspite of the deficiencies in the amount of the documentary stamp taxes paid. He further contended that the said taxes were paid based on the Payment Orders issued by the BIR and that such payments were evidence by Bank Confirmation Receipts issued by the agent bank. In fine, respondent Manalastas imputed the tax shortages to both the Land Registration Examiners who allegedly overlooked such deficiencies in the processing of the documents and the BIR representatives who computed the amounts of the said taxes. He further averred that he merely relied on the computation of the BIR representatives.
Entry No. Value of Contract Confirmation Date Amount Shortage Receipt No. _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ _______ 110275 P 83,200 B 2009725 10-10-83 P 634.00 P 25.60 99243 283,560 B 2793810 12-19-83 1,866.00 397.05 107463 34,560 B 2419978 7-26-83 224.00 46.48 94408 297,050 B 0384371 6-21-83 1,578.00 792.40 103107 300,000 B 0280826 1-26-83 122.50 227.50 103783 67,200 B 0345852 2-16-83 146.00 385.80 105760 125,255 B 0384137 5-17-83 937.00 59.04 103275 466,300 B 0160943 1-24-83 147.00 397.00
“A careful review of the records reveal that in connection with Entry No. 103783, respondent Manalastas failed to observe the provisions of (1) Section 10 of the Property Registration Decree (Presidential Decree No. 1529) requiring him to see to it that the instrument presented for registration bears the ‘proper’ documentary stamps; and (2) LRC Circular No. 379 dated 26 June 1980 reiterating the portions of the letter dated 2 June 1980 of the BIR Commissioner relative to the value of the documentary stamp taxes to be affixed to taxable documents. In the case of deeds of sale and conveyances of real property, the said LRC Circular bases the documentary stamp taxes to be paid on the ‘consideration, after making proper allowance of any [e]ncumbrance.’I concur with the Secretary of Justice in finding respondent liable for gross negligence. The penalty recommended must however be modified. The records reveal that the respondent was investigated together with other employees in the Registry of Deeds of Rizal, who were also charged for gross negligence and/or violation of existing rules and regulations. Though the NLTDRA found all the other respondents “remiss in their duties in the implementation of existing regulation concerning documentary stamp before effecting registration of legal and/or commercial documents,” it is with regret that only the penalty of reprimand was imposed by the Administrator against them (pp 8 and 10, NLTDRA Adm. Case No. 87-17 Decision dated August 2, 1988). It is clear that gross negligence permeated the Office of the Registry of Deeds once headed by the respondents. From the Register of Deeds down to the land registration examiners, negligence seems to be the common trait. There may thus be basis to believe that the Government may have incurred revenue losses not only in the stated shortage for the documentary stamp but also in other taxes and fees attendant to realty transactions which these public officials could have prevented had they not been negligent viz.:
x x x
All told, we agree with the Administrator that respondent Manalastas had been remiss in the performance of his duties as Register of Deeds. Such gross negligence proceeds from his being merely perfunctory in the observance of the relevant issuances. As to the charge of violation of revenue laws and regulations, we find no evidence on record that respondent Manalastas wilfully and intentionally committed the acts charged him.
On the matter of penalty, we do not agree with the mere reprimand the Administrator recommends. Under Memorandum Circular No. 8 dated 26 June 1970 of the Civil Service Commission, reprimand is a penalty for light administrative offenses only. Under the same circular, gross neglect of duty or gross negligence constitutes a less grave administrative offense.
Considering that respondent Manalastas had been in the government service for thirty-three (33) years and that he had already reached the age of compulsory retirement on 6 November 1987, he may be fined an amount equivalent to his three months salary.”
“True, confirmation receipt is presented merely as supporting document to show payment of capital gains on documentary stamp tax and is not required to be registered; however, its non-presentation or its apparent alteration or tampering or the insufficiency of the tax paid therein, is adequate reason for the Register of Deeds to deny the registration of the document.” (p.9, ibid.)Contrary to the observation of the NLTDRA Administrator, a “busy” office like that of the Registry for the Province of Rizal is never an excuse to depart from a faithful performance of a duty.