555 Phil. 742
PER CURIAM:
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.
- 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];
- copy of a fictitious judgment issued on the same date in PET TG No. 1050; and,
- 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.
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.
- This report be DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against [respondent] and consolidated with A.M. No. P-04-1821...
- [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 xxxIn 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.
- Hold Departure Order be ISSUED against [respondent] to prevent her from leaving the country without settling the shortages found.
- The LEGAL OFFICE be DIRECTED to file appropriate criminal charges against [respondent].[4]
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:Cash shortages were incurred due to the following:
- There was a total shortage of TWELVE MILLION EIGHTY-FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY ONE PESOS and 61/600 (P12,085,831.61).
- 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].- 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...- 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...- 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...- 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.- 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]
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.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]
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:We adopt the OCA's findings and recommendations.
- 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
- 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
- The Ombudsman be furnished with certified true copies of the records of this case for possible criminal prosecution.[9] (underscoring supplied)