Latest Entries »

CASE 2019-0025: MILA B. RECAMARA VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 211810. AUGUST 28, 2019, REYES, A., JR., J. (SUBJECT/S: RECONSTITUTION OF TITLE; COURT MUST EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS) (BRIEF TITLE: RECAMARA VS REPUBLIC)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

 “WHEREFORE, the October 9, 2013 Decision and February 26, 2014 Resolution of the Court of Appeals m CA-G.R. CV No. 02859 are AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

 SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROCEEDING FOR JUDICIAL RECONSTITUTION UNDER RA NO. 26?

 

THE RESTORATION OF A LOST OR DESTROYED TORRENS CERTIFICATE TO ITS ORIGINAL FORM AND CONDITION.

 

The purpose of the proceeding is to reproduce, after observing the procedures laid down by law, the subject certificate of title in the form it was prior to its loss or destruction.25 Such proceedings presuppose the prior existence of the certificate, seeking its reissuance. Sections 2 and 3 of RA No. 26 enumerate the source documents upon which judicial reconstitution may issue. The first provision applies to reconstitution of original certificates of title, while the second applies to reconstitution of transfer certificates of title.

 

HOW WILL ORIGINAL CERTIFICATES OF TITLE BE RECONSTITUTED?

 

Section 2 (of RA 26). Original certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

 

(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

( c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

( d) An authenticated copy of the decree of registration or patent, as the case may be, pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued;

( e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

 

HOW SHALL TRANSFER CERTIFICATES OF TITLE  BE RECONSTITUTED?

 

Section 3 (of RA 26). Transfer certificates of title shall be reconstituted from such of the sources hereunder enumerated as may be available, in the following order:

 

(a) The owner’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

(b) The co-owner’s, mortgagee’s, or lessee’s duplicate of the certificate of title;

( c) A certified copy of the certificate of title, previously issued by the register of deeds or by a legal custodian thereof;

( d) The deed of transfer or other document, on file in the registry of deeds, containing the description of the property, or an authenticated copy thereof, showing that its original had been registered, and pursuant to which the lost or destroyed transfer certificate of title was issued;

( e) A document, on file in the registry of deeds, by which the property, the description of which is given in said document, is mortgaged, leased or encumbered, or an authenticated copy of said document showing that its original had been registered; and

(f) Any other document which, in the judgment of the court, is sufficient and proper basis for reconstituting the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

 

WHAT WAS THE RULING OF CA?

 

In this case, the CA held that Mila was not able to present any of the documents mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of the above-shown Section 3.

 

WAS THE CA CORRECT?

 

WRONG BECAUSE SECTION 3 REFERS TO RECONSTITUTION OF CTC WHILE MILA’S TITLE WAS AN ORIGINAL TITLE. THUS SECTION 2 SHOULD BE APPLIED.

 

In so ruling, the appellate court committed a reversible error.

 

Mila’s petition for reconstitution is anchored mainly on Decree No. 299019. Verily, such is not among the classes of documents contemplated by Section 3. However, this should not have had any bearing on the CA’s decision, as said provision applies to proceedings for the reconstitution of transfer certificates of title. Mila’s petition was one for the reconstitution of an original certificate of title, which is governed by Section 2.

 

It is significant to point out that Section 2( d) sanctions judicial reconstitution based on “[ a ]n authenticated copy of the decree of registration x x x pursuant to which the original certificate of title was issued.” In her petition for review, Mila contends that Decree No. 299019, pursuant to said provision, constitutes sufficient and proper basis for the reconstitution of OCT No. 0-10245.

 

IF SECTION 2 IS APPLIED WOULD MILA’S TITLE BE RECONSTITUTED?

 

NO BECAUSE THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT SHE SUBMITTED WAS QUESTIONABLE.

 

Going back to the instant case, a simple perusal of the second page of Decree No. 299019 will reveal that the decree suffers from the same defects as that presented in Pasicolan. For one, there is a blank space above the name Enrique Altavas, indicated to be the Chief of the GLRO at the time. On that space should appear his signature, as he was tasked by law to issue decrees of registration.33 Instead, Decree No. 299019 bears the signature of the Deputy Chief of the GLRO, inscribed only for the purpose of certifying the decree as a true copy. Further, the signature of Hon. Francisco Soriano, the CFI judge who allegedly issued Decree No. 299019, is nowhere to be found. . . . .  (ADDITIONAL DEFECTS CITED)

 

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0025-Mila B. Recamara Vs. Republic of the Philippines

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2019-0024: FREDERICK L. SURIAGA VS. COMMISSIONER ALICIA DELA ROSA-BALA AND ROBERT S. MARTINEZ (G.R. NO. 238191. AUGUST 28, 2019, REYES, A., JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: IMMUNITY OF WITNESS FROM PROSECUTION)(BRIEF TITLE: SURIAGA VS COMMISSIONER BALA ET AL)

            

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

SURIAGA SAID HE ASKED BAGUION, WORKING AT BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION,  TO SECURE FOR HIM A CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBILITY AND PAID THE LATTER P25K. WHEN SURIAGA ASKED FOR COPY OF HIS CIVIL SERVICE LIABILITY CSC FOUND OUT THAT HE SUBMITTED FRAUDULENT APPLICATION. INVESTIGATION ENSUED. SURIAGA ADMITTED HIS INFRACTION BUT MOVED THAT HE BE GIVEN IMMUNITY AS HE IS WILLING TO TESTIFY AGAINST BAGUION. CSC DENIED HIS MOTION. IS HE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY?

 

NO BECAUSE HE IS THE MOST GUILTY.

 

As the party that is clearly the most guilty, having been caught red-handed to have a fraudulent issue with his application, the Court is convinced that Suriaga is not entitled to a grant of immunity as he was unable to show beyond a mere recitation of the requisites that he was eligible for the same. Aside from his self-serving statements, he failed to substantiate his claim that he should be granted immunity and that the CSC erred in denying his claim.

 

SURIAGA SAID IT IS HIS RIGHT TO BE GRANTED IMMUNITY. IS HE CORRECT?

 

HE IS WRONG. THE GRANT OF IMMUNITY IS NOT A RIGHT, BUT AN EXERCISE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OR THE PROSECUTION.

 

 As explained in Quarto v. Hon. Ombudsrnan !’vlarcelo, et al. :29 The decision to grant immunity from prosecution forms a constituent part of the prosecution process. It is essentially a tactical decision lo forego prosecution of a person for government to achieve a higher objective. It is a deliberate renunciation of the right of the State to prosecute all who appear to be guilty of having committed a crime. Its justification lies in the particular need of the State to obtain the conviction of the more guilty criminals who, otherwise. will probably elude the long arm of the law. Whether or not the delicate power should be exercised, who should be extended the privilege. the timing of its grant. arc questions addressed solely to the sound judgment or the prosecution. The power to prosecute includes the right to determine who shall be prosecuted and the corollary right to decide whom not to prosecute. In reviewing the exercise of prosccutorial discretion in these areas. the jurisdiction of the respondent court is limited. For the business of a court of justice is to be an impm1ial tribunal, and not to get involved with the success or failure of the prosecution to prosecute. Every now and then. the prosecution may err in the selection of its strategics, but such errors arc not fi1r neutral courts to rectify. any more than courts should correct the blunders of the dcfcnsc. (Citation omitted)

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0024-Frederick L. Suriaga Vs. Commissioner Alicia Dela Rosa-Bala and Robert S. Martinez 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2019-0023: RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, CEBU CITY (A.M. NO. P-17-3746, AUGUST 28, 2019, PER CURIAM) (SUBJECT/S: DISHONESTY, MISCONDUCT)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

  

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds Alma Bella S. Macaldo, Records Officer II, and Josefina P. Veraque, Cashier I, both of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City, GUILTY of DISHONESTY AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT. They are DISMISSED from the service, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government owned and controlled corporations. All their withheld salaries, allowances, and benefits, if any, excluding the monetary value of their earned leave credits, and whatever claims they may have with the Government Service Insurance System are FORFEITED in favor of the Judiciary Development Fund and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund accounts. Macaldo  and Veraque are directed to restitute the remaining balance of accountabilities for the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund.

 

The Financial Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to compute the remaining balance to be paid by Alma Bella S. Macaldo and Josefina P. Veraque, if any, after the application of their earned leave credits, which is based on their service record, certificate of leave credits, notice of salary adjustment, and notice of step increment, if any, as well as withheld salaries and any other benefits that they may be entitled to receive.

 

The Office of the Court Administrator is ORDERED to file the appropriate criminal charges against Alma Bella S. Macaldo and Josefina P. Veraque.

 

Josephine R. Teves, Clerk of Court IV of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City, is likewise found GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY and is SUSPENDED from office for one (1) month and one (1) day. She is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RESTITUTE the shortage in the Fiduciary Fund amounting to P28,709.06. She is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT IS DISHONESTY?

 

Dishonesty is the 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.

 

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?

 

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.

 

WHEN IS MISCONDUCT GRAVE?

 

It is grave when it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Tampering of official receipts and over withdrawals from court funds are considered grave misconduct and serious dishonesty.

 

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0023-Re – Report on the financial audit conducted at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.