FERDINAND RAYMUND C. BACOLOT, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JESSIBEL M. PABLO­-DRIESSEN, CLERK OF COURT VI, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT (OCC); VICENTE B. ANGCON, JR., SHERIFF IV, BRAN…

Bacolot versus Pablo-Driessen

The Case

This is an administrative matter arising from a complaint for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty filed by Ferdinand Raymund C. Bacolot, general manager of A-1 Properties, Inc., against four officials and employees of the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur: Atty. Jessibel M. Pablo-Driessen, Clerk of Court VI; Sheriff Vicente B. Angcon, Jr.; Sheriff Jimelito O. Babor; and Dax S. Suarin, Clerk III. The complaint grew out of an extrajudicial foreclosure sale of twenty-eight parcels of land owned by A-1 Properties in favor of Land Bank of the Philippines, which had commenced the foreclosure without paying the required filing fees. The case matters because it fixes the administrative responsibilities of the clerk of court and the sheriffs in extrajudicial foreclosure proceedings, and it shows how the Court classifies the neglect of those duties — as simple neglect, simple misconduct, or grave misconduct.

Procedural History

Bacolot filed his complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Court Administrator, which initially assumed jurisdiction and directed the respondents to file their comments. The Supreme Court later referred the case to Executive Judge Dennis P. Vicoy of the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City for investigation, report, and recommendation, and in a subsequent resolution ordered Suarin's addition as co-respondent. Executive Judge Vicoy submitted an amended investigation report recommending the absolution of Atty. Pablo-Driessen and Suarin, and the imposition of fines on Sheriffs Babor and Angcon. The Office of the Court Administrator indorsed the report to the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court's Second Division, and the Court then referred the report to the Judicial Integrity Board for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Executive Director of the Judicial Integrity Board recommended that the sheriffs be held guilty only of simple neglect of duty, and the Judicial Integrity Board itself recommended simple neglect of duty for Atty. Pablo-Driessen and simple misconduct for the two sheriffs. The Court adopted the Board's findings of fact but modified its conclusions of law.

Facts

On October 12, 2009, A-1 Properties mortgaged twenty-eight parcels of land to Land Bank of the Philippines as security for an eleven million peso loan. After A-1 Properties defaulted, Landbank filed an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City on December 14, 2011. That day happened to be the office Christmas party. A Landbank representative, accompanied by Sheriff Angcon, filed the application, which Suarin received. Suarin advised them to wait for Atty. Pablo-Driessen for the assessment and computation of filing fees, but Sheriff Angcon told him to simply stamp the application as received and have it docketed, and then left with the case records.

Sheriff Angcon issued the notice of sale dated January 4, 2012, and Sheriff Babor approved it, acting as officer-in-charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court even though no memorandum or order designated him as such. The sale scheduled on February 23, 2012 was deferred because of a stay order issued in connection with A-1 Properties' petition for corporate rehabilitation. After that petition was dismissed, Landbank filed a petition for resumption of foreclosure proceedings in 2017. At that point Atty. Pablo-Driessen, assessing the filing fees, was told by Sheriff Babor that no computation was needed because the petition was merely for resumption. The foreclosure sale finally pushed through on December 14, 2017, with Landbank as the highest bidder, and Atty. Pablo-Driessen issued the certificate of sale on February 28, 2018.

In May 2018, A-1 Properties requested copies of the entire case folder. The first request went unacted upon, and a records officer tersely replied that the foreclosure records were with Sheriff Angcon. On the second request, Atty. Pablo-Driessen personally retrieved the records from Sheriff Angcon, had them photocopied at her own expense, and furnished the copies. Reviewing the records, she discovered that the filing fees had never been paid, and she reported the matter to Executive Judge Vicoy. When Landbank failed to present proof of payment, Executive Judge Vicoy declared the extrajudicial foreclosure void.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Pablo-Driessen, Sheriff Angcon, Sheriff Babor, and Suarin are guilty of grave misconduct or gross dishonesty.
• Whether or not Atty. Pablo-Driessen and Suarin are administratively liable for the nonpayment of filing fees in the foreclosure proceedings.
• Whether or not Sheriffs Angcon and Babor are liable, and under what classification of offense, for their roles in docketing and conducting the foreclosure without payment of filing fees.

Applicable Provisions

The Court reproduced the governing procedure in extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, Administrative Matter Number 99-10-05-0, which provides in its second paragraph:

Upon receipt of an application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage, it shall be the duty of the Clerk of Court to: a) receive and docket said application and to stamp thereon the corresponding file number, date and time of filing; b) collect the filing fees therefore pursuant to Rule 141, Section 7(c), as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC, and issue the corresponding official receipt; c) examine, in case of real estate mortgage foreclosure, whether the applicant has complied with all the requirements before the public auction is conducted under the direction of the sheriff or a notary public, pursuant to Sec. 4 of Act 3135, as amended; d) sign and issue the certificate of sale, subject to the approval of the Executive Judge, or in his absence, the Vice-Executive Judge. No certificate of sale shall be issued in favor of the highest bidder until all fees provided for in the aforementioned sections and in Rule 141, Section 9(1), as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC, shall have been paid; Provided, that in no case shall the amount payable under Rule 141, Section 9(1), as amended, exceed P100,000.00; e) after the certificate of sale has been issued to the highest bidder, keep the complete records, while awaiting any redemption within a period of one (1) year from date of registration of the certificate of sale with the Register of Deeds concerned, after which, the records shall be archived.

This provision fixes the clerk of court's duties to collect the filing fees and to keep the complete records, which are the very duties the case measures the respondents against.

The same Administrative Matter provides on the raffle of applications:

The Executive Judge shall, with the assistance of the Clerk of Court, raffle applications for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage under the direction of the sheriff among all sheriffs, including those assigned to the Office of the Clerk of Court and Sheriffs IV assigned in the branches.

This bears on Sheriff Angcon's handling of the application, which was not shown to have been raffled to him.

The same Administrative Matter provides on the reporting of bidders:

The name/s of the bidder/s shall be reported by the sheriff or the notary public who conducted the sale to the Clerk of Court before the issuance of the certificate of sale.

This defines the sheriff's duty to account to the clerk of court for the conduct of the sale.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondents are not guilty of grave misconduct or gross dishonesty, there being no proof of corruption. The failure to pay the filing fees was attributable to Landbank's own fault or omission, and no evidence showed that the sheriffs were bribed.

On the second issue, the Court found Atty. Pablo-Driessen guilty of simple neglect of duty. Although she had no knowledge of the 2011 application, which Sheriff Angcon carried away with the records, the Court held that a simple exercise of diligence would have enabled her to notice what was taking place around her, and that as Clerk of Court she must have known that her role is a delicate task demanding dedication, a high degree of efficiency, and effective personnel and work management. Suarin, by contrast, was absolved: receiving and docketing the application was his ministerial duty, he had no authority to determine compliance with the rules on filing fees, and he had in fact instructed the Landbank representative to wait for the computation and to pay the cashier.

On the third issue, the Court found Sheriff Angcon guilty of grave misconduct. He took the case records, caused the application to be docketed without payment of filing fees, issued the notice of sale, and failed to act on the repeated requests for copies of the foreclosure records — conduct that the Court characterized as showing a willful disregard of established rules. Sheriff Babor was found guilty only of simple misconduct: he approved the notice of sale without authority to act as officer-in-charge, and he misled Atty. Pablo-Driessen into ceasing from computing the filing fees due from Landbank. Their defense of good faith was rejected, since the number of parcels of land involved should have made them more cautious.

Doctrine

First, the clerk of court, as ex-officio sheriff, has the non-delegable duty to collect the filing fees upon receipt of an application for extrajudicial foreclosure and to keep the complete records of the proceedings; a certificate of sale may not be issued until all fees are paid. Second, a sheriff who causes an application to be docketed and a sale to proceed without payment of filing fees, and who withholds the records from the parties, is guilty of grave misconduct, not mere neglect. Third, approving a notice of sale without authority to act as officer-in-charge, and misleading the clerk of court into omitting the computation of fees, amounts to simple misconduct. Fourth, a clerk who merely receives and dockets an application as a ministerial duty, without authority over the payment of fees, incurs no administrative liability. Fifth, absence of proof of corruption negates gross dishonesty, but it does not excuse neglect of the duties prescribed by Administrative Matter Number 99-10-05-0.

Disposition

The Court dismissed the complaint against Suarin for insufficiency of evidence, found Atty. Pablo-Driessen guilty of simple neglect of duty and Sheriff Angcon guilty of grave misconduct, found Sheriff Babor guilty of simple misconduct, and imposed on each of them a fine of eighteen thousand pesos, payable within three months and deductible from their leave credits or retirement benefits if unpaid.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the clerk of court must collect the filing fees and keep the records, and a sheriff who dockets a foreclosure and runs the sale without those fees is guilty of grave misconduct. Examiners use this case to test the classification of administrative offenses in extrajudicial foreclosure — distinguishing simple neglect, simple misconduct, and grave misconduct under Administrative Matter Number 99-10-05-0.