OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. LIBERATO YAMBAO, CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 80, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

The then National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) director Alfredo
Lim forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator of this Court a letter
dated November 12, 1990 and docketed as A.M. 91-1080 RTC containing a copy of
the NBI evaluation/comment as well as the Agent’s report and its annexes on the
investigation conducted on Liberato Yambao, Jesus Morales, Jaime Anido, et al., with the recommendation that
Liberato Yambao, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 80, be proceeded against for administrative discipline.

On January 29, 1991, this Court, acting on the aforestated letter, resolved to direct the Office of the
Court Administrator to file administrative charges against Atty. Liberato
Yambao for falsification of public documents. The complaint was docketed as A.M. P-91-593.

This administrative case originated from the affidavit-complaint^[1]
dated July 11, 1990 filed by Joselito P. Garaycay with the NBI against Atty.
Liberato Yambao and Jess Morales for Falsification of Public Documents, Theft
and Grave Threats. His
affidavit-complaint states among others that: On April 17, 1979, he bought lot 23, FLS-2804-D covered by TCT No. 9780
(693) located in Matandang Balara, Quezon City from his uncle Vicente T.
Garaycay. In view of the fire that gutted the Quezon City Hall in
1988 where most of the records of the Registry of Deeds were burned, his uncle
Vicente T. Garaycay filed an application for reconstitution of said title on
August 29, 1988 since the title of the lot was still in his uncle’s name
although the same was already sold to him. Pursuant to the Order of Reconstitution, a reconstituted title TCT No.
RT-1764 (9780)(693) was issued by the Registry of Deeds on February 7, 1990. In accordance with the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated April 17, 1979, TCT No. RT-1764 (9780)(693) was cancelled and in lieu
thereof TCT No. 12183 was issued in his name. In order to make it easier to sell the said property, he caused the subdivision of lot 23 into
3 lots, lot 23-A, 23-B and 23-C, all of plan PSD-13-013531 which was duly
approved by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Consequently, TCT Nos. 14414, 14415 and
14416 were issued in his name on April 18, 1990. He then sold lot 23-A to a certain Lillian Tondjis with a condition
that he first fence said lot before full payment could be made. On June 19, 1990, he hired a labor
contractor, Mr. Ernesto T. Sala to erect a concrete perimeter fence. However, four days later, a certain Atty.
Liberato Yambao, Clerk of Court of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 80, arrived
at the premises and advised the contractor and his laborers to stop
constructing the fence claiming that he owned the land where the fence was
being erected and showed the laborers the alleged original copy of the title
over the subject lot. In return, the
contractor showed him a fencing permit issued by the Building Official of
Quezon City. On June 30, 1990, a
certain Jess Morales together with six (6) armed men went to the premises and
manhandled one of the laborers, forcing the other laborers to stop
working. On July 3, 1990, Jess Morales
together with six (6) armed men returned to the premises and forcibly took the
construction implements and materials and loaded some of them in two (2)
vehicles while the others were brought by a certain Jimmy Anido to his
house. The incident was reported to the
police and Anido was placed under police custody.

The Anti-Organized Crime Division (AOCD) of the NBI, acting on
the aforesaid affidavit-complaint of Joselito Garaycay, subpoenaed Jimmy Anido who failed to appear despite
due notice.^[2]

On August 7, 1990, complainant Joselito Garaycay and respondents
Liberato Yambao and Jess Morales
confronted each other before the AOCD. Complainant Joselito Garaycay presented and introduced his uncle Vicente
T. Garaycay who submitted to the Investigating Agents his Passport,^[3]
Driver’s License^[4]
and Pension Check and Voucher from the Social Security System^[5]
as identification credentials. Vicente
T. Garaycay also executed a sworn statement^[6]
stating that the signature appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
February 11, 1986 in favor of Liberato Yambao and Jess Morales was not his
signature and that he did not
know all other signatures
contained therein; that he was not a widower at the time of the alleged sale;
that he did not personally know the two alleged buyers namely Liberato Yambao
and Jess Morales and that he was not delinquent in paying the taxes relative to
said properties.

Respondent Yambao, on the other hand, claimed that the person
presented and introduced by complainant as Vicente T. Garaycay was not the
person from whom he bought the property. He in turn showed a Voter’s
Identification Card with No. 2463926, Precinct 21, YCMC Compound, MP, Angono,
Rizal of one Vicente T. Garaycay. The
photograph appearing on the Voter’s ID is different from that of the person
introduced by complainant as his uncle.

When confronted with the affidavit of the complainant, respondent
Yambao refused to give his comment thereon and asked a copy thereof for him to
comment within 10 days from receipt but has not done so.

A certification^[7]
issued by the Office of the Election Registrar of Angono, Rizal showed that
according to the records of the office, Mr. Vicente T. Garaycay was not a
registered voter of Precinct 19,
20, 21, 21-A, 22, 23, 38-A all located at Barangay Mahabang Parang, Angono,
Rizal. Said certification was issued
upon the request of the NBI.

Mr. Romulo D. Florencio executed an affidavit^[8] to
the effect that he personally knew respondent Yambao; that respondent Yambao,
knowing him to be an employee of Adez Realty, informed him sometime in March
1990 that he owns lot 23, FLS-2804-D; that he mentioned the said information to
Mr. Ernesto Sala, an officemate, who in turn informed him that lot 23 was owned
by Vicente T. Garaycay; that he told respondent Yambao that lot 23 was owned by
Vicente T. Garaycay who bought the land from Macaria Lim de Arambulo; that
respondent Yambao showed him the original copy of the Deed of Sale allegedly
executed in his favor by Vicente T. Garaycay and the original of the Owner’s
Copy of TCT No. 9780 involving lot 23 both copies of which was in his
possession; and that respondent Yambao caused the reproduction (xerox copy) of
the two documents which were personally given to him by respondent Yambao.

Said xerox copies of the two documents became the bases for
verification conducted by the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City
and the Land Registration Authority. The verification showed that the two documents were spurious and the
signatures of Vicente T. Garaycay appearing on the Deed of Sale were false and
forged.

Meanwhile, pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum^[9]
issued by the AOCD, Atty. Samuel S. Cleofe, Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City,
summoned Mr. Viterbo F. Cahilig, Records Officer of said office, who brought
with him the genuine Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. 9780 (693)^[10]
and disclosed the facts how Joselito Garaycay derived title from his uncle
Vicente T. Garaycay.^[11] He
also declared that the Office of the Registry of Deeds has no record of a Deed
of Sale executed by Vicente T. Garaycay in favor of Liberato Yambao and Jesus
B. Rodriguez involving lot 23.^[12]

Complainant Joselito Garaycay submitted a Certification^[13]
dated August 28, 1990 issued by the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City to the
effect that per records of the Registry, Vicente T. Garaycay, married to
Josefina Vicencio, owner of TCT No. 9780 (693) PR-10606, had executed a Deed of
Sale in favor of Joselito P. Garaycay, entered under PE No. 3588/Vol. 2 and
inscribed on May 26, 1989 and that a Deed of Sale for the same lot was not
executed in favor of Liberato Yambao or Jesus D. Morales.

Ernesto T. Sala executed a sworn statement^[14]
declaring that: he was hired by
Joselito Garaycay to fence the latter’s lot; on July 3, 1990, a certain Jaime
Anido together with five (5) armed men arrived at the premises and with drawn
guns ordered them to stop constructing the fence; said armed men carted away
the construction materials and implements and he reported the said incident to
the Litex Police Detachment, Fairview Sub-station, Fairview, Quezon City. Said Report^[15] was
transmitted to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City.

In an affidavit^[16]
executed by Ernesto T. Sala, he stated that he and his men continued
constructing the fence. On July 26,
1990 Jaime Anido and five (5) men again came and ordered them to stop
constructing the fence and carted away the construction materials and
implements. This incident was reported
to the CAPCOM North Sector, Camp Karingal, Quezon City which referred the
matter to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City for appropriate
action.^[17]

On the basis of the aforestated findings and investigations
conducted, the NBI found sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of two
counts of falsification of public documents against respondent Yambao
especially when considered in the light of the fact that he had been in
possession of the original copies of the questioned documents, has used them,
and is presumed to have authored the falsifications, absent a satisfactory
explanation.

The NBI likewise found that even if the records do not show that
respondent Yambao took advantage of his
official position to commit the said falsification, this does not
preclude the taking of disciplinary action and the institution of disbarment
proceedings against him.

In his comment, respondent Yambao contends that he did not forge
the Deed of Sale dated February 11, 1986; in the event that Vicente T. Garaycay
who sold the disputed property
to him turned out to be an impostor, he having acted in an honest mistake of
fact could not be held liable for the crime of falsification; and that he had
taken the path of law by filing a civil case for “Quieting of Title and
Annulment of Defendant’s Fake Title” on
April 12, 1991 with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
88, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-8455 against complainant Joselito Garaycay.

Respondent Yambao averred that sometime in December, 1985, his
“kumpadre” Reynaldo de los Reyes, a real estate agent introduced him
to a certain Vicente Garaycay who offered to sell the northern half portion of
land for P120,000.00, the other half having been previously sold to one Jesus
B. Rodriguez but without
any formal
documentation yet. He was shown a xerox
copy of the Owner’s Duplicate copy of TCT No. 9780 (693).

After a week, Vicente Garaycay, together with de los Reyes, came
to his residence. Vicente Garaycay
brought with him the original TCT No. 9780 (693) which he compared with the xerox
copy previously shown him and found that both documents were exactly the
same. The three of them went to view
the property. He found the location to
be ideal for residential purposes and told Vicente Garaycay to come back after
two weeks.

After two weeks, Vicente Garaycay and de los Reyes came
back. He made a downpayment of
P20,000.00 with the balance payable in two weeks. It was also agreed that the deed of sale to be executed on
February 11, 1986 will include the portion sold to Jesus B. Rodriguez and that
the expenses for documentation shall be borne by him alone. He advised Vicente Garaycay and Jesus
Rodriguez to bring with them their residence certificates and other
identification papers like Voter’s ID.

He prepared the deed of absolute sale and he copied the
description of the land exactly from the original of TCT No. 9780 (693) as
given by Vicente Garaycay. He gave the
balance of P100,000.00 after which they all went to Atty. Hercules Guzman for
the acknowledgment of the deed. Vicente
Garaycay, Rodriguez and he signed the document in the presence of the Notary
Public and those of the witnesses to the deed.

He forgot to register the deed of sale due to pressing
works. When the records of the Register
of Deeds of Quezon City were burned and he needed cash, he sold one-half of
what he bought to Jesus Morales and forgot all the more about registering the
sale.

When he learned that somebody was making constructions on the
land he bought, he was again reminded of registering the sale. That in the exercise of his right as
co-owner, he verified the reported constructions and informed the police
authorities about it. However, he
denies any participation in any manner whatsoever in the threatening or manhandling of
anybody in connection with the said illegal constructions.

On August 7, 1990 in a meeting at the AOCD of the NBI,
complainant Joselito Garaycay introduced to him and Jesus Morales a certain
Vicente T. Garaycay, uncle of complainant Joselito Garaycay and alleged owner
of the land which he bought. He
disclaimed knowing or meeting said person.

After a careful scrutiny of all the records presented to this
Court and considering the comment of respondent Yambao, We find that there
exists a reasonable ground to warrant the filing of this administrative
complaint.

Respondent Yambao wants this Court to believe that he is a victim
of a fraudulent sale, hence, the presumption that a possessor of a falsified
document is presumed to be the forger thereof cannot apply to him.

We do not agree. The NBI
findings show that Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9780 (693) and the alleged
signature of Vicente T. Garaycay on the Deed of Sale including the alleged
Voter’s ID of Vicente T. Garaycay, all in the possession of respondent Yambao
are false and forged. This conclusion
was arrived at after an exhaustive investigation conducted by the NBI with the
cooperation of the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City, the Land
Registration Authority, the City Assessor of Quezon City, Romulo D. Florencio,
Ernesto Tampoya Sala, and the Office of the Election Registrar of Angono,
Rizal. On the other hand, respondent
Yambao refused and failed to comment on the affidavit-complaint filed by
complainant Joselito Garaycay with the NBI.

Considering the findings of falsification by the NBI against
respondent Yambao, it was incumbent upon him to present evidence to show that
he has not falsified nor caused the falsification of the aforesaid
documents. The burden is on him to
overcome the presumption that “if a person had in his possession a
falsified document and he made use of it (uttered it), taking advantage of it
and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the material author of the
falsification.”^[18]
“In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, one who is found in
possession of a forged document and who used or uttered it is presumed to be the forger.”^[19]

It was easy for him to present the Notary Public who notarized
the alleged Deed of Sale to prove the authenticity and due execution of the
same or the witnesses who witnessed the alleged transaction or the other
vendee, Jesus B. Rodriguez or the alleged buyer of his portion of the land,
Jesus Morales. For reasons known only
to him, respondent Yambao chose not to do so. Instead he merely incorporated in his comment an alleged affidavit of a
certain Reynaldo de los Reyes corroborating his story which We find not worthy
of any credence considering that said de los Reyes is a close friend and
“kumpadre” of respondent Yambao.

Not only did respondent Yambao miserably fail to dispute such
presumption but major contradictions and inconsistencies exist in his comment
filed with this Court as well as in his complaint for Quieting of Title and
Annulment of Fake Document filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.

Respondent, in his comment, averred that “the original of
TCT No. 9780 (693) which he (Vicente Garaycay) delivered to me is genuine and
authentic.” But, in his complaint, he states that “(i)n other words,
two titles of the same property existed, namely: one issued on June 14, 1944 to Vicente Garaycay bearing Transfer
Certificate Title No. 9780 x x x and second, a latter fake title bearing
Transfer Certificate of Title No. 9780 (693) x x x.”^[20]

Moreover, in the same comment, he stated that he was shown a
xerox copy of TCT No. 9780 (693) by Vicente Garaycay when the latter first went
to him. A week later, he was shown the
original copy of TCT NO. 9780
(693) when he asked to see the original of TCT No. 9780. He allegedly compared the two and found them
to be exactly the same.^[21]

In effect, he asseverates that TCT No. 9780 and TCT No. 9780
(693) are one and the same, the former being the xerox copy of the latter. However, in his complaint he maintains that
TCT No. 9780 (693) is a fake title and that TCT No. 9780 is the genuine title.

Respondent Yambao’s contradictory stands may be said to be the
result of his ardent desire to exculpate himself at any cost to the extent of
contradicting himself.

A casual comparison of the two Transfer Certificates of Title
shows that the two cannot be considered to be the same for there exists patent
and clear differences between the two. Firstly, the number given to each title is different. Secondly, the personal circumstance of
Vicente Garaycay in TCT No. 9780 was torn while in TCT No. 9780 (693) the same
is intact. Thirdly, the annotation
contained in TCT No. 9780 (693) does not appear in TCT No. 9780.

In addition thereto, this Court cannot accept respondent Yambao’s
defence that he forgot to register the alleged sale for more than five years up
to the present because of pressing work. We take note of the fact that the Register of Deeds of Quezon City is
located in the same building where respondent Yambao holds office. It is only very recently that the Regional
Trial Courts were transferred to another building. But just the same, the office of the Register of Deeds is located
within the same compound.

All the circumstances taken together led this Court to believe
that he either has knowledge of the falsity of TCT No. 9780 (693) or that he
falsified or caused the falsification of the same. In both cases, he tried to profit from the falsification.

Time and again this Court has stressed that the conduct of
everyone connected with the dispensation of justice, from the judges to the
most junior of clerks, must at all times be characterized with propriety and
decorum and be above suspicion.^[22]

In the case at bar, respondent Yambao failed to live up to the
demanding standards required of him.

Accordingly, the Court resolved to DISMISS respondent LIBERATO YAMBAO from the service for serious
misconduct, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government
service, including government-owned or controlled corporations. All retirement benefits or privileges to which
respondent may be entitled, are hereby DECLARED FORFEITED without prejudice to
his receiving the money value of his leave credits, and return of his GSIS
premiums and medicare fees.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Campos, Jr., and Quiason, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on leave.

^[1]
Annex “B”.

^[2]
Annex “H”.

^[3]
Annex “C”.

^[4]
Annex “C-1”.

^[5]
Annex “C-2”.

^[6]
Annexes “C-10” to “C-11”.

^[7]
Annex “I”.

^[8]
Annex “D”.

^[9]
Annex “F”.

^[10]
Annex “F-7” to “F-8”.

^[11]
Annex “F-3” to “F-7.

^[12]
Annex “F-1”.

^[13]
Annex “G”.

^[14]
Annex “E-1-3”.

^[15]
Annex “E-4-5”.

^[16]
Annex “E-9-10”.

^[17]
Annex “E-7-8”.

^[18]
People vs. Sandaydiego, 81 SCRA 120, 141 (1978).

19
Ibid., citing People vs.
Caragao, 30 SCRA 993 (1969).

^[19]
Comment, p. 3.

^[20]
Ibid., p. 16.

^[21]
Comment, pp. 1-2.

^[22]
Del Rosario vs. Bascar, Jr., 206 SCRA 678 (1992); Callejo, Jr. vs. Garcia, 206 SCRA 491,
(1992).