IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON ATTY. ALUDIA P. GADIA, REGISTER OF DEEDS, DAVAO CITY, FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT, WITH FORFEITURE OF ALL RETIREMENT PAY AND BENEFITS

“x x x Moreover, considering that it was established from the records that the Registry only received an amount of P12,023.00 as payment of registration fees x x x, an amount which is notably lower than the sum of money Atty. Gadia
received from the representative of DSG and that she signed the titles
of DSG without the required payment of capital gains tax, it is
respectfully recommended that she be charged administratively for Grave
Misconduct. x x x”

The antecedent facts are as follows:

Sometime in March 1999, Atty. Jesus Dureza,
representing DSG Sons Group, Inc. (DSG, for brevity), presented for
registration before the Registry of Deeds of Davao City, copies of the
Conditional Deed of Sale, Special Power of Attorney, and Affidavit of
Waiver of Rights and Relinquishment of Interest, all executed in favor
of DSG by spouses Antonio and Elsie Diaz, involving properties located
in Davao City and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-30740 and T-30741 in the name of the Diaz spouses. On 15 March 1999 Atty. Dureza entrusted to respondent Gadia,
then Registrar of Deeds for Davao City, the amount of P400,000.00 in
payment for the expenses incident to the registration of said
properties, for which the latter issued a handwritten receipt.  Thereafter, respondent cancelled the foregoing titles and issued in lieu thereof TCT Nos. T-309058 and T-309059 in the name of DSG.

On 10 November 1999, Atty. Ellen D. Veza,
counsel for DSG, wrote the LRA inquiring whether or not the documents
earlier presented before the Registry of Deeds of Davao City were
sufficient to cause the registration of the transfer of the properties.  In
its reply dated 17 November 1999, the LRA answered in the affirmative
and opined that the new titles were regularly issued on the assumption
that all the registration fees and taxes have been paid.  Antonio Diaz questioned the opinion, stating that the necessary capital gains tax on the transfer of the subject properties had not been paid by DSG.  He
then requested the immediate investigation of the irregularities
committed by respondent as well as the alleged graft and corruption in
the Registry of Deeds of Davao City.

The matter of non-payment of the required capital gains tax was indorsed for comment to the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in Davao City. In her 2nd Indorsement of 6 January 2000, Acting Registrar of Deeds Atty. Florenda F.T. Patriarca informed the LRA that its office had no record of payment of the capital gains tax.

In the meantime, Mr. Diaz filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao against respondent, Atty. Dureza and Francisco Gaisano for alleged violation of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.  The complaint was dismissed in a Resolution dated 26 July 2000.

Upon the instructions of LRA
Administrator Alfredo R. Enriquez, the Inspection and Investigation
Division (IID) conducted an investigation on the complaint of Mr. Diaz.  The result of the investigation, as conducted in the IID Report dated 18 July 2000, shows the following significant findings: first, that
four (4) days before the issuance of the DSG titles, respondent pulled
out the original of TCT Nos. T-30740 and T-30741 from the Vault Section
of the Registry; second, despite office procedure to
record in the Registry’s Office Record Book all documents forwarded by
the Cashier for examination and cancellation of title before endorsing
the same to a Land Registration Examiner for examination, the
documents/transaction between DSG and Antonio Diaz involving the subject
titles did not pass through the said process and personnel; third,
respondent signed the titles of DSG without the required payment of
capital gains tax; and fourth, the Registry received the amount of only
P12,023.00 as payment for registration fees, which is notably lower than
the sum of money amounting to P400,000.00 received by respondent from
Atty. Dureza.

On the basis of the above Report,
respondent was administratively charged with grave misconduct and
directed to submit her answer.

In her letter-answer dated 16 September 2000, respondent admitted that Atty. Dureza
left with her the amount of P400,000.00 for the payment of transfer and
registration fees and for other expenses, but not for capital gain tax;
that it was the first time she agreed to such an arrangement and that
she merely accommodated Atty. Dureza’s
request in filing the documents with the Registry because the latter is a
fellow lawyer who, at that time, was in a hurry to leave for the
Netherlands to represent the country in some negotiations; that she has
settled the matter with Atty. Dureza who did
not complain about it; that Mr. Diaz has no legal personality to file
the complaint against her; that she could not be made responsible for
the custody of Mr. Diaz’s titles since she did not take them out of the
office and that to make her liable for their loss was without any basis
at all; and that the complaint of Mr. Diaz that the capital gains tax
and documentary stamp tax were not paid was out of order since what was
due was just the withholding tax, which had already been paid.

In its Resolution dated 24 September
2001, the LRA limited its discussion on the results of its investigation
on respondent only since it has no jurisdiction over private
individuals who were implicated in the commission of the alleged
irregularities.  More specifically, the LRA’s findings zeroed in on the issue of respondent’s receipt of the amount of P400,000.00 from Atty. Dureza.

Circular No. 95-09 dated 8 August 1995 prohibits all. Registrars of Deeds from performing “other related works” in the registration of deeds and documents, thus:

“TO   :      All Registrars x x x of Deeds x x x

Subject    :           Prohibition
in the Performance of ‘other related works’ in the registration of
deeds and documents and other matters relative to one’s functions.

xxx

          Such
services may consist, but not limited to the so-called ‘package deal’
where the interested party entrusts to the official or employee the
payment of the capital gains, documentary stamps x x x and other fees, x x x .”

Clearly, the above prohibition applies
to respondent who is prohibited from receiving any money for whatever
purpose related to the performance of her functions.  Her
act, in the guise of lending assistance to a fellow lawyer, was the
very act that the said circular seeks to deter and punish in order to
safeguard the integrity of the Registry from public perception of
corruption.

Moreover, in its findings, the LRA
ruled that respondent received the aforesaid amount in connection with a
transaction over which she had to officially act upon.  The LRA deems that no other reasonable inference can be had on the issue of the P400,000.00
except that it was for the benefit of the respondent, considering
further that the records are bereft of information that the difference
between the amount received and what was actually paid has been returned
by the respondent.  It was observed that the variance between the amount received by respondent P400,000.00 and the sum of P12,023.00, which was actually received by the Registry, “has
no clear purpose, at least as far as the registration fees, transfer
fees and other expenses are concerned because it is notably lower than
the amount required for the latter.  This ‘other expenses’ could be for that amount x x x which should approximate to P387,977.00.  In the ordinary course of transactions similar to the instant case, however, there is nothing that will represent this amount“.  In
view of the respondent’s admission that the payment of taxes was not
part of and beyond the contemplation of the parties, the LRA deduced
that this amount was probably bribe money or the so-called “facilitation fee”, by reason of which “respondent pulled out on 18 March 1999 the original TCT Nos. T-30740 and T-30741 from the Vault Section of the Registry.” According to the LRA, although the reason for such action cannot be conclusively ascertained, it was clear that “respondent
indeed pulled them out and circumstances tend to suggest that it was
apparently for no good reason, except to facilitate its cancellation
preparatory to the transfer of the ownership of the property to DSG.”
Additionally, in connection with the original owner’s copy of the
subject titles, which were missing in the files of the Registry “no
other logical presumption can be had on the matter except that it
strongly connects with the finding that respondent pulled the original
registry copies of the titles.”

Accordingly, the LRA found respondent
administratively liable for grave misconduct and recommended her
dismissal from the service.

The Secretary of Justice agrees with the above findings and recommendation of the LRA.

After due consideration of the
evidence on record, this Office finds that respondent’s actuations have
indeed cast serious doubts not only the integrity of the Registry, in
general, but also on the regularity in the performance of the functions
of her office, in particular.  Respondent’s act was an outright violation of Circular No. 95-09 dated 8 August 1995.  There appears to be no reasonable justification for her to receive the money entrusted by Atty. Dureza
under the circumstances in which it was given to her, especially in the
light of an official instruction from the LRA Administrator directing
all Registrars of Deeds to refrain from rendering certain services that
undoubtedly open opportunities or give rise to graft and corruption.  Respondent’s
explanation for deviating from the standard policies and procedures
implemented in the recording, examination, and registration of documents
in the Registry is not persuasive and does not minimize the adverse
implications of such actions as far as public perception is concerned.  Her failure to account for the balance between the actual payment made to the Registry in the amount of P12,023.00 and the sum of P400,000.00 that she received from Atty. Dureza has further aggravated her infraction.

From the foregoing, substantial
evidence obtains to establish the commission by respondent of grave
misconduct in the performance of her official functions deserving no
less than the maximum sanction.  The penalty for grave misconduct, even if committed for the first time, is dismissal from the service (paragraph 3, Section 52 (A), Rule IV of Resolution No. 991936 dated 31 August 1999 of the Civil Service Commission).

The dismissal of erring government
employee for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service is justified in the face of the strong evidence
against her (Ponferrada v. Relator, 181 SCRA 698 [1990]).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, and as recommended by the Department of Justice, respondent Atty. Aludia P. Gadia
is hereby found administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and meted
the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all
retirement pay and benefits.

Adopted: 25 Nov. 2002

BY THE PRESIDENT:

(SGD.) ALBERTO G. ROMULO
Executive Secretary