ATTY. ARTEMIO D. CAÑA, COMPLAINANT, VS. BELEN D. SANTOS, STENOGRAPHIC REPORTER OF REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, MALOLOS, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

This administrative case arose from a letter-report of then
Acting Register of Deeds of Bulacan, Atty. Artemio D. Caña, dated May 25, 1993,^[1]
regarding the alleged falsification of an Order dated September 25, 1992,
purportedly issued by Judge Camilo D. Montesa, Jr., presiding judge of Branch
19, Malolos RTC.

The record shows that an Order for reconstitution of title (TCT
No. T-250603), dated September 25, 1992, purportedly issued and signed by Judge
Montesa, Jr., was presented to the
Office of Atty. Caña by Enrico Fombo.^[2] The
alleged Order was issued in connection with a petition for reconstitution of
TCT No. T-250603 filed by Alfredo de Guzman^[3]
before the Malolos RTC, Branch 19. The
alleged Order directed the Register of Deeds: (1) to reconstitute the original copy of the subject TCT in the name of
petitioner, and (2) to issue the
corresponding owner’s duplicate copy of the certificate of title to petitioner.

Inquiry made by Atty. Caña disclosed that the said Order was
given to Fombo by Mr. Gerardo Flores, the attorney-in-fact of petitioner de
Guzman.^[4]
The subject Order was, in turn, given to Flores by respondent Belen Santos, a
stenographic reporter of Branch 6, Malolos RTC.^[5]
Further probing revealed that no such Order or Entry of Judgment was issued by
Judge Montesa, Jr., in said case.^[6] Having confirmed that the Order was
spurious, reconstitution was denied by the Acting Register of Deeds and further
action on the case was held in abeyance.

On July 6, 1993, Sinfronio Barranco, Clerk of Court, Branch 19,
Malolos RTC, transmitted to Executive Judge Natividad Dizon two (2) other
spurious Orders, both dated February 15, 1993. It was made to appear that the said Orders were issued by Judge Montesa,
Jr., in connection with two (2)
other separate petitions for reconstitution of title pending before the same
judge: one filed by Angel Vasallo and
Aurelia Jose, and the other filed by Rosalina Gabriel.^[7]
Petitioners Vasallo, Jose and Gabriel were likewise represented in said cases
by their attorney-in-fact, Mr. Gerardo Flores.^[8]

Upon receipt of said letter-report, Executive Judge Dizon
referred the matter to Vice-Executive Judge Demetrio B. Macapagal and to the
Criminal Investigation Service (CIS), PNP, for investigation.

After due investigation, CIS Chief Inspector Nario informed
Executive Judge Dizon that on August 26, 1993, their Office filed the
corresponding Information against respondent Belen Santos for three (3) counts
of falsification of public documents^[9] in
connection with the above three (3) spurious Orders. A recommendation that proper administrative action be taken
against said employee was likewise made.^[10]
Similarly, in a letter dated September 3, 1993, Vice-Executive Judge Macapagal,
Sr., recommended the filing of administrative charges against respondent Santos.^[11]
The entire records of said case were then referred to this Court for
appropriate action.

Accordingly, in a Resolution
dated October 26, 1993,^[12] the
Court directed respondent Belen Santos to comment on the letter-report of Atty.
Caña. In compliance therewith,
respondent Santos filed her unsigned and unverified Comment denying the
falsification charges imputed against her. The Court then referred the case to Executive Judge Dizon for
investigation, report and recommendation.^[13]

After several resettings, investigation of the case was conducted
on April 19, 1994 where both parties were present. Complainant Atty. Caña manifested that he would submit to the
investigating judge an affidavit to serve as his direct testimony against
respondent Santos. Accordingly, on
April 26, 1994, complainant submitted and identified his affidavit before the
investigating judge, the contents of which reiterated his letter-report to
Executive Judge Dizon dated May 25, 1993.

At the last scheduled hearing on May 3, 1994, respondent Santos
submitted and identified in court her affidavit, dated May 3, 1994, where she
denied the charges against her.^[14] She
claimed that:

“x x x

“2. . . . (she) has nothing to do with the
issuance of the alleged spurious orders since she cannot, in all candidness,
have a hand on the same considering that she is not a personnel of the court
concerned and that she has no knowledge whatsoever whether said orders are
really spurious or not;

“3. Assuming without admitting that said orders
are really spurious, the status of the same were rendered moot by the
withdrawal of Mr. Flores’ complaint against the undersigned as reflected in the
herein attached certified true copy of the resolution issued by 4th Asst.
Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin R. Caraig, with the approval of the Provincial
Prosecutor Liberato L. Reyes;

“4. . . . (she) has to stress and emphasize . .
. that she has never participated in any anomalous transactions of this nature
and that she has no intention nor the heart nor the guts to even contemplate on
involving herself with this kind of scandalous scheme involving government
servants.”

In his report and recommendation dated May 6, 1994, Executive
Judge Dizon made the following findings and recommendations, which this Court
adopts, viz:

“Based on the affidavit of Atty. Artemio B. Caña, then Acting
Register of Deeds of Tabang Registry in Bulacan, that there was no Order or
Entry of Judgment issued by RTC Branch 19 in the Petition of Alfredo de Guzman
for the reconstitution and issuance of the Owner’s Duplicate Copy of TCT No. T-­250603
(as attested by the Branch Clerk of Court of said branch); that the Order dated
September 25, 1992 of said Court appeared to be fake or emanating from
dubious/illicit source; that respondent Belen D. Santos was the person who was able to get hold and gave said Orders to
Gerardo Flores, atty.-in-fact for the other petitioners Angel Vasallo and
Aurelia Jose and Rosalina Gabriel (P-179-92 and P-578-91, respectively); and,
the records of investigation conducted and submitted by the Chief, 303rd CISFO,
PNP, Malolos, Bulacan, relative to the involvement of Belen D. Santos in the
discovery of said fake Orders, clearly show that respondent is highly suspected
to have a hand or knowledge in the fake/spurious orders in Civil Cases Nos. P-27-92, P-578-91 and P-179-92
purportedly issued by RTC Branch 19. The
records on hand, however, do not concretely show that Belen D. Santos was the
author of said fake/spurious order but her involvement in the transactions
covering the reconstitution and issuance of owner’s duplicate copies of TCTs
for monetary consideration have been affirmed in the affidavits of Alfredo de
Guzman and Gerardo Flores.”

In his sworn statement, dated July 14, 1993,^[15]
Mr. Gerardo Flores categorically declared that he and respondent Santos agreed
that the latter would attend to the filing and processing of the subject
petitions for reconstitution and that it was respondent who gave him the three
Orders for reconstitution which he discovered to be spurious.

We note that in her Comment, respondent Santos merely denied
participation in the issuance
of the spurious orders. She did not,
however, deny the fact that she acceded to the request of Gerardo Flores to
process the three (3) petitions for reconstitution of titles pending before
another branch of the same court for P3,500.00 each or an aggregate amount of
P10,500.00.

Respondent Santos is not an employee of the branch of the court
where the subject reconstitution cases were pending. Neither was she a party to the actions/petitions. What is
more, it appears clearly from the records that respondent’s arrangement
with Flores was for an equivalent monetary consideration. Although there is no direct proof that
respondent authored the spurious Orders or directly participated in the
issuance thereof, the fact remains that respondent’s act of processing the
reconstitution cases was prejudicial to the best interest of the service. For one, government employees are prohibited
from giving favors to the public in exchange for monetary consideration. Moreover, in entering into this arrangement
with Flores, respondent would necessarily have to leave her post at Branch 6 to
attend to the processing of the subject petitions pending before another sala
of the same court.

Thus, under the circumstances, respondent had no business
following-up or processing the subject petitions for reconstitution. Undoubtedly, her conduct and deportment had
been prejudicial to the interest of the service. Indeed, a public servant should refrain from financial dealings
which would interfere with the efficient performance of his duties. Persons involved in the administration of
justice ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in
the public service. The conduct of
every personnel connected with the courts, from the presiding judge to the
lowliest clerk, should at all times be circumspect to preserve the integrity
and dignity of our courts of justice.

Finally, the withdrawal of the Informations for falsification of
public documents by Gerardo Flores and Alfredo de Guzman, complainants in said
cases, with the consent of the provincial prosecutor did not bar the
continuation of the investigation of the present administrative case. The records are bereft of any document to
show that the said complainants likewise desisted from continuing or pursuing
this case. Indeed, desistance cannot
divest this Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth of
the matter alleged in the complaint against respondent Santos. The Court has an interest in the conduct of
the officials and employees of the judiciary and in improving the delivery of
justice to the people and its efforts in that direction cannot be frustrated by
any private arrangement of the parties.^[16]

PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent Belen D.
Santos, stenographic reporter, Branch 6 of the Malolos RTC, is hereby DISMISSED
from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave
credits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of
government, including government owned or controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, and Mendoza, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 10.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 50-51.

^[3]
Docketed as P-27-92, Rollo, pp. 20-22.

^[4]
See Affidavit of Alfredo de Guzman y dela Cruz, dated August 10, 1993, Rollo,
p. 44.

^[5]
See Affidavit of Gerardo Flores y Cruz, dated July 14, 1993, Rollo, pp.
45-47.

^[6]
See letter of Sinfronio A. Barranco, Clerk of Court, Branch 19, Malolos RTC, Rollo,
p. 16.

^[7]
Docketed as P-179-92 and P-578-91, respectively.

^[8]
Rollo, p. 39.

^[9]
Docketed as IS Nos. 93-1554, 93-1555 and 93-1556.

However, as per the Resolution of
Asst.  Provincial Prosecutor Benjamin R.
Caraig, the complaint for falsification filed by Gerardo Flores and Alfredo de
Guzman were withdrawn by the complainants with the approval of the prosecutor
after the parties agreed to amicably settle the case (see Rollo, p. 71).

^[10]
See letter dated September 1, 1993, Rollo, p. 42.

^[11]
Rollo, p. 61.

^[12]
Rollo, p. 69.

^[13]
Resolution, dated January 24, 1994, Rollo, p. 72.

^[14]
Rollo, p. 70.

^[15]
Rollo, pp. 45-47.

^[16]
Cabandong v. Judge Calderon, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-89-343, En Banc, Minute
Resolution.