The Supreme Court ruled that a Registrar of Deeds can be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for gross negligence in altering Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) without proper legal basis. This decision underscores the importance of due diligence and adherence to legal procedures by public officials, especially concerning property registration. It serves as a stern warning against unwarranted benefits given to private parties through negligence, reinforcing the principle that public office demands the highest standards of care and fidelity to the law.

From Simple Error to Grave Misconduct: When Alterations of Land Titles Lead to Anti-Graft Charges

This case revolves around a dispute involving ASB Realty Corporation (ASB), Malayan Insurance Company (MICO), and the actions of Policarpio L. Espenesin, the Registrar of Deeds of Pasig City. ASB and MICO entered into a Joint Project Development Agreement (JPDA) to construct a condominium building. Later, MICO sold the land to ASB under a Contract to Sell, with ownership transferring upon full payment. ASB faced financial difficulties and filed for rehabilitation with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was eventually executed, allowing MICO to assume responsibility for completing the condominium. The MOA outlined each party’s entitlement to net saleable areas of the building. Espenesin altered Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) by changing the registered owner from ASB to MICO without a court order. This alteration prompted Oscar R. Ampil, an unsecured creditor of ASB, to file criminal and administrative complaints against Espenesin and others, alleging falsification of public documents and violations of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The central legal question is whether Espenesin’s actions constituted a violation of anti-graft laws and grave misconduct in his capacity as a public official. The Office of the Ombudsman initially dismissed the criminal complaint for falsification but did not address the anti-graft charges. Subsequently, the Ombudsman initially found Espenesin liable for simple misconduct but later reversed this decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Ombudsman’s absolution of Espenesin from administrative liability. Ampil then filed separate petitions challenging the Ombudsman’s failure to find probable cause for the anti-graft charges and the appellate court’s affirmation of Espenesin’s absolution from administrative liability. The Supreme Court consolidated these petitions to resolve the core legal issues.

The Supreme Court found that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion by not fully addressing the charges under Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. The Court emphasized the constitutional duty of the Ombudsman to investigate acts or omissions of public officials that appear illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. While the Ombudsman dismissed the falsification charges due to the unresolved issue of ownership, it failed to address whether Espenesin’s actions violated anti-graft laws. The Court highlighted that it could interfere with the Ombudsman’s discretion when the acts of the officer are without or in excess of authority.

The Court then analyzed the elements of Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, emphasizing the duties of a Registrar of Deeds. Section 3(a) involves persuading, inducing, or influencing another public officer to violate rules or commit an offense, or allowing oneself to be persuaded to commit such an act. Section 3(e) concerns causing undue injury to any party or giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. In this context, Espenesin, as Registrar of Deeds, had the responsibility to ensure compliance with legal requirements for property registration, as outlined in Presidential Decree No. 1529. Espenesin’s duties included reviewing documents, ensuring proper endorsements, and adhering to established procedures for altering certificates of title. Of particular importance are Sections 57 and 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529, which outline the proper procedures for registering conveyances and amending certificates.

Section 108. Amendment and alteration of certificates. No erasure, alteration, or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title or of a memorandum thereon and the attestation of the same be Register of Deeds, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance.

The Court found a prima facie graft case against Espenesin and Serrano. Espenesin, influenced by Serrano, altered the CCTs against legal procedures. Additionally, Espenesin’s gross negligence in relying solely on Serrano’s representations gave MICO an unwarranted benefit in the registration of the properties. The Court cited the case of Sison v. People of the Philippines, which expounded on Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, emphasizing that either causing undue injury or giving unwarranted benefit is sufficient for conviction. The Court clarified that “unwarranted” means lacking adequate or official support; “advantage” means a more favorable condition; and “preference” signifies priority or higher evaluation.

In order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has given unjustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or judicial functions.

The Court underscored that the Ombudsman’s role is to determine probable cause, which requires reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed. Probable cause is not the same as absolute certainty and does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. Rather, it merely binds the suspect over to stand trial. The admission by Espenesin that he altered the CCTs based on Serrano’s request highlighted a disregard for established legal practices.

The Court scrutinized Espenesin’s explanation, pointing out that he relied solely on Serrano’s word without requiring any supporting documentation. Despite having previously referred to the MOA for the initial issuance of titles, Espenesin failed to seek further documentation to support Serrano’s request for alterations. The Court noted that Espenesin’s actions deviated from standard practices for registering real property, which require specific documents for corporations and condominium projects. Furthermore, the MOA allocated the units in question to ASB, which Espenesin disregarded when altering the CCTs. This action allowed MICO to gain an unwarranted advantage in the titling of the 38 units, violating the principles of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

In determining the administrative liability of Espenesin, the Court addressed the “three-fold liability rule,” stating that a public officer’s wrongful acts may lead to civil, criminal, and administrative liability, each proceeding independently. The Court found the Court of Appeals erred by affirming the Ombudsman’s absolution of Espenesin from administrative liability. The actions of Espenesin constituted Grave Misconduct. Grave Misconduct requires corruption, a clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. In this case, corruption was evident, as Espenesin unlawfully used his position to benefit MICO, and there was a manifest disregard for established rules on land registration. Espenesin’s actions were not just a simple error but a deliberate violation of established procedures.

The Court emphasized that Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 requires a court order before any alteration to a certificate of title. Espenesin attempted to diminish the significance of his signature on the CCTs by claiming that the alterations occurred before the final release of the titles. The Supreme Court strongly rejected this argument, asserting that the entry of the title in the Registration Book controls the discretion of the Register of Deeds, not the actual delivery of the titles. Furthermore, Espenesin’s actions indicated a deliberate violation of rules, and disregard of well-known legal rules, which constitutes grave misconduct.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Registrar of Deeds violated anti-graft laws and committed grave misconduct by altering Condominium Certificates of Title (CCTs) without a court order.
What is Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019?	Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 prohibits public officers from causing undue injury to any party or giving unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
What constitutes gross inexcusable negligence in this context?	Gross inexcusable negligence is defined as negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences.
What is the role of a Registrar of Deeds?	A Registrar of Deeds is responsible for reviewing deeds and documents for compliance with legal requirements for registration, maintaining records of registered lands, and ensuring proper procedures are followed in all property transactions.
What does Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 state?	Section 108 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 states that no alteration or amendment shall be made upon the registration book after the entry of a certificate of title, except by order of the proper Court of First Instance.
What is the three-fold liability rule for public officers?	The three-fold liability rule states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal, and administrative liability, each proceeding independently.
What is the penalty for Grave Misconduct?	The penalty for Grave Misconduct is dismissal from service with accessory penalties including forfeiture of retirement benefits, cancellation of eligibility, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service.
Why were Yuchengco and Cheng not held liable in this case?	Yuchengco and Cheng, as officers of MICO, were not held liable because there was a lack of evidence directly linking them to the act of altering the CCTs, beyond general assertions of benefit from the alteration.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical importance of accountability and diligence in public office, particularly in roles involving property registration. By setting aside the Ombudsman’s resolution and finding Espenesin guilty of Grave Misconduct, the Court has reinforced the principle that public officials must adhere strictly to legal procedures and ethical standards. This ruling serves as a crucial precedent, emphasizing that even seemingly minor procedural lapses can lead to significant legal and administrative consequences, ensuring the integrity of public service and protecting the rights of all parties involved in property transactions.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Oscar R. Ampil vs. The Hon. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 192685, July 31, 2013