AM P 02 1644; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-02-1644
Date: November 11, 2004
Case Parties/Title: Arnel S. Cruz, complainant, vs. Atty. Luningning Y. Centron, Acting Clerk of Court, RTC-OCC, Calapan City, respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from a letter-complaint filed by Arnel S. Cruz with the Office of the Ombudsman, which was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Complainant alleged that respondent Atty. Luningning Y. Centron, Clerk of Court VI of the RTC of Calapan City, committed gross misconduct by assisting in the consummation of the sale of a parcel of land covered by OCT No. 2186, which was allegedly still subject to reconstitution and extra-judicial settlement. Specifically, complainant claimed respondent prepared and notarized the deed of sale, took advantage of her being a lawyer to solicit trust, was involved in the disappearance of the title, and refused to surrender it. Complainant prayed for her disbarment and removal from office. In her Comment, respondent denied preparing the documents or being involved in the sale, stating her only participation was notarizing the deed of sale upon the parties’ request because they could not afford another notary’s fee. She also denied involvement in the loss of the title, claiming it was given to the parties’ lawyer.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Luningning Y. Centron is administratively liable for: (1) gross misconduct for her alleged instrumental role in the preparation and consummation of the questioned sale and the loss of the title; and (2) abuse of authority for notarizing a deed of sale unconnected to her official functions as Clerk of Court.
RULING
The Court found respondent NOT GUILTY of the charges of gross misconduct related to the land sale and loss of title, but GUILTY of abuse of authority for improperly notarizing a private document.
1. On the charges of gross misconduct: The Court held that the quantum of proof in administrative cases is clear preponderant evidence, and the burden rests on the complainant. Complainant failed to present clear preponderant evidence to prove respondent’s direct and instrumental participation in preparing the documents or the sale, or her responsibility for the loss of the title. The mere fact she notarized the deed did not, without supporting evidence, prove she prepared it. An affidavit from one of the buyers also contradicted the claim that respondent influenced them.
2. On the charge of abuse of authority: The Court found respondent guilty of violating Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code and relevant sections of the Manual for Clerks of Court. Clerks of Court are notaries public ex-officio only for matters related to their official functions. Notarizing a private deed of sale is alien to her official duties and constitutes an abuse of authority.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Respondent Atty. Luningning Y. Centron was ordered to pay a FINE of P2,000.00 for abuse of authority. She was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The charges of gross misconduct were dismissed for lack of evidence.