G.R. No. A.M. No. P-08-2469 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2509-P) and A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2857-P, April 24, 2009
Case Parties:

ERLINA P. JOLITO, Complainant, vs. MARLENE E. TANUDRA, Court Stenographer II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Victorias City, Negros Occidental, Respondent.
ERLINA P. JOLITO, Complainant, vs. GEORGE E. GAREZA, Sheriff II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Victorias City, Negros Occidental, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Erlina P. Jolito purchased two parcels of land in 1995. In February 2005, she sought assistance from her nephew and respondent Sheriff George E. Gareza for the transfer of title. On March 3, 2005, Gareza introduced Jolito to respondent Court Stenographer Marlene E. Tanudra, who presented herself as an expert in legal matters and titling processes. In May 2005, Jolito gave Tanudra PhP20,000.00 for processing expenses. After more than a year without progress, Jolito demanded the return of her money and documents through three demand letters, which Tanudra ignored. Gareza executed an affidavit confirming the introduction, the handover of money, and his subsequent discovery that no application for transfer had been filed at the Registry of Deeds. Tanudra, in her comment, admitted receiving money (claiming it was PhP19,000.00) and failing to return it, but alleged that part of the amount was borrowed by Gareza and that the transfer could not proceed because the property had been foreclosed by the Central Bank. An investigation by Executive Judge Felipe G. Banzon found that the land was still registered in the name of the Intestate Estate of Antonio Monfort, not Jolito’s vendors, and that Tanudra had made no application for transfer. Judge Banzon recommended administrative charges against both Tanudra and Gareza for Grave Misconduct and Gross Dishonesty.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Marlene E. Tanudra and George E. Gareza are administratively liable for their actions related to the facilitation of the transfer of land titles for a fee.

RULING

The Court found respondent Marlene E. Tanudra GUILTY of dishonesty and gross misconduct. She is DISMISSED from service with prejudice to reinstatement or re-employment in any government agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations. All retirement benefits and privileges are forfeited, except for accrued leave credits. The administrative complaint against respondent George E. Gareza is DISMISSED for lack of evidence.
The Court held that Tanudra’s admissions during the investigation established her administrative liability. Her actions—accepting money for a facilitation service outside her official functions, failing to perform the service or return the money, and attempting to shift blame—constituted dishonesty and gross misconduct. These acts, performed during office hours as a form of “moonlighting,” violated the norm of public accountability and diminished public faith in the judiciary. Court personnel must uphold the highest standards of integrity and propriety in both official and private conduct. Regarding Gareza, the evidence did not sufficiently establish his culpability in the scheme.