G.R. No. P-08-2553, August 28, 2009
Leo Mendoza, Complainant, vs. Prospero V. Tablizo, Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Court, Virac, Catanduanes, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Leo Mendoza, as mortgagee, filed an application for extrajudicial foreclosure of a mortgage in February 1998. He paid the requisite filing fee and publication costs. However, on March 10, 1998, respondent Prospero V. Tablizo, in his capacity as Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, unilaterally cancelled the scheduled auction sale without the knowledge of the Executive Judge and without notice to Mendoza. Mendoza further alleged that Tablizo later refused to accept another petition for extrajudicial foreclosure he filed against a different set of mortgagors. Mendoza charged Tablizo with grave misconduct, misfeasance, malfeasance, and incompetence, asserting that these acts violated Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1984, which prescribes the procedure for such foreclosures and vests supervision in the Executive Judge.
The Court required Tablizo to file his comment on the complaint. Despite receiving several directives, including a 1st Indorsement and a subsequent tracer, Tablizo consistently failed to submit any explanation or defense. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) later reported that Tablizo had compulsorily retired effective September 4, 2000, but had not yet filed his application for retirement benefits.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Prospero V. Tablizo is administratively liable for the acts alleged in the complaint.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OCA. Tablizo’s persistent failure to file his comment or to defend himself despite ample opportunity constitutes a waiver of his right to contest the charges. In the natural order of things, a person would defend against false accusations. His silence is thus construed as an implied admission of the truth of the allegations.
By cancelling the auction sale without the Executive Judge’s knowledge and without notice to the complainant, and by refusing to accept a subsequent foreclosure petition, Tablizo intentionally violated the ministerial duties outlined in Administrative Order No. 3. This order mandates that all applications for extrajudicial foreclosure be filed with the Executive Judge through the Clerk of Court/Ex-Officio Sheriff, who has specific procedural duties. Tablizo’s actions constituted grave misconduct, incompetence, malfeasance, and misfeasance.
Considering his compulsory retirement and his record of previous administrative sanctions, the Court imposed the penalty of forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued terminal leave benefits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. Had he not retired, dismissal from service would have been warranted.