G.R. No. A.M. No. P-09-2703; September 5, 2011
Lina Lauria-Liberato, Complainant, vs. Nestor M. Lelina, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Naguilian-Reina Mercedes, Isabela, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lina Lauria-Liberato, granddaughter of the late Candido Lauria (who died on December 13, 1974), filed an administrative complaint against respondent Nestor M. Lelina, Clerk of Court II, for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The complaint alleged that respondent falsified an Affidavit of Relinquishment dated October 3, 1997, purportedly executed by Candido Lauria, wherein the deceased relinquished his rights to Lot No. 4213 Cad-389-D in favor of respondent. Using this affidavit, respondent secured a free patent and Original Certificate of Title No. P-72874 in his name, later subdividing the property into three lots under his name, one of which he mortgaged to the GSIS. Complainant asserted that the affidavit was falsified because Candido Lauria had been dead for over 22 years and could not have personally appeared or executed the document. A criminal case for Estafa thru Falsification of Public Documents (Criminal Case No. 3210) was also filed. In his defense, respondent claimed he co-owned a portion of the lot acquired from the heirs, that Juana Lauria (Candido’s daughter) requested him to facilitate titling with an agreement for reconveyance, and that he had already reconveyed the properties to the heirs. The Regional Trial Court found respondent guilty of the criminal charge, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court denied respondent’s petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Nestor M. Lelina, Clerk of Court II, is administratively liable for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service based on his act of falsifying an Affidavit of Relinquishment to obtain title to a property owned by a deceased person.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for DISHONESTY and is DISMISSED from the service. The Court adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Clerks of Court, as chief administrative officers, must exhibit competence, honesty, and probity to safeguard the judiciary’s integrity. Respondent’s act of executing a falsified affidavit, which stated that a long-deceased person personally appeared and relinquished property rights, constitutes a willful perversion of truth that prejudiced the rightful heirs. This act, even if committed in a private capacity, violates the exacting standards of morality and decency required of judiciary personnel, whose conduct—official or personal—must preserve the court’s honor and the public’s confidence. The Court emphasized that government officials and employees in the judiciary are bound by the highest standards of propriety, and any deviation amounts to misconduct. Respondent’s actions demonstrated dishonesty, a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense under civil service rules. The Court found no merit in his defense, as the criminal conviction affirmed the falsification. Accordingly, respondent was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.