PENTECOSTES VS MARASIGAN

ROLLY PENTECOSTES v. ATTY. HERMENEGILDO

529 SCRA 146 (2007)
The clerk of court has the duty to safely keep all records, papers, files,
exhibits and public property.
FACTS:
Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court North Cotabato, was administratively charged
with grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming a public officer for the loss of a
motorcycle-subject matter of a criminal case which was placed under his care and
custody.
The administrative case against Atty. Hermenegildo stemmed from a sworn
affidavit complaint filed on November 11, 2004 by Rolly Pentecostes, the owner
of a Kawasaki motorcycle, which was recovered by members of the Philippine
National Police of Mlang, North Cotabato from suspected carnappers.
The release order for the motorcycle was issued but Pentecostes refused to receive
it because it was already cannibalized and unserviceable.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) referred the case to the Executive Judge of RTC,
Kabacan, North Cotabato, for investigation, report and recommendation. Judge
Rabang recommended that the administrative complaint against Atty.
Hermenegildo be dismissed because there was no proof of Pentecostes claim that
the vehicle was cannibalized from the time that it was under Atty.
Hermenegildos custody until its transfer to Philippine National Police (PNP) of
Kabacan. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) affirmed the dismissal of
the complaint.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Atty. Hermenegildo is guilty of misconduct
HELD:
It is the duty of the clerk of court to keep safely all records, papers, files, exhibits
and public property committed to his charge.[12] Section D (4), Chapter VII of
the 1991Manual For Clerks of Court (now Section E[2], paragraph 2.2.3, Chapter
VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court) which provides all exhibits
used as evidence and turned over to the court and before the case/s involving such
evidence shall have been terminated shall be under the custody and safekeeping
of the Clerkof Court.

From the above provisions, it is clear that as clerk of court of the RTC, Kabacan,
Atty. Hermenegildo was charged with the custody and safekeeping of
Pentecostes motorcycle, and to keep it until the termination of the case, barring
circumstances that would justify its safekeeping elsewhere, and upon the prior
authority of the trial court.
The Court said no explanation was offered by Atty. Hermenegildo, however,
for turning over the motorcycle. But whatever the reason was, Atty.
Hermenegildo was mandated to secure prior consultations with and approval of
the trial court.
Moreover disconcerting is the fact that the acknowledgment receipt evidencing
the turnover of the motorcycle from the trial court to the Kabacan police
station was lost from the records, with nary a lead as to who was responsible for
it. These circumstance are viewed with disfavor as it reflects badly on the
safekeeping of court records, a duty entrusted to Atty. Hermenegildo as clerk of
court.
The Court has repeatedly emphasized that clerks of court are essential and
ranking officers of our judicial system who perform delicate functions vital to the
prompt and proper administration of justice. Their duties include the efficient
recording, filing and management of court records and, as previously pointed out,
the safekeeping of exhibits and public property committed to their charge.

A Privilege
Good Moral Character
Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino et al. VS. Atty. Edwin Pascua
FACTS:
Complainants:
In his letter-complaint, Father Aquino alleged that Atty. Pascua falsified two
documents committed as follows:
(1) He made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint" of one

Joseph B. Acorda entering the same as "Doc. No. 1213, Page No. 243, Book III,
Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998".
(2) He also made it appear that he had notarized the "Affidavit-Complaint" of
one Remigio B. Domingo entering the same as "Doc. No. 1214, Page 243, Book
III, Series of 1998, dated December 10, 1998.

Father Aquino further alleged that on June 23 and July 26, 1999, Atty. Angel
Beltran, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, certified that none
of the above entries appear in the Notarial Register of Atty. Pascua; that the last
entry therein was Document No. 1200 executed on December 28, 1998; and
that, therefore, he could not have notarized Documents Nos. 1213 and 1214 on
December 10, 1998.
Lina M. Garan and other complainants contend that Atty. Pascua's omission was
not due to inadvertence but a clear case of falsification.
Respondent:
In his comment on the letter-complaint dated September 4, 1999, Atty. Pascua
admitted having notarized the two documents on December 10, 1998, but they
were not entered in his Notarial Register due to the oversight of his legal
secretary, Lyn Elsie C. Patli, whose affidavit was attached to his comment
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of misconduct in theperformance of his
duties.
HELD:
Atty. Pascua is guilty of misconduct in the performance of his duties while Atty.
Pascua claims that the omission was not intentional but due to oversight of his
staff. Whichever is the case, Atty. Pascua cannot escape liability. His failure to
enter into his notarial register the documents that he admittedly notarized is a
dereliction of duty on his part as a notary public and he is bound by the acts of
his staff.
The claim of Atty. Pascua that it was simple inadvertence is far from true.

The photocopy of his notarial register shows that the last entry which he
notarized on December 28, 1998 is Document No. 1200 on Page 240. On the
other hand, the two affidavit-complaints allegedly notarized on December 10,
1998 are Document Nos. 1213 and 1214, respectively, under Page No. 243,
Book III. Thus, Fr. Ranhilio and the other complainants are, therefore, correct in
maintaining that Atty. Pascua falsely assigned fictitious numbers to the
questioned affidavit-complaints, a clear dishonesty on his part not only as a
Notary Public, but also as a member of the Bar.
This is not to mention that the only supporting evidence of the claim of
inadvertence by Atty. Pascua is the affidavit of his own secretary which is
hardly credible since the latter cannot be considered a disinterested witness or
party.
Noteworthy also is the fact that the questioned affidavit of Acorda (Doc. No.
1213) was submitted only when Domingo's affidavit (Doc. No. 1214) was
withdrawn in the administrative case filed by Atty. Pascua against LinaGaran, et
al. with the CSC. This circumstance lends credence to the submission of herein
complainants that Atty. Pascua ante-dated another affidavit-complaint making it
appear as notarized on December 10, 1998 and entered as Document No. 1213.
It may not be sheer coincidence then that both documents are dated December
10, 1998 and numbered as 1213 and 1214.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Edwin Pascua is declared GUILTY of misconduct and is
SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) months with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely. His notarial commission, if still existing, is ordered REVOKED.
The case defined Misconduct:
"Misconduct" generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.[4] The term,
however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.[5]