Tupaz v. Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas

 

Tupaz v. Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas

G.R. Nos. 212491-92

March 6, 2019

FACTS:

                Tupaz maintained that Atty. Abella: (1) issued a spurious owner's duplicate copy of Original Certificate of Title No. 15609; (2) tolerated the use of an equally spurious Certificate Authorizing Registration and Deed of Conveyance; and enabled the issuance of specious transfer certificates of titles, with Genaro as beneficiary. Hence, she filed her Complaint, asserting that Atty. Abella, along with Macrina, were liable for falsification, graft and corrupt practices, misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not there is a violation of the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices.

HELD:

                Yes. Accordingly, a violation of Section 3(e) is deemed to have occurred when the following elements are demonstrated: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) the act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative or judicial functions; (3) the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and (4) the public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or gave any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference. Private respondent Abella admitted canceling Original Certificate of Title No. 15609 after he was presented an owner's duplicate that "consists of only two pages which is somewhat defaced/torn." In contrast, the original copy, which was on file in his own office, consisted of four (4) pages. Not only did the duplicate presented to him not correspond with the original on file; it was also severely mutilated, with the effect—rather curiously—that identifying features could no longer be perused. As pointed out by petitioner, "all possible markings of the nature and origin" of the alleged owner's duplicate were torn off: (1) the serial number of the page in the registry book in which the title is recorded; (2) the free patent number; (3) the lot number;(4) the signature of the Survey Division chief who attested to the technical description; and (5) the signature of the "person who verified or checked the technical description."

No comments:

Post a Comment