A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999 - Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Lanzanas

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) instituted an administrative complaint on November 12, 2003, against three respondents:

Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Manila;
Clerk of Court Jennifer dela Cruz-Buendia; and
Deputy Sheriff Carmelo V. Cachero.

The complaint alleged that these officers violated their duties by allegedly “usurping” the functions of the Presiding Judge (Pairing Judge Hon. Cesar Solis, RTC-Manila, Branch 12) through the unauthorized withdrawal and release of garnished funds totaling P97,388,468.35 to the Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM) and its counsel, who were not parties to the underlying case.

Context of the Underlying Civil Cases

Civil Case No. 99-95993

Titled Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation, et al.
Involved the issuance of a writ of attachment against the assets and properties of the defendants, including measures such as garnishing the rental payments of tenants from various malls controlled by the defendants.
The disbursed rental payments were deposited into the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) account of the RTC, Manila, under the custody and management of the clerk, dela Cruz-Buendia.

Civil Case No. 01-101190

Involved Philippine Bank of Communications v. Spouses Jose C. Go and Elvy T. Go.
A writ of execution, pending appeal and issued by Judge Guillermo G. Purganan (RTC, Branch 42, Manila), led to the withdrawal and release of portions of the garnished funds to PBCOM.

The BSP argued that the funds released to PBCOM were still subject to the custody of RTC, Branch 12 (as “custodia legis”) since they were originally attached by Judge Rosmari D. Carandang.

Detailed Withdrawal Operations and Documentary Evidence

On May 14, 2003, a disbursement voucher for P82,634,281.23 was prepared, covered by LBP Check No. 175255, and co-signed by Judge Lanzanas and dela Cruz-Buendia.
Subsequent withdrawals included:

On May 15, 2003, Cachero issued a Notice to Deliver Garnished Amount for P11,756,777.97.
On May 16, 2003, LBP Check No. 175239 for P11,344,990.74 was issued in favor of PBCOM; the payment was acknowledged by PBCOM’s counsel.
On the same day, another withdrawal of P29,491.94 was effected through LBP Check No. 175296, with the payee listed as the “Clerk of Court RTC-Manila on General Fund.”
Additional disbursement vouchers and checks covered:

A commission withdrawal for P214,179.22 (via LBP Check No. 175292) and later incident of the same check referenced with Rodrigo Tan as payor.

ii. A further withdrawal amounting to P1,712,713.00 representing the Sheriff Percentage of Collections, covered again by LBP Check No. 175292. iii. Another voucher for P428,178.45 issued through LBP Check No. 175293.

The BSP questioned the validity of the certifications and official receipts, alleging that some receipts were falsified to show PBCOM’s counsel as the payor, despite evidence to the contrary.

Respondents’ Versions and Comments

Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas

Filed a comment on January 28, 2004, denying any involvement in any improper or illegal acts pertaining to the withdrawal of funds.
Claimed that he merely performed a ministerial duty by signing checks that were already brought to his office by the clerk and the sheriff, without scrutinizing the supporting documents.
Noted that the funds released to PBCOM remained intact and that a Manifestation with an Urgent Motion to Return and Restrain had been filed by BSP to recover the funds.

Clerk of Court Jennifer dela Cruz-Buendia

Submitted her comment on March 29, 2004, maintaining that she acted in good faith and in strict compliance with the Revised Manual for Clerks of Court (2002).
Argued that the documents presented, including the notices to deliver garnished amounts and supporting orders, were in proper order and that her signature on the checks had been executed as a ministerial duty.
Denied any charge of usurpation of judicial functions, malversation of public funds, or falsification of records, stating that her actions were pursuant to the instructions on the writ of execution.

Deputy Sheriff Carmelo V. Cachero

Filed his comment on March 8, 2004, professing that his actions were also ministerial and strictly in compliance with the writ of execution issued by Judge Purganan.
Argued that the presence of a surety bond validated the enforcement of the writ even though the underlying issues concerning the custody of the garnished funds were unresolved.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

Conducted an investigation, submitting its report and recommendations on March 27, 2006.
Recommended the re-docketing of the case as a regular administrative matter, the dismissal of charges against Judge Lanzanas, a six-month suspension for Cachero for simple misconduct, and a fine of P10,000 plus a warning for dela Cruz-Buendia.

Subsequent Manifestations

Cachero and dela Cruz-Buendia filed respective manifestations in 2006, with Cachero asserting that the disputed funds had already been returned and dela Cruz-Buendia reiterating the ministerial nature of her duties.

Findings on the Custody and Release of Garnished Funds

The funds in dispute were assets garnished in Civil Case No. 99-95993 and were under the exclusive custody (“custodia legis”) of RTC, Branch 12, as ordered by Judge Carandang on February 7, 2000.
The subsequent release of these funds, executed through the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 01-101190 by Judge Purganan of RTC, Branch 42, Manila, was irregular because the funds were not within the jurisdiction of that court.
The issuance of notices, disbursement vouchers, and checks evidenced procedural lapses, especially the non-compliance with Rule 57, Section 7(e) of the Rules of Court regarding the filing of the writ of attachment with the proper court.
Both the sheriff and the clerk were in a better position to know and verify that the funds were still under the custody of RTC, Branch 12, and yet their actions led to an improper withdrawal.

Issues:

Whether the respondents—specifically Cachero and dela Cruz-Buendia—violated their official duties by allowing the withdrawal and release of garnished funds that were legally held in custodia legis.

Did their actions amount to usurpation of judicial functions and malversation of public funds?
Were there sufficient safeguards provided by the Rules of Court that were ignored in processing the funds?

Whether the signing of the checks in a ministerial capacity by Judge Lanzanas absolved him of liability for the irregularity in the release of funds.
Whether the procedural requirements under Rule 57, Section 7(e) (regarding filing and notice of a writ of attachment) were complied with before releasing the garnished funds.
Whether the irregularities identified in the withdrawal and subsequent release of funds justified administrative sanctions against the respondents apart from dismissing certain charges for lack of evidence.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model