A.M. No. 2017-07-SC, A.C. No. 12323 - Cobarrubias-Nabaza vs. Lavandero

A complaint was initiated by Presiding Judge Suzanne D. Cobarrubias-Nabaza of Metropolitan Trial Court, Marikina City, Branch 93, alleging that respondent Atty. Albert N. Lavandero, a Court Attorney IV of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), committed acts undermining the proper handling of properties under custodia legis.
The complaint was based on a letter dated October 12, 2016, alleging misconduct in connection with handling a subject property—a Black Hyundai Accent—subjected to levying, execution, and auction sale.

It was alleged that respondent, while acting as a co-plaintiff in a BP 22 case pending before the complainant, improperly removed the subject vehicle from court premises on three separate occasions without prior knowledge or approval from the court.
Various CCTV footages captured the respondent’s unauthorized movements of the vehicle, which was supposed to be under the administration of the court for a valid public auction.

The respondent claimed that he had the authority to take the subject vehicle because it underwent a public auction on August 19, 2016, where he allegedly became the highest bidder.
He further contended that any irregularities in the auction process were attributable to the negligence of the sheriff responsible for executing the auction procedures.

The Office of Administrative Services of the Supreme Court (OAS-SC) investigated the matter, subsequently issuing a memorandum on July 20, 2018, recommending that the respondent be found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
The recommended penalty included an imposition of a fine of P10,000.00 and a stern warning against future similar acts.
Concurrently, the case was docketed as an administrative disciplinary case (A.C. No. 12323) against respondent as a member of the Bar, prompting the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) to conduct its own investigation.

Failure to follow proper procedures, including the posting of notices for the auction of levied properties.
Repeated unauthorized removal and return of the subject vehicle without proper court approval.
Absence of documentary evidence linking the vehicle to the public auction proceedings.

The OBC found that respondent had violated key provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically:

Rule 1.01, Canon 1, which mandates obedience to the law and ethical conduct.
Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10, which emphasize candor, fairness, and the proper use of court processes.
Rule 12.04, Canon 12, which prohibits misuse of court processes.

The respondent had not paid the P10,000.00 fine initially imposed in his administrative case even prior to subsequent proceedings.

The administrative case (A.M. No. 2017-07-SC) and the corresponding disciplinary case (A.C. No. 12323) proceeded with exchanges of position papers from both parties.
On November 17, 2019, respondent resigned from his position as Court Attorney IV, although the administrative case continued irrespective of his resignation.

Whether the respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the unauthorized removal of the subject vehicle under custodia legis and the resulting procedural irregularities.
Whether the respondent’s resignation from his position during the pendency of the administrative case affects the Court’s jurisdiction and the imposition of sanctions.
Which penalty framework should apply to the respondent’s case: the provisions of the 2011 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011 RRACCS) or the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
The appropriate penalty for the dual nature of the misconduct—first, as a government employee (resulting in a fine for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service) and second, as a lawyer (resulting in disciplinary action under the Code of Professional Responsibility).