A.M. No. P-02-1644 - Cruz vs. Centron

Complainant: Arnel S. Cruz filed a letter-complaint on January 2, 2001, originally with the Office of the Ombudsman.
Respondent: Atty. Luningning Y. Centron, Acting Clerk of Court VI at the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro.

The complaint centers on the notarization of a deed of sale for a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2186.
Complainant alleged that respondent assisted Gloria Logdat and Conchita de la Cruz in consummating the sale of the land, which was still subject to an are‑constitution and an extra‑judicial settlement among the heirs.
It was further charged that by notarizing the deed of sale, respondent abused her position as a lawyer to secure the trust of the buyers and was implicated in the disappearance and retention of the title document.

On January 26, 2001, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon referred the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In compliance with the OCA’s indorsement dated September 24, 2001, respondent filed her Comment on October 29, 2001, denying any involvement beyond notarizing the deed.
Respondent claimed that her participation was limited to notarizing the document upon the request of the parties, who sought a lower notarial fee compared to that of a notary public.
She also denied any responsibility for the alleged loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 2186, asserting that the title had been surrendered to another lawyer, Atty. Apolonia A. Comia-Soguilon.

On July 26, 2002, the OCA submitted a report finding the complaint baseless regarding the direct involvement in document preparation or facilitation of the sale.
Nonetheless, the OCA observed that respondent violated Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code and Sections G, M, and N of Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court by notarizing a document not connected with her official functions.
The OCA recommended a penalty of a fine of P2,000 and issued a stern warning for any future similar misconduct.

A resolution dated February 17, 2003, required both parties to manifest within ten days their readiness to resolve the matter based on the pleadings.
Complainant submitted his manifestation on March 28, 2003, advocating for resolution based solely on the pleadings.
Respondent initially failed to file the required manifestation, prompting a resolution on March 8, 2004, ordering her to show cause for her delay.
In a Compliance filed on May 3, 2004, respondent explained that her failure was due to a heavy workload and the responsibilities of her office, and she expressed her willingness to resolve the matter based on the pleadings.

Whether respondent’s signature and notarization of the deed of sale, though seemingly connected with the disputed transaction, constitutes direct and instrumental participation in facilitating the illegal sale of the parcel covered by OCT No. 2186.
Whether notarizing a private document unrelated to the official functions of a clerk of court falls within the authorized ex-officio powers of the respondent as mandated by the Revised Administrative Code and the Manual for Clerks of Court.
Whether the evidence presented by the complainant is sufficient to prove, by clear and preponderant evidence, the alleged abuse of authority and gross misconduct by respondent.
Whether the procedural delay in respondent’s manifestation affects the merits of the case or the imposition of an administrative penalty.