Case Digest (A.M. No. R-70-P)
Facts:
Alfredo De Chavez v. Jesus R. Lescano, A.M. No. R-70-P, October 08, 1985, Supreme Court First Division, Melencio-Herrera, J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Alfredo De Chavez filed a letter complaint dated September 5, 1983 addressed to the Office of the President; it was referred to the Tanodbayan and ultimately indorsed to the Supreme Court as within its competence. De Chavez asked the Court to compel Jesus R. Lescano, then Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Lipa City, to "redeem our real property" which Lescano and an associate had used as collateral with the Philippine National Bank (PNB).
Respondent Lescano, by a third indorsement dated October 29, 1983, admitted that he and Pablo Tolentino had borrowed the complainant's torrens title and mortgaged it with the PNB with De Chavez's alleged consent; he asserted that De Chavez had executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Tolentino and that Lescano and his spouse had earlier executed (September 1, 1974) an affidavit acknowledging the loan. Lescano also admitted arrears on his PNB account and said he had requested deferment until December.
The matter was referred for investigation and report to Executive Judge Demetrio M. Batario, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas. On June 18, 1984, the Executive Judge recommended outright dismissal, finding no legal ground for the complaint. The Supreme Court, however, took up the matter for consideration.
The Court noted that respondent executed another affidavit on March 2, 1984 promising to pay P1,000.00 monthly; complainant apparently was then satisfied and ceased to appear at a scheduled hearing. Nevertheless, the Court observed that as early as September 1974 respondent had executed a similar affidavit without a fixed payment commitment, and that by June 1, 1982 the PNB had already written De Chavez demanding payment and threatening foreclosure; the indebtedness had apparently increased from P10,000.00 to P20,000.00. The Court found that De Chavez suffered prejudice — risk of losing his property and inability to use his title — and that respondent had taken advantage of their friendship and the complainant's likely lack of e...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Supreme Court may entertain and impose disciplinary action despite the Executive Judge's recommendation of outright dismissal.
- Whether respondent Jesus R. Lescano committed willful failure to pay just debts warranting disciplinary sanction, and if so, what sanc...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)