G.R. No. L-52242 - Unson III vs. Navarro

An anonymous letter-complaint was filed before the Office of the President and the Ombudsman, alleging unexplained wealth and immorality on the part of:

Associate Justice Roland B. Jurado of the Sandiganbayan
Atty. Monalisa A. Buencamino, Clerk of Court IV, Metropolitan Trial Court, Caloocan City

Following a February 2, 2010 Resolution, the OCA was directed to conduct a discreet investigation.
The investigation team comprised several lawyers (Alwin M. Tumalad, George B. Molo, Jose Antonio A. Soriano, Leah Easter P. Laja, Lesalie M. Ramos, Miguel L. Mergal, Rex Allen R. Gregorio) and a Court Chauffeur (Lamberto Gamboa).
The investigation was conducted between March 8 and 31, 2010.
The OCA report found discrepancies between the properties owned by the respondents as indicated in their Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) and the properties discovered during the investigation.

The OCA discovered that Justice Jurado owned several real properties in Metro Manila, particularly in Las PiAas City, Mandaluyong City, Cainta (Rizal), and Pasig City.
Specific findings included:

Understatement of properties in his SALNs (e.g., declaring six properties in years 2000–2005 versus seven to sixteen properties actually identified).
Discrepancies in declared versus actual properties, especially after his appointment as a Sandiganbayan Justice in 2003.
Detailed enumeration of properties, with titles such as TCT Nos. T-31407, T-31408, T-31409 (for subdivided lots in Las PiAas City) and other tax declarations pertaining to improvements on these lots.

He maintained that several properties, particularly in Las PiAas City, were derived from a single “mother title” (TCT No. 23266) and were lumped together in his SALNs.
He clarified that some properties (e.g., the one covered by TCT No. T-23269) were not declared in his SALN because they had already been sold.
He provided detailed explanations regarding the acquisition, subdivision, and subsequent sale or retention of properties (including those in Mandaluyong, Cainta, and Pasig).

The investigation also scrutinized the SALNs submitted by Atty. Buencamino, which showed:

Inconsistencies in the declared properties, particularly in Las PiAas City (e.g., initially one lot in 1992 versus three properties evidenced by separate Transfer Certificates of Title before 1992).
A change in the enumeration from one property to three separate properties in subsequent SALNs (1993–1996).

She denied any immoral relationship with Justice Jurado, attributing the charge to ulterior motives linked with unrelated complaints filed by a disgraced judge.
She asserted that all properties were acquired through inheritance, her salary, and legitimate business transactions with the Buencamino clan.
She also explained the correspondence between different tax declarations (e.g., TCT Nos. T-22005, T-23267, and T-36498) and clarified that some documents (such as tax declaration marked as “Annex JJ”) were allegedly altered.

Both respondents had faced previous similar complaints regarding unexplained wealth and alleged immorality.
Justice Jurado highlighted past investigations by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which had recommended the closure of a previous complaint on lack of basis.
The complaints involved detailed property records, including transfer certificates, tax declarations, and sale agreements, which the respondents used to substantiate their explanations.

Whether the discrepancies between the properties declared in the SALNs and those discovered by the OCA satisfactorily established that Justice Jurado and Atty. Buencamino had unlawfully accumulated wealth.
Whether the practice of “lumping” properties in the SALN constituted making an untruthful statement, given that the details were correct even if not itemized in full.

Whether Justice Jurado’s explanation of deriving multiple real properties from a single “mother title” and his handling of sales (such as the sale of the property covered by TCT No. T-23269) was credible and sufficient to account for the apparent discrepancies.
Whether Atty. Buencamino’s inconsistent representations in her SALNs regarding the number and division of properties in Las PiAas could be reconciled with her explanations, particularly in light of the alleged altered tax declaration.

Whether there was any evidence to support the charge of immorality against either respondent, beyond their co-ownership of a specific property.
Whether the existing evidence could substantiate any claim of an improper or immoral relationship between Justice Jurado and Atty. Buencamino.

Whether the investigation by the OCA and the subsequent report provided enough factual basis to sustain the charges.
The need to further investigate the alleged alteration of Tax Declaration No. E-011-09204 before concluding on the case against Atty. Buencamino for unexplained wealth.