A.M. No. P-21-026 - Ngo vs. Frades

Complainant Reynaldo M. Ngo filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Renato E. Frades, Clerk of Court of the RTC in Gapan City, Nueva Ecija.
The complaint charged respondent with falsification and violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713, which sets forth the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

The dispute arose over a document entitled “Bilihan ng Lupa” submitted as evidence in a Civil Case for Unlawful Detainer filed by Ngo and his brother against the spouses Dominador and Guillerma Anatalio.
The document, originally admitted by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) as a photocopy, was later re-submitted in an appeal before the RTC with a stamp-mark reading “Certified True/Xerox Copy” signed by respondent.
Ngo contended that the certification falsely represented that the original document was in the official custody of the Office of the Clerk of Court despite its proven status as merely a photocopy.

Ngo sought verification from respondent regarding the existence (and authenticity) of the document in the notarial file of Atty. Godofredo M. Linsangan who purportedly notarized it, but Frades did not respond to the request.
In parallel, Ngo alleged that, following demands and harassment by Frades, he handed over P30,000.00 meant for “demolition expenses” related to the execution of the RTC decision.
Respondent admitted issuing a handwritten acknowledgment receipt but explained that the money was distributed to Dominador Anatalio as funds for the defendants’ voluntary demolition, not for personal gain.

Respondent maintained that his certification of the “Bilihan ng Lupa” photocopy was performed in his official capacity because the RTC, Branch 36 lacked a Branch Clerk of Court at that time.
He asserted that his role was limited to certifying the presence of the document in the case record—not attesting to it being a faithful reproduction of an original.
Judge Maynigo and other judicial officers refuted respondent’s claim by clarifying that administrative functions for the branch were performed by its Officer-in-Charge, Atty. Reynaldo Dungca, and that the certification was not properly referred by the Branch 36 court.

Judge Baguio, after an extensive investigation supported by testimony from Sheriff Ernesto Mendoza, found that:

The “Bilihan ng Lupa” document was, in fact, a photocopy improperly stamped as “Certified True/Xerox Copy.”
The original copy and the notarial register were not in custody of the Office of the Clerk of Court at the time of certification.

Falsely certifying document custody.
Wrongfully assuming the functions of the Sheriff and personally negotiating and handling demolition expenses.
Misappropriating a portion of the funds (P10,000.00) without proper liquidation.
Making false representations based on the “Kasunduan” document used to collate evidence in the administrative case.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the Investigating Judge’s detailed findings.
The OCA recommended that Frades be found guilty of:

Specific sanctions recommended included dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave credits), and perpetual disqualification from public office.

Whether respondent, by certifying a photocopy as “Certified True/Xerox Copy,” falsely represented that the document was in the official custody of the court.
Whether such certification constitutes falsification and a violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards (RA 6713).

Whether respondent exceeded his administrative authority by assuming functions reserved for the Branch Clerk of Court or the Sheriff.
Whether his actions in negotiating and disbursing demolition funds, including the misappropriation of P10,000.00, amount to gross neglect of duty and misconduct.

Whether the misconduct committed by respondent meets the threshold for being characterized as grave, serious, and weighty—warranting dismissal and associated penalties.
Whether the prevailing rules (Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and relevant provisions of URACCS) have been applied correctly, including considerations on retroactivity and favorability to the employee.