A.C. No. 5001 - Sismaet vs. Cruzabra

Complainant Petra Durum Sismaet, one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 4749 for nullification of a sale and reconveyance of real property, filed a disbarment complaint against respondent Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra.
The complaint charged Atty. Cruzabra with gross ignorance of the law, violation of her duty to pay respect and courtesy to courts, and breach of the trust and confidence reposed in her as the Registrar of Deeds of General Santos City.

On January 27, 1993, Sismaet sought the registration of an affidavit of adverse claim on Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-32952 at the Registry of Deeds of General Santos City. The adverse claim was annotated on the back of the TCT with the signature of Atty. Cruzabra, who was then the Registrar of Deeds.
On May 18, 1993, a mortgage contract involving China Banking Corporation and Esteban Co., Jr.—one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 4749—was annotated on the back of the same TCT.
On February 15, 1994, Esteban Co., Jr. filed an Affidavit of Cancellation for the adverse claim, which was inscribed on the TCT with Atty. Cruzabra’s signature, thus effectively cancelling Sismaet’s adverse claim.

Sismaet alleged that the registration of the mortgage contract and cancellation of her adverse claim forced an amendment of her complaint by impleading China Banking Corporation as an additional defendant.
She contended that Atty. Cruzabra was aware of the fact that the real property covered by TCT No. T-32952 was still under litigation and yet allowed the annotations to be made.
On September 3, 1998, Sismaet moved to cite Atty. Cruzabra in contempt for permitting these annotations. The disbarment complaint was then formally filed on the following day.

On September 18, 1998, Atty. Cruzabra filed her Answer, asserting that the annotation of the affidavit of cancellation was proper.

She argued that under Section 70 of the Property Registration Decree, an adverse claim is effective for only 30 days from its registration, implying that her subsequent annotation merely reflected the expiry of Sismaet’s adverse claim.
She maintained that her duty to annotate affidavits and instruments was ministerial in nature, and thus the annotations were not discretionary actions.

In a Comment dated March 24, 1999, Atty. Cruzabra further argued that the complaint should be dismissed for forum shopping, as the subject matter coincided with the pending contempt motion before the trial court.
Sismaet filed a Reply on May 3, 1999, contending that an adverse claim does not expire in 30 days and can only be canceled by a court order.
The case was subsequently referred by the Court to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation.

After numerous postponements and exchanges of pleadings, the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline rendered a Report and Recommendation on January 17, 2006, recommending dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the adverse claim was valid only for 30 days.
Furthermore, an investigation by the Land Registration Authority confirmed that the acts complained of did not constitute valid grounds for holding Atty. Cruzabra administratively liable.

Whether or not Atty. Asteria E. Cruzabra should be administratively sanctioned for her actions in her capacity as Registrar of Deeds.

Did her annotation of the mortgage contract and the affidavit of cancellation of the adverse claim, despite knowing that the subject property was still under litigation, constitute misconduct?
Can a government lawyer be disciplined as a member of the bar for acts carried out in the discharge of official duties when such acts may also breach the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility?