Title
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Lanzanas
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999
Decision Date
Dec 8, 2010
BSP accused court officials of unauthorized release of garnished funds; sheriff suspended for inefficiency, clerk for neglect, judge cleared.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1999)

Allegations Against Respondents

The BSP filed an administrative complaint against Judge Lanzanas and the other respondents for their alleged misconduct concerning the unauthorized release of garnished funds totaling P97,388,468.35 to the Philippine Bank of Communications (PBCOM), despite these funds being tied to an ongoing court case. The BSP accused Cachero of releasing the funds through fraudulent means, claiming malversation of public funds and other violations. Dela Cruz-Buendia was similarly accused of usurpation of judicial functions, neglect of duties, and falsification of records, while Judge Lanzanas faced allegations of gross negligence in his official capacities.

Background and Context of the Case

The BSP was involved in a legal dispute against Orient Commercial Banking Corporation and several defendants from whom rental payments were garnished under a writ of attachment issued by Judge Rosmari D. Carandang of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 12. The funds, subject to the garnishment, were subsequently released to PBCOM based on a writ issued in a case that was separate from the BSP's action. The BSP contended that this release was unauthorized and violated the proper procedure for handling garnished funds in custodia legis.

Investigation and Office of the Court Administrator's Recommendations

Following the complaint, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and reported that the withdrawal of funds by the respondents was irregular and failed to comply with established judicial procedures. The OCA recommended disciplinary action against Cachero and Dela Cruz-Buendia but dismissed charges against Judge Lanzanas due to insufficient evidence.

Respondent’s Defenses

  1. Judge Lanzanas: He defended his actions by asserting he signed the checks as a ministerial duty without any awareness of potential irregularities as he had received assurances from his court staff regarding the legitimacy of the transactions.
  2. Dela Cruz-Buendia: She claimed her actions complied with established procedures and that she believed all documents were in order, insisting the funds were released based on the correct application of court orders.
  3. Cachero: He argued that his role was purely ministerial in the execution of the writ of garnishment and subsequently defended his actions by citing a surety bond that secured against any adverse effects of enforcement.

Court's Findings

The court found that the withdrawal of funds from custodia legis was improper, as only the court holding jurisdiction over the funds (Branch 12) had authority to order their release. The court recognized that while Judge Lanzanas did not actively participate in the wrongful actions, Cachero and Dela Cruz-Buendia failed to exercise the diligence required of their positions, which resulted in improper actions being taken with respect to funds that remained under judicial custody.

Disciplinary Actions

  1. Cachero: Found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence due to his

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.