G.R. No. 195054 - ATTY. CORAZON CHAVEZ, VS. RENATO GARCIA AND THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, respondent ATTY. CORAZON C. CHAVEZ , Register of Deeds of San Juan City, is liable for Grave Misconduct and is thus imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL from the sendee, including all the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government service. Atty. Chavez moved [27] but failed to obtain a reconsideration of the Ombudsman's ruling. [28] Hence, she filed a petition for review [29] with the CA. The CA dismissed the petition for failure to: (1) state the address of the parties; and (2) attach the affidavit of service and supporting documents. The CA also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Chavez. [30] Hence, she came to the Court for relief through the present petition. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT The Court initially denied the petition because it failed to show any reversible error in the assailed CA resolutions. Atty. Chavez's counsel likewise did not indicate his MCLE compliance. [31] Atty. Chavez moved for reconsideration on the grounds that: (1) she is battling a stage 3 cancer, and thus, for humanitarian reasons, she asked that her case be at least given due course and resolved on the merits; (2) her case has merits; (3); the defective filing in the CA was fully explained and (4) her counsel has an updated MCLE compliance. [32] On these bases, the Court granted the motion for reconsideration, reinstated the petition, and required the respondents to file their comments. [33] THE PETITION Atty. Chavez assails the Ombudsman's findings on the following grounds: First , assuming she erred in relying on the supporting documents submitted by Hector, her error does not constitute grave misconduct. She argues that in grave misconduct, there must be corruption and manifest intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule. Corruption consists of the act of an official who, contrary to duty, unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station to procure some benefit for himself or for another person. [34] Atty. Chavez points out that the element of corruption was not proven. She insists that while she may have committed a mistake in assuming that the supporting documents were genuine, such mistake was due to inadvertence and may not in any manner be construed as grave misconduct or gross negligence of duty. [35] Second , Atty. Chavez maintains that she had the right to rely on the authenticity and due execution of the documents submitted to her office. She underscores that it is beyond the duty of the Register of Deeds to look into the intrinsic validity of the CAR or the deeds of sale. [36] She cites ample jurisprudence to support her claim that the Register of Deeds can only determine the registrability of the document based on its face and that she has no authority to inquire into the intrinsic validity of the documents based on proof aliunde . She claims that her office receiv