Cobarrubias-Nabaza vs. Lavandero

A judiciary employee who takes a vehicle under custodia legis without the court's knowledge and approval is liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, not Misconduct, where the act is not connected to official functions; if he is also a lawyer, the same act violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and warrants suspension from law practice. Rule 140, as amended, governs pending administrative cases against non-judge judiciary personnel for acts committed before the amendment unless its retroactive application is prejudicial; the more favorable penalty framework applies.

Presiding Judge Suzanne D. Cobarrubias-Nabaza of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 93, presided over a BP 22 case in which Atty. Albert N. Lavandero, then Court Attorney IV in the Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator, was a co-plaintiff. The case produced a ruling favorable to respondent, and properties of the therein defendant, including a Black Hyundai Accent, were placed under custodia legis for levy, execution, and auction sale. The disciplinary framework implicated the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, the 2011 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

Presiding Judge Suzanne D. Cobarrubias-Nabaza of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 93 (MeTC-Marikina Br. 93) alleged that Atty. Albert N. Lavandero, Court Attorney IV in the Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), was a co-plaintiff in a BP 22 case pending before her sala. After she promulgated a ruling favorable to respondent, several properties of the therein defendant, including a Black Hyundai Accent (subject vehicle), were placed under custodia legis for levy, execution, and auction sale. Complainant later discovered that, despite the absence of any public auction, respondent had taken the subject vehicle in and out of court premises on three occasions without her prior knowledge and approval, as shown by various CCTV footages. This prompted her letter dated October 12, 2016 to the OCA, which referred the matter to the Office of Administrative Services – Supreme Court (OAS-SC) for formal investigation.

Respondent denied any irregularity. He maintained that he had authority to take the subject vehicle because it underwent a public auction on August 19, 2016 where he was declared the highest bidder. He insisted that any perceived irregularities relating to the auction should be blamed on the sheriff, who was negligent in his duties.

The OAS-SC found that respondent and the sheriff committed various irregularities in relation to the subject vehicle. These included (a) non-compliance with the proper procedure for the auction of levied properties, such as the posting of notices; (b) the numerous times that the subject vehicle was taken out and thereafter returned to court premises without the court's prior knowledge and approval; and (c) the lack of any documentary evidence that the subject vehicle was indeed included in the auction sale conducted on August 19, 2016. It recommended that respondent be found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and be fined P10,000.00, with a warning, and that the matter be referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC).

The OBC found that respondent violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility when he blatantly violated the rule on custodia legis by repeatedly taking the subject vehicle out of the court premises without the prior knowledge of and authority from MeTC-Marikina Br. 93. It did not lend credence to respondent's claim that he was the highest bidder in the auction of the vehicle conducted on August 19, 2016, in the absence of any document supporting the same. It noted that respondent should have been well-versed with the proper procedure in dealing with properties under custodia legis, considering his previous works as a court employee at the Court of Appeals, a Branch Clerk of Court of a Regional Trial Court, and a Court Attorney IV of the Legal Office, OCA. The OBC also pointed out that respondent had yet to pay the P10,000.00 fine imposed in A.M. No. 2017-07-SC.

The Notice of Levy and Sale did not include the subject vehicle among the properties to be auctioned on August 19, 2016. Respondent nevertheless repeatedly took the vehicle in and out of court premises without the prior knowledge and approval of MeTC-Marikina Br. 93.

• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: Complainant accused respondent of violating multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Unauthorized Taking of Property Under Custodia Legis: Complainant alleged that respondent took the subject vehicle in and out of court premises on three occasions without her prior knowledge and approval, despite the absence of any public auction, as evinced by CCTV footages.

• Authority as Highest Bidder: Respondent maintained that he had the authority to take the subject vehicle because it underwent a public auction on August 19, 2016 where he was declared the highest bidder.
• Sheriff's Negligence: Respondent argued that any perceived irregularities relating to the auction of the subject vehicle should be blamed on the sheriff, who was negligent in his duties.

• Resignation and Administrative Liability: Whether respondent's supervening resignation during the pendency of the administrative case prevents the Court from determining his administrative liability and imposing the proper penalty.
• Classification of Offense: Whether respondent's acts of taking and removing a vehicle under custodia legis without the court's knowledge and approval constitute Grave Misconduct, Simple Misconduct, or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
• Penalty in A.M. No. 2017-07-SC: Whether the penalty of a fine is proper, and under which framework—the 2011 RRACCS or Rule 140—should the penalty be imposed.
• Bar Liability: Whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Penalty in A.C. No. 12323: Whether suspension from the practice of law for one year is the proper penalty.

• Resignation and Administrative Liability: No. Resignation does not prevent determination of administrative liability; jurisdiction having attached upon filing during incumbency, cessation from office neither warrants dismissal nor renders the case moot.
• Classification of Offense: Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Misconduct must relate to or be connected with official functions; no nexus here, so neither Grave nor Simple Misconduct.
• Penalty in A.M. No. 2017-07-SC: Fine of P90,000.00. Rule 140 applies because it is less prejudicial than the 2011 RRACCS; due to resignation, only a fine may be imposed, reduced by mitigating circumstances.
• Bar Liability: Yes. Canon 6 applies the Code of Professional Responsibility to lawyers in government service; misconduct affecting qualification as a lawyer or showing moral delinquency may be disciplined as a Bar member.
• Penalty in A.C. No. 12323: Suspension from the practice of law for one year, effective immediately upon receipt, with a stern warning.

• Resignation and Administrative Liability: Respondent's resignation on November 17, 2019 did not prevent determination of administrative liability. Jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding attaches when the complaint is filed during incumbency; once attached, it is not lost by resignation. Citing OCA vs. Fuensalida and Baquerfo vs. Sanchez, the administrative matter was instituted while respondent was still actively employed as Court Attorney IV, so his resignation neither warranted dismissal nor rendered the case moot and academic.
• Classification of Offense: The Court agreed with the OAS-SC that respondent, in connivance with the sheriff, committed irregularities by skirting processes and procedures relating to properties in custodia legis. The vehicle did not undergo a valid auction; the Notice of Levy and Sale did not include it among the properties to be auctioned on August 19, 2016. Respondent nevertheless repeatedly took it in and out of court premises without the prior knowledge and approval of MeTC-Marikina Br. 93. These are acts of misconduct. However, they cannot be Grave or Simple Misconduct because they were not committed in relation to respondent's official duties as Court Attorney IV, Legal Office, OCA. Under prevailing case law, misconduct must relate to or be connected with the performance of official functions; without that nexus, the charge of misconduct fails. Where the misconduct is not in connection with the performance of duty, the proper designation is Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, as the OAS-SC recommended.
• Penalty in A.M. No. 2017-07-SC: The OAS-SC's recommended P10,000.00 fine was bereft of legal basis. The acts were committed in 2016, when the 2011 RRACCS was applicable to Judiciary personnel who are not justices or judges, by virtue of the incorporation clause in the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. However, Rule 140 was amended by the Resolutions dated October 2, 2018 and July 7, 2020 in A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, expanding its scope to all court officials and employees. Dela Rama vs. De Leon held that Rule 140 applies to pending administrative cases involving non-judge judiciary personnel for acts committed before the amendment unless its retroactive application would be prejudicial to the employee; if prejudicial, the framework prevailing at the time of the offense applies. A comparative analysis showed that under Section 46(B)(8) of the 2011 RRACCS, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service is a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense. A fine in place of suspension was allowed under Section 47(1), provided the respondent is liable for a grave offense with a mitigating circumstance and the penalty is suspension for six months and one day, with the fine equivalent to his salary for the period he ought to have been suspended. With the mitigating circumstances of outstanding performance ratings and first offense, respondent would have been meted suspension for six months and one day, or a fine equivalent to his salary for six months, totaling P604,728.00. Under Section 22(3) of Rule 140, the same offense is a serious charge punishable by dismissal, suspension of more than three but not exceeding six months, or a fine of more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P200,000.00. Since dismissal and suspension could no longer be imposed due to respondent's resignation, only a fine was available. The application of Rule 140 was less prejudicial to respondent; in light of the mitigating circumstances, the fine was reduced to P90,000.00.
• Bar Liability: Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility expressly provides that the rules governing the conduct of lawyers shall apply to those in the government service. Thus, respondent's government position did not insulate him from administrative disciplinary proceedings as a member of the Bar. Case law states that where a lawyer's misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar. Lawyers are officers of the court, vanguards of the legal system, and are expected to act with honesty in all their dealings, especially with the court. The Code of Professional Responsibility reiterates the core values of honesty, integrity, and trustworthiness in Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; and Rule 12.04, Canon 12. Respondent failed to abide by these tenets when he committed the acts discussed, failed to fulfill his solemn oath of upholding and obeying the law and its legal processes, and misused court processes for his own personal gain. He committed an act of falsehood and engaged in unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct.
• Penalty in A.C. No. 12323: In Salomon, Jr. vs. Frial, the Court previously meted the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for one year for taking a vehicle under custodia legis without the court's prior knowledge and authority. Guided by this pronouncement, the same penalty was imposed on respondent, as recommended by the OBC.

• Custodia legis — Property under custodia legis is in the custody of the court and may not be taken or removed without the court's knowledge and approval. The Court found respondent violated this rule when he repeatedly took the subject vehicle in and out of court premises without the prior knowledge and approval of MeTC-Marikina Br. 93, and when the Notice of Levy and Sale did not include the vehicle in the August 19, 2016 auction.
• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service vs. Misconduct — Misconduct is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, but to constitute an administrative offense it must relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer. Without that nexus, the charge of misconduct fails, and the proper designation is Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Applied because respondent's acts were not committed in relation to his official duties as Court Attorney IV.
• Effect of resignation on administrative liability — Cessation from office by resignation or retirement neither warrants dismissal of an administrative complaint filed while respondent was still in the service nor renders the case moot and academic. Jurisdiction attaches upon filing during incumbency and is not lost by subsequent resignation. Applied to respondent's November 17, 2019 resignation.
• Retroactive application of Rule 140 to non-judge judiciary personnel — Rule 140, as amended, applies to pending administrative cases involving non-judge judiciary personnel for acts committed before the amendment unless its retroactive application would be prejudicial to the employee; if prejudicial, the framework prevailing at the time of the offense applies. The Court compared the 2011 RRACCS and Rule 140 and applied Rule 140 because it was less prejudicial.
• CPR applies to lawyers in government service — Canon 6 provides that the canons shall apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their tasks. Where a lawyer's misconduct as a government official affects his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency, he may be disciplined as a member of the Bar. Applied to respondent, who violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1; Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Canon 10; and Rule 12.04, Canon 12.
• Penalty for taking property under custodia legis as a lawyer — A lawyer who takes a vehicle under custodia legis without the court's prior knowledge and authority may be suspended from the practice of law for one year. The Court applied this penalty, guided by Salomon, Jr. vs. Frial.

• "Cessation from office of respondent by resignation or retirement neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic." — States the rule that resignation does not moot an administrative case filed during incumbency; the Court applied it to respondent's November 17, 2019 resignation.
• "To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of a public officer." — Supplies the nexus requirement that prevented respondent's acts from being classified as Grave or Simple Misconduct and led to the designation of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
• "if the application of Rule 140, as amended would be prejudicial to the employee, then the framework of rules prevailing at the time of the commission of the offense should apply" — States the retroactivity rule from Dela Rama vs. De Leon; the Court compared the two frameworks and found Rule 140 less prejudicial.
• "where a lawyer's misconduct as a government official is of such nature as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency, then he may be disciplined as a member of the [B]ar on such grounds." — States the basis for disciplining respondent as a member of the Bar despite his government employment.

• OCA vs. Fuensalida, A.M. No. P-15-3290, September 1, 2020 — Cited for the rule that jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding attaches upon filing during incumbency and is not lost by resignation or retirement; cessation from office does not moot the administrative case.
• Dela Rama vs. De Leon, A.M. No. P-14-3240, March 2, 2021 — En Banc precedent on the retroactive application of Rule 140; applied because Rule 140 was less prejudicial to respondent.
• Salomon, Jr. vs. Frial, 586 Phil. 580 (2008) — Controlling precedent for the one-year suspension from the practice of law for taking a vehicle under custodia legis without the court's prior knowledge and authority.
• Rodil vs. Posadas, A.M. No. CA-20-36-P, August 3, 2021 — Cited for the requirement that misconduct relate to or be connected with official functions; without that nexus, the proper offense is Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
• Lahm III vs. Mayor, Jr., 682 Phil. 1 (2012) — Cited for disciplining a lawyer as a member of the Bar for government misconduct affecting his qualification as a lawyer or showing moral delinquency.
• Baquerfo vs. Sanchez, 495 Phil. 10 (2005) — Cited for the rule that resignation or retirement does not warrant dismissal of an administrative complaint filed during incumbency.
• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Chavez, 815 Phil. 41 (2017) and Moreno vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 238566, February 20, 2019 — Cited for reducing the penalty due to the mitigating circumstances of first offense and prior outstanding performance.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent violated this when he took the vehicle under custodia legis without court approval, committing falsehood and dishonest conduct.
• Canon 10, Rules 10.01 and 10.03, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the court; shall not do falsehood, mislead the court, or misuse the rules to defeat the ends of justice. Respondent violated these by taking the vehicle and misusing court processes.
• Canon 12, Rule 12.04, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice and shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment, or misuse court processes. Respondent misused court processes for personal gain.
• Canon 6, Code of Professional Responsibility — The canons apply to lawyers in government service in the discharge of their tasks; respondent's government position did not insulate him from Bar discipline.
• Section 46(B)(8), 2011 RRACCS — Classifies Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense. Used in the comparative penalty analysis.
• Sections 47(1) and (2), 2011 RRACCS — Allow payment of a fine in place of suspension under specified circumstances; the fine is equivalent to respondent's salary for the period he ought to have been suspended. Applied in computing the alternative penalty under the old framework.
• Section 22(3), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court — Classifies Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service as a serious charge punishable by dismissal, suspension of more than three but not exceeding six months, or a fine of more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P200,000.00. Since dismissal and suspension were no longer imposable due to resignation, only a fine could be imposed.
• Section 25(A), Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC — Cited for the amendments to the fines provided in Rule 140, relevant to the penalty imposed.
• Section 1, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel — Incorporates Civil Service rules applicable to the Judiciary; made the 2011 RRACCS applicable to respondent at the time of the offense.
• A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, Resolutions dated October 2, 2018 and July 7, 2020 — Amended Rule 140 to cover all court officials and employees, creating the retroactivity question resolved in Dela Rama vs. De Leon.

Hernando, Zalameda, Rosario, and Marquez, JJ., concur.