Tiwaken vs. Milan

A lawyer in government service who uses his public position to procure personal benefit, solicits money from litigants, releases court-related documents without lawful authority, and misrepresents his ability to influence pending cases is guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting both dismissal from service and disbarment.

Complainant Shirley K. Tiwaken served as attorney-in-fact and representative of Helen Fossar Stewart, the plaintiff in a collection case against Julia Fianza docketed as Civil Case No. 12-CV-2884 before Branch 10 of the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. Respondent Atty. Jurgens SJ. Milan was Clerk of Court V of the same RTC and also served as acting ex-officio provincial sheriff. Tiwaken and respondent hailed from the same town of Tadian, Bauko, Mountain Province, and respondent considered her a relative. A separate case, Civil Case No. R-1307 (Elena Diaz vs. Julia Fianza), was pending before the Municipal Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, involving one of the same titles at issue. The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) was promulgated on April 11, 2023, and took effect on May 30, 2023, during the pendency of this administrative case.

Shirley K. Tiwaken was the attorney-in-fact of Helen Fossar Stewart, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 12-CV-2884, a collection case against Julia Fianza pending before Branch 10 of the RTC of La Trinidad, Benguet. Atty. Jurgens SJ. Milan was Clerk of Court V of the same RTC and, at the relevant time, also served as acting ex-officio provincial sheriff. Tiwaken and respondent were from the same town and respondent regarded her as a relative. Tiwaken had in her possession three original certificates of title pertaining to properties of Julia Fianza: TCT No. 016-2011003045, and OCT Nos. P-21252 and P-21221, the first of which was the subject of an attachment she was processing in the collection case.

A separate case, Civil Case No. R-1307 (Elena Diaz vs. Julia Fianza), was pending before the Municipal Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet, involving TCT No. 016-2011003045. The MTC issued a resolution directing Julie K. Dacanay, Diaz's attorney-in-fact, to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of that TCT, and thereafter a Writ of Execution dated March 5, 2015 was issued, directing the ex-officio provincial sheriff to implement it. Respondent, as acting ex-officio provincial sheriff, attempted to serve the writ on Dacanay on April 20 and 21, 2015, but she refused to receive the demand letter and informed him that the title was in Tiwaken's possession.

According to Tiwaken, respondent called her on June 23, 2015, informing her that the property covered by TCT No. 016-2011003045 was involved in another case at the MTC, and convinced her to surrender the original title to him for safekeeping. She told him she would do so after completing the attachment processing. He called again on June 24 and June 25, 2015, the latter time informing her that Julia Fianza was at his office inquiring about the title and instructing her to come after Fianza had left. On June 25, 2015, Tiwaken, accompanied by Marina Wallang and Helen Fossar Stewart, turned over the originals of all three titles to respondent. Immediately upon receipt, respondent demanded PHP 10,000 for safekeeping, which Tiwaken paid. Respondent, for his part, maintained that he advised Tiwaken to surrender TCT No. 016-2011003045 because the MTC had issued a writ of execution and that she would face contempt if she refused; he denied telling her the titles were for safekeeping only. He claimed Tiwaken voluntarily turned over the two additional OCTs without his requiring them.

On June 30, 2015, respondent released TCT No. 016-2011003045 and the accompanying tax declaration to Julia Fianza, purportedly in compliance with the writ of execution. On the same day, he also released OCT Nos. P-21252 and P-21221 to Arthur Sabey, Julia Fianza's brother, claiming this was done at Fianza's request and with her approval, and that he saw nothing wrong because those titles were not subject to the writ. He did not include the release of the two OCTs in his Sheriff's Report. Instead, he stated in the report that Dacanay had turned over the TCT and tax declaration through Tiwaken, giving the impression that Dacanay had physically handed over the documents — a representation he admitted was made at the tearful request of Dacanay and her counsel, Atty. Sebastian Badongen, to secure dismissal of a contempt petition against Dacanay.

Between July and August 2015, respondent called Tiwaken on three separate occasions, instructing her to meet him at Kalei's Grill and Restaurant in La Trinidad, where he demanded money to allegedly follow up and monitor the collection case before RTC Branch 10 to ensure a favorable decision. Tiwaken paid PHP 10,000 on each of the first two occasions and PHP 5,000 on the third, totaling PHP 35,000, all in the presence of Marina Wallang. In October 2015, respondent again summoned Tiwaken to Native Tongue Cafe, where she gave him PHP 5,000 for purported case follow-up. On December 11, 2015, respondent called Tiwaken asking her to prepare money for the sheriff, claiming a decision had already been rendered; when Tiwaken verified with the sheriff, she learned no decision had been issued and did not comply.

On January 14, 2016, Tiwaken learned from the Registry of Deeds of Benguet that a Deed of Sale involving the property covered by TCT No. 016-2011003045 had been registered, with the original title having been submitted among the requirements. She confronted respondent, who admitted he had released the original title because he was given PHP 20,000. Despite his assurance that the property could not be transferred due to the registered attachment, the title was eventually cancelled and a new one issued in the name of the alleged vendee, Romnick S. Adaci. Tiwaken subsequently discovered an Acknowledgment Receipt in the records of Civil Case No. R-1307, signed by respondent and Julia Fianza, showing that respondent had released the three titles as early as June 30, 2015 — meaning that when he subsequently demanded money for safekeeping and case follow-ups, he was no longer in possession of the titles.

• Gross Unlawful and Unethical Conduct: Tiwaken asserted that respondent unlawfully obtained possession of three original titles under the pretext of safekeeping, demanded and received money for that safekeeping and for purportedly following up her case, released the titles without authority to persons adverse to her interests, and misrepresented his ability to influence the outcome of a pending case, all in violation of RA 6713, the CPR, and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
• Unfitness for Office and the Legal Profession: Tiwaken prayed for respondent's dismissal from service and disbarment, arguing that his acts, committed while taking advantage of his position, seriously affected the image and integrity of the judiciary and rendered him grossly unfit to remain as a lawyer.

• Lawful Enforcement of Writ of Execution: Respondent maintained that he obtained TCT No. 016-2011003045 from Tiwaken in compliance with the MTC's writ of execution directing him to recover the title, and that he never told Tiwaken the title was for safekeeping only; he advised her that refusal to surrender it could result in contempt.
• Voluntary Turnover of Additional Titles: Respondent claimed Tiwaken voluntarily turned over OCT Nos. P-21252 and P-21221 without his requiring them, and that he released them to Arthur Sabey at Julia Fianza's request, seeing nothing wrong because they were not subject of the writ.
• Falsification of Sheriff's Report Justified: Respondent admitted he stated in his Sheriff's Report that Dacanay turned over the title through Tiwaken rather than Tiwaken herself, but justified this as a compassionate accommodation of the tearful request of the cancer-stricken Dacanay and her counsel to secure dismissal of the contempt petition, while asserting it was technically true that the title was turned over through Tiwaken.
• Denial of Monetary Demands: Respondent denied directly contacting Tiwaken to demand the surrender of the titles or demanding and receiving money for safekeeping or case follow-ups.
• Excuse for Delay in Filing Comment: Respondent explained that the case had taken a toll on him, resulting in confusion and hatred that caused him to lose the composure to prepare an intelligent comment, thus accounting for his more than two-year delay in responding to the OCA's directives.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent's actuations — obtaining titles under false pretenses, demanding and receiving money, releasing titles without authority, and misrepresenting his ability to influence a pending case — warrant his dismissal from service.
• Disbarment: Whether respondent's conduct warrants the ultimate penalty of disbarment from the practice of law.
• Applicability of the CPRA: Whether the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which took effect after the acts were committed, applies to this administrative case.
• Non-Compliance with OCA Directives: Whether respondent's failure to timely submit his comment on the complaint constitutes a separate administratively punishable offense.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment.
• Disbarment: Yes. Respondent's violations of the CPRA warranted disbarment and the striking of his name from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately.
• Applicability of the CPRA: Yes. The CPRA's transitory provision expressly provides for retroactive application to all pending cases, and no injustice or infeasibility was found in its application here.
• Non-Compliance with OCA Directives: Yes. Respondent's prolonged failure to comply with OCA directives constituted a less serious charge under Section 15(e) of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, punishable by a fine of PHP 18,000, considering his first offense as a mitigating circumstance.

• Administrative Liability: The Court identified five highly irregular actuations: (1) failure to indicate in his Sheriff's Return that the title was in Tiwaken's possession; (2) the manner of obtaining possession of all three titles from a person who was not the subject of the writ; (3) unlawful demands for payment — PHP 10,000 for purported safekeeping, PHP 35,000 in three instances for alleged case follow-ups, and PHP 25,000 for a non-existent decision; (4) misrepresenting authority to conduct follow-ups and influence the outcome of the case in RTC Branch 10; and (5) unauthorized release of OCT Nos. P-21252 and P-21221 to Arthur Sabey. Respondent's denial of directly contacting Tiwaken was belied by the fact that she would not have surrendered the titles absent his misrepresentation, and an eyewitness with personal knowledge substantiated the monetary demands. His release of the two OCTs to Sabey was done without any lawful order, and his deliberate falsification of the Sheriff's Report to make it appear that Dacanay physically handed over the title constituted dishonesty. These acts violated Section 4(a) and (c) of RA 6713 by placing personal gain above public trust and failing to perform duties with professionalism and integrity. Under the framework articulated in Judge Zarate-Fernandez vs. Lovendino, the misconduct was grave because it involved corruption — the unlawful use of his station to procure benefit for himself — and willful intent to disregard established rules. The dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service were likewise established, as his acts diminished public faith in the judiciary.

• Disbarment: The Court held that respondent violated several canons of the CPRA: Canon II, Section 1 (prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct); Canon II, Section 15 (prohibition against improper claims of influence or familiarity); Canon II, Section 30 (prohibition against financial interest in transactions and solicitation of gifts for lawyers in government); and Canon III, Section 2 (duty to uphold the rule of law and assist in the administration of justice). By falsely representing that he could influence a pending case and exploiting the prestige of his judicial office for improper gain, respondent deceived complainant and eroded public confidence in the impartiality and independence of the courts. Membership in the legal profession being a privilege, the Court held it was its duty to withdraw that privilege when an attorney is no longer worthy of public trust and confidence.

• Applicability of the CPRA: Although the acts imputed to respondent were committed before the CPRA's effectivity on May 30, 2023, Section 1 of the CPRA's transitory provision expressly states that it shall apply to all pending and future cases, except where retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice. The Court found no such exception applicable, and accordingly held that the CPRA squarely governed the present case.

• Non-Compliance with OCA Directives: Respondent admitted receiving two earlier OCA notices directing him to submit his comment and failing to heed them, taking more than two years to finally comply. His excuse — that the case caused him confusion and hatred rendering him unable to compose an intelligent comment — was found without merit, particularly given his claim that the allegations were false, which should have motivated a prompt defense. Under Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Villegas and Tan vs. Sermonia, failure to file a comment when ordered by the Court or OCA constitutes a violation of Supreme Court directives tantamount to insubordination to the Court itself. This constituted a less serious charge under Section 15(e) of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, punishable by suspension or a fine. As this was respondent's first offense, appreciated as a mitigating circumstance under Section 20, the Court imposed a fine of PHP 18,000, representing not less than half of the minimum prescribed.

• Grave Misconduct — Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. To warrant dismissal, the misconduct must be grave — serious, important, weighty, and not trifling — and must imply wrongful intention, not mere error of judgment. Grave misconduct requires the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Corruption consists in the act of an official who unlawfully uses his station to procure benefit for himself or another, contrary to duty and the rights of others. The Court applied this doctrine to respondent's exploitation of his position as clerk of court and acting sheriff to extort money and unlawfully release titles.

• Dishonesty — Dishonesty is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray; it is a lack of integrity, probity, or fairness and straightforwardness, and is a malevolent act that renders a person unfit to serve the judiciary. The Court found respondent dishonest in his deliberate falsification of the Sheriff's Report and his misrepresentation to Tiwaken regarding the purpose for which he obtained the titles.

• Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service — This pertains to any conduct detrimental or derogatory to the service, or acts and omissions that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the people's faith in the judiciary. Respondent's unauthorized release of titles, solicitation of money, and false claims of influence over a pending case were held to constitute this offense.

• Non-Compliance with OCA Directives as Insubordination — A resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint is not a mere request but a lawful order that must be complied with promptly and completely. Failure to comply betrays a recalcitrant streak and disrespect for the Court's authority, and is tantamount to insubordination to the Court itself, particularly for judiciary employees who should be more aware than ordinary citizens of their duty to obey Supreme Court orders.

• Retroactive Application of the CPRA — The CPRA's transitory provision expressly provides for retroactive application to all pending and future cases, except where the Court determines that retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice. Absent such a determination, the CPRA governs administrative cases involving acts committed prior to its effectivity.

• "There is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. This is because the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel." — This passage articulates the foundational principle underlying the Court's imposition of the ultimate penalties of dismissal and disbarment, emphasizing that all court personnel are held to exacting standards of integrity.

• "Membership in the legal profession is a privilege, and whenever it is made to appear that an attorney is no longer worthy of the trust and confidence of his clients and the public, it becomes not only the right but also the duty of the Court to withdraw the same." — This statement provides the doctrinal basis for the disbarment penalty, framing it as both a right and a duty of the Court when an attorney's conduct demonstrates unfitness.

• "Noncompliance with the OCA directives is tantamount to insubordination to the Court itself." — This formulation establishes the gravity of ignoring administrative directives from the OCA, equating such failure with direct defiance of the Supreme Court's authority.

• Judge Zarate-Fernandez vs. Lovendino, 827 Phil. 191 (2018) — Followed as the controlling authority defining grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, including the elements of corruption required to elevate misconduct to grave misconduct. Also cited for the proposition that non-compliance with OCA directives is tantamount to insubordination.

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Villegas, 474 Phil. 475 (2004) — Followed for the rule that failure to file a comment when ordered by the Court or OCA constitutes a violation of Supreme Court rules or directives, and that such resolutions are not mere requests but lawful orders to be taken seriously.

• Tan vs. Sermonia, 612 Phil. 314 (2009) — Followed for the holding that failure to comply with an OCA directive to submit a comment constitutes clear and willful disrespect for the Court and is tantamount to insubordination, warranting administrative sanction.

• Valdez vs. Soriano, 883 Phil. 344 (2020) — Cited for the principle that the conduct of court personnel, from presiding judge to the lowest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.

• Section 4(a), (b), (c), and (e), Republic Act No. 6713 — Norms of conduct requiring public officials to uphold public interest over personal interest, perform duties with professionalism and integrity, act with justness and sincerity, and extend prompt and responsive service. Respondent violated these by using his position for personal enrichment and exploiting litigants.

• Section 7(a) and (d), Republic Act No. 6713 — Prohibits public officials from having financial or material interest in transactions requiring approval of their office, and from soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, or favors in the course of official duties. Respondent violated these by demanding and receiving money from Tiwaken in connection with titles and case follow-ups.

• Canon II, Sections 1, 2, 15, and 30; Canon III, Section 2, CPRA (A.M. No. 22-09-01-SC) — Prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct; scandalous behavior discrediting the profession; improper claims of influence or familiarity with court officers; financial interest in transactions and solicitation of gifts by government lawyers; and requires upholding the rule of law. Applied retroactively pursuant to the CPRA's transitory provision.

• Canon I, Sections 2 and 3; Canon III, Section 1, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) — Prohibits court personnel from soliciting or accepting gifts, dispensing special favors, and requires avoidance of conflicts of interest. Respondent violated these by soliciting money and releasing titles to persons favored by the adverse party.

• Section 15(e), A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC (Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court) — Classifies violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars establishing internal policy or procedure as a less serious charge. Applied to respondent's failure to timely file his comment.

• Section 17(2) and Section 20, A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC — Prescribes sanctions for less serious charges (suspension of one to six months or a fine of more than PHP 35,000 but not exceeding PHP 100,000), and provides that where mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the penalty may be not less than half of the minimum. Applied to justify the PHP 18,000 fine.

Gesmundo, C.J.; Leonen, SAJ.; Caguioa; Hernando; Lazaro-Javier; Inting; Zalameda; Gaerlan; J. Lopez; Dimaampao; Kho, Jr.; and Villanueva, JJ. — all concurred in the Per Curiam decision. No separate concurring opinions were written.