Administrative Order No. 321




MALACAÑAN PALACE MANILA BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES [ Administrative Order No. 321, March 12, 1960 ] CONSIDERING MR. CARLOS GOCO RESIGNED FROM OFFICE AS ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL FISCAL OF RIZAL. This is an administrative case against Mr. Carlos Goco, assistant provincial fiscal of Rizal, for alleged breach of trust and conduct unbecoming a public officer. The charges were investigated by the Department of Justice, and the Secretary of Justice recommends that respondent, be required to resign. It appears that sametime in 1949 the tenants of the Hacienda de Tulay in Malabon, Rizal, agreed to buy the land from its owner, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, in order to avoid the payment of high rentals being required of them. A committee composed of tenants was formed to negotiate for the purchase of the property. Respondent, though not a tenant, was included therein obviously because of his familiarity with the law. He accepted the trust and caused the collection of contributions from the tenants for his expenses which he fixed at ?.20 a square meter of the lots occupied by them. He also required them to make a cash deposit equivalent to 30% of the estimated value of the lots to cover the anticipated earnest money that might be required by the Archbishop. Subsequently, the full responsibility of dealing with the Archbishop on behalf of the tenants fell upon respondent who later on entrusted the active negotiations to three brokers and another lawyer, Mr. Augusto Francisco, who carried out the same in the name of Leonila Siochi, wife of respondent. However, respondent continued to take part in the protracted negotiations which culminated in the sale of the estate on January 19, 1954, to his wife for a total sum of ?149,000 of which ?19,000 represented one-half of the back rentals of delinquent tenants. Thereafter, respondents wife conveyed the property for one peso (?1) to A. M. Raymundo & Co., a partnership engaged in real estate business, which he helped organize and of which he appeared to be the legal counsel. This partnership undertook the sale of the lots of the hacienda to tenants and outsiders indiscriminately, no preference having been given to the tenants despite the fact that some had given advance money for the purchase of the hacienda, except that the money they advanced would be credited to the purchase price of their lots or returned to them if they failed to exercise the option within five days from notification. The purchase price per square meter was a little over ?5 but the tenants are being charged ?10 per square meter for the poorest lots and ?25 for the best ones. The tenants, who claimed to have been kept in the dark by the respondent during the negotiations, believed that they had been exploited. They complained against the respondent and even went to court to file actions against him, his wife, and the partnership. In his defense respondent contends that upon turning over the negotiations to Atty. Francisco he ceased to have anything to do with the transaction; that he never profited a single centavo in the deal nor received anything for his services; that of the total contribution of ?10,000, the sum of ?8,000 was paid to the brokers and the balance of ?2,000 included in the deposit made with the Archbishop; and that he could not be dealt with administratively for acts not connected with the discharge of his official duties. I am not impressed by respondents claims. The record shows that he took active part in the negotiations even after he had employed said brokers and lawyer and that the sale was finally consummated in the name of his wife who transferred the property to A. M. Raymundo & Co., of which he was a partner and legal counsel. His claim that he could not be punished administratively for acts not having anything to do with the discharge of his official duties is a very extravagant claim in the face of facts showing his underhanded dealings and pecuniary interest in the transaction. At any rate, respondent engaged in outside business and professional activities without the permission of his superiors, in violation of Executive Order No. 103, s. 1913, and Rule XIII, section 5, of the Civil Service Rules. The violation by itself might not be apparently serious but what make it condemnable are the consequences that have arisen therefrom. By his actuations he exposed, to say the least, hundreds of people to apparent exploitation by unscrupulous parties, forcing them to complain against him administratively and judicially for redress. Without categorically passing on the charges of bad faith, betrayal of trust, fraud, and the like, which are being ventilated in court, I agree with the Secretary of Justice that it has been sufficiently established that respondent acted as counsel for the parties, including his wife who was favored by the deal, and devoted considerable time in the negotiation and consummation thereof without the permission of his superiors as required by existing regulations. Wherefore, Mr. Carlos Goco is hereby considered resigned as assistant fiscal of Rizal upon receipt of a copy of this order.1aшphi1 Done in the City of Manila, this 12th day of March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and sixty, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the fourteenth. (Sgd.) CARLOS P. GARCIA President of the Philippines By the President: (Sgd.) NATALIO P. CASTILLO Executive Secretary The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation