RA 3019 - Art 256 Cases - Ampil v Office of the Ombudsman Oscar an unsecured creditor of ASB Realty filed a case for Falsification of Public Documents

RA 3019 - Art 256 Cases - Ampil v Office of the Ombudsman...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 84 pages.

Ampil v Office of the Ombudsman Oscar, an unsecured creditor of ASB Realty, filed a case for Falsification of Public Documents against Atty. Policarpio, Francis, Yvonne and Gema. He also filed a criminal case for violation of the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as well as an administrative case for Grave Misconduct against Atty. Policarpio, the Registrar of Deeds of Pasig City. All these cases were lodged before the Office of the Ombudsman. Previously, ASB Realty agreed with MICO to build a condominium tower to be known as the Malayan Tower where MICO will provide the real estate while ASB will construct the building thereon. A year later, MICO agreed to sell the land to ASB, with the Contract to Sell stipulating that ownership shall vest to ASB upon full payment of the purchase price. In 2000, ASB, being a part of thee ASB Group of Companies filed a Petition for Corporate Rehabilitation, which petition was granted by the SEC. Because of obvious financial difficulties of ASB, MICO offered to continue the construction of the building, the agreement of which they incorporated in a Memorandum of Agreement. To make a long story short, when it came time for issuance of the Condominium Certificates of Titles, Atty. Policarpio signed 38 CCTs in the name of ASB. Later, and before this CCTs were issued, and without any court order,
Image of page 1
Atty. Policarpio changed the name of the registered owner in the 38 CCTs to MICO from ASB Enter Oscar, who claims being an unsecured creditor and wrote Atty. Policarpio and called his attention to the amendment in the 38 CCTs in the name of ASB were transferred in the name of MICO. He requested that Atty. Policarpio correct the CCTs to reflect its true owner which is ASB. Atty. Policarpio on his part wrote back and said he merely accommodated the request of Atty. Francis, who he knew represented the interests of both MICO and ASB. Despite several demands, the respondents refused to change the name of the registered owner in the 38 CCTs, which according to Oscar prejudiced his rights as an unsecured creditor because ASB promised to them that the 38 CCTs will be included in the Asset Pool in pursuance of the rehabilitation plan which will be used to pay the unsecured creditors. The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for Falsification of Public Documents against the respondents, holding that there there must first be a determination of the rightful ownership of the condominium unit by either MICO or ASB to make the alleged falsification appear as false. The Ombudsman held Atty. Policarpio liable for Simple Misconduct, but on motion for reconsideration by Atty. Policarpio, reversed its findings and dismissed the
Image of page 2
administrative case. Absent in the resolution was the findings on the liability of Atty. Policarpio under Republic Act 3019.
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 84 pages?

  • Fall '16
  • criminal law, Automobile, petitioner, republic act, public officer

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture