This is an administrative case against Mr. Sofronio M. Flores, Register of Deeds of Iloilo, who stands charged with inefficiency in the discharge of his official duties.

It appears that on July 8, 1948, the General Land Registration Office called the attention of the respondent to the fact that his abstracts of collections for the months of July, 1947, to June, 1948, had not yet been received by that office and accordingly requested him to submit the same as soon as possible. This request was reiterated on August 16, 1948. On September 17, 1948, said office learned from the City Auditor of Iloilo that the abstracts corresponding to the period from July, 1946, to June 30, 1947, although already verified by the latter, were still kept in the office of the respondent and not mailed to the central office for no apparent reason whatsoever. It also learned that the respondent was not submitting to the auditor his monthly abstracts as they fell due but was allowing them to accumulate in his office. On September 30, 1948, the General Land Registration Office, besides informing him of the matters brought out by the city auditor, asked him to exert efforts to have the abstracts submitted for auditing purposes immediately after the end of each calendar month and not later than the fifth of the succeeding month and reminded him that his practice was in violation of accounting and auditing regulations. Abstracts for other months also fell due, and letters were likewise sent to him to forward them together with those previously called for. Said requests, however, remained unattended to until he wais required to show cause why he should not be dealt with administratively.

It also appears that as of September 7, 1949, a total of 27 back reports-some of which even pertained to 1946-had not been received by the central office. The respondent was accordingly warned that failure on his part to submit them on or before September 30, 1949, would cause the institution of administrative proceedings for his removal from the service unless satisfactory reasons be given for his failure to do so.

On September 30, 1949, the deadline for submitting the abstracts, the respondent informed the General Land Registration Office that the same had already been forwarded to it and at the same time submitted the following explanation: That owing to the last war the records, documents, titles, etc., of his office were in disorder after liberation; that as the office was leaking during rainy clays, they had to move from one place to another in order to save important papers; that after liberation there was a mad rush for the reconstitution of records and, with his limited personnel, they had to give preference to the immediate need of the public, such as the issuance of titles to facilitate mortgages and other transactions, in line with the policy of the Government to enhance the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country; that his office is handicapped by a shortage of office equipment, and the only typewriter with a long carriage, which is needed in the preparation of said abstracts, was being used for the annotation of entries on the certificates of title; that in the submission of said abstracts the intervention of the auditing office is also required; that they verbally called the attention of the one in charge to the pendency of said abstracts to be audited but that the latter replied that their office was also undermanned, etc.; and that the delay in the submission of these abstracts was not intentional nor willful but due to circumstances beyond his control.

Respondent ™s explanation is far from satisfactory. It is seen that the delay in the submission of his abstracts was partly due to the fact that he allowed them to accumulate in his office instead of submitting them for auditing purposes as they fell due. While the auditing process might have contributed in some way to the delay, this does not hold insofar as the abstracts for the period from September, 1946, to June, 1947, are concerned, it appearing that although they had already been verified by the office of the auditor prior to September 11, 1948, they were submitted to the central office only one year thereafter, or in September, 1949. That respondent had been behind for more than one year in his reports of collections which should have been submitted monthly plainly shows that he is remiss in the discharge of his duties.

Wherefore, respondent is hereby reprimanded and warned that similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more severely.

Done in the City of Baguio, this 1st day of May, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and fifty, and of the Independence of the Philippines, the fourth.


By the President:

(Sgd.) TEODORO EVANGELISTA
Executive Secretary