Reliways Inc v. Grantoza : AM P-04-1812 : May 28, 2004 : J. Tinga :
Second Division : Resolution
[A.M. NO. P-04-1812 : May
RELIWAYS INC. represented by: AURELIO P. VENDIVEL, JR., Complainant, v. LAMBERTO P. GRANTOZA,
Process Server, MeTC, Br. 62, Makati City, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
On July 29, 2003,
Aurelio P. Vendivel, Jr. (Vendivel) filed on behalf of Reliways, Inc.
(Reliways) a Complaint-Affidavit1 dated
July 25, 2003 charging the
respondent, Lamberto P. Grantoza (Grantoza),
with conduct unbecoming a court
employee for the latters failure to pay his just debts.
Allegedly, on April 27, 2001 and again on
May 24, 2001, Grantoza obtained from Reliways two (2) loans with the principal
P7,000.00 and P4,500.00, respectively, or a total of P11,500.00,
for which Grantoza executed the corresponding Promissory Notes and an
Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney in favor of Reliways and Vendivel.
According to Vendivel, oral and written demands2 have been made upon Grantoza but the latter refused and continues to refuse to
pay his debt which, as of May 30, 2003,
P19,427.05 inclusive of interest.
Moreover, Vendivel avers that Reliways was
forced to lend money to Grantoza because Reliways then had a pending criminal
case with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC),
Branch 62, Makati
City, where Grantoza is stationed as
a Process Server.3 cralawred
In his Comment4 dated September 5, 2003,
Grantoza admits having borrowed money from Reliways but denies any intention
not to pay the same. He claims that he has partially paid his obligation.
He also admits having received the demand
letter dated June 17, 2003
but contends that Vendivel did not make an oral demand upon him. Further,
Grantoza denies knowledge of Reliways pending criminal case with the court
where he is stationed.
He claims that
he has never dealt personally with Vendivel.
In fact, it was the Clerk of Court of the MeTC who approached him on
behalf of Reliways and offered to extend him a loan.Moreover, his loan application was processed by the personnel of
the Office of the Clerk of Court of the MeTC.
Grantoza apologizes to Vendivel for giving the impression that he is
evading a lawful obligation and assures the latter that he is trying to settle
his loan.5 cralawred
Vendivel filed a Reply-Affidavit6 dated
September 26, 2003, denying
that Grantoza has made partial payments on his loan.Vendivel rebuts Grantozas denial that an oral demand was made
upon him and contends that before he filed criminal cases against Grantoza and
other defaulting borrowers, he personally went to their respective offices, reminded
them of their obligations and collected payments from them.
He also refutes Grantozas allegation that
it was the personnel of the MeTC who approached Grantoza and offered to extend
him a loan on behalf of Reliways.
claims that he and Grantoza know each other because of Reliways criminal case
pending with the MeTC.7 cralawred
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the
complaint and found it meritorious.
Accordingly, the OCA recommended that Grantoza be severely reprimanded
for his willful failure to pay his just debts, which amounts to conduct
unbecoming a court employee.8 cralawred
The Revised Administrative Code of 1987, which covers Grantoza
being a court employee, provides:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
Sec. 46. Discipline: General Provisions. (a) No officer or
employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause
as provided by law and after due process.
(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
(22) Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay
taxes due to the government;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
The term just debts applies to claims the existence and
justness of which are admitted by the debtor.10 cralawred
Grantoza does not deny his indebtedness to Reliways.
He even claims that he has made partial
payments on his obligation.
his claim is not supported by any evidence.
Thus, while we commiserate with his unfortunate situation, we cannot
condone his failure to pay his just debt which stands at
of May 30, 2003. His
administrative liability under the foregoing provision of the Revised
Administrative Code is undisputed.
penalty therefore is not directed at his private life but at his actuations
unbecoming a public official.11 cralawred
The Omnibus Rules implementing the provisions on the Civil
Service of the Revised Administrative Code of 198712 classifies willful failure to pay just debts as a light offense and prescribes
the penalty of reprimand for the first offense. Given that this is Grantozas
first offense since his employment in 1979, he should be reprimanded, although
not severely as recommended by the OCA, considering his position as a Process
Finally, Vendivels contention that Reliways was forced to lend
money to Grantoza because of its criminal case pending in the court where
Grantoza is stationed deserves no sympathy.
Between the two of them, Reliways had the upper-hand. What manner of
enticement could Grantoza, a mere process server, have dangled to force
Reliways to extend him a loan?
than his bare allegation, Vendivel does not elaborate.
We certainly cannot give credence to his
considered, respondent Lamberto P. Grantoza, Process Server, Metropolitan Trial
Court, Branch 62, Makati City, is hereby REPRIMANDED for his willful failure to
pay his just debts, which amounts to conduct unbecoming a court employee.
The commission of the same or similar acts
in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Quisumbing (Acting Chairman),
Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Puno, (Chairman), J., on
1 Rollo, pp. 1-9, with Annexes.
2 A demand letter dated June 17, 2003
is attached to the Complaint-Affidavit as Annex F.
Supra, note 1 at 13-14.
9 Section 46 (b) (22),
Chapter 7, Subtitle A (Civil Service Commission),
Book V, Revised Administrative Code of 1987.
10 Sec. 23. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are
classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its
nature and effects of said acts on the government service.
The following are light offenses with their corresponding
failure to pay just debts <1st Offense, Reprimand; 2nd
Offense, Suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days; 3rd Offense,
The term just debts shall apply only to:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary
adjudicated by a court of law, or
existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.
xxx.Sec. 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules implementing
Book V of the Revised Administrative Code.
11 Martinezv. Muoz, A.M. No. P-94-1006, October
6, 1995, 249 SCRA 14, citing Flores v.
Tatad, 96 SCRA 676.
Back to Home | Back to Main