September 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-08-2426 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2634-P) : September 10, 2008] LEONOR RONAN VELASCO V. NONITA REONAL-RED, LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 12, LIGAO CITY :
[A.M. No. P-08-2426 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2634-P) : September 10, 2008]
LEONOR RONAN VELASCO V. NONITA REONAL-RED, LEGAL RESEARCHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 12, LIGAO CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 September 2008:
A.M. No. P-08-2426 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2634-P) - Leonor Ronan Velasco v. Nonita Reonal-Red, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ligao City
Leonor Ronan. Velasco (complainant) charges Nonita Reonal-Red, (respondent) Legal Researcher of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ligao City of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming a public officer, willful failure to pay just debts and violation of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees.
Complainant, in her Administrative Complaint dated February 28, 2007, alleges: In 1997, she filed before the Court an administrative case against respondent, docketed as A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 97-333-P, for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for soliciting money from her, a party-litigant in Civil Case No. 1582 for reconveyance and damages then pending at Branch 12, The money solicited was for the payment of respondent's services who was supposed to prepare complainant's appellant brief to be filed with the Court of Appeals (CA). Complainant gave respondent P8,000.00 in cash and P1,618.66 in check. However, no appellant's brief was filed with the CA resulting in the dismissal of the case to the prejudice of complainant. Due to respondent's refusal to return the money complainant gave her, complainant filed the said case which was referred to a judge for investigation. Before the hearing however, respondent asked complainant if they could amicably settle the matter and on January 9, 2000, respondent executed a promissory note obligating herself to pay complainant P500,000.00 for a period of five years. Taking pity on respondent and believing she would pay the full amount under the note, complainant testified before the Investigating Judge that the amount indicated in her complaint was a loan and that respondent never undertook to prepare her brief.[1]
Complainant' further avers: Respondent has only paid P175,000.00, out of the P500,000.00 she promised, the last payment of which was in September 2006 and, despite repeated demands, respon4ent failed to continue her payments and even expressed that she is no longer willing to pay the balance of P325,000.00 saying that she has more than paid the P9,000.00 she received from complainant. Respondent refuses to pay complainant despite her financial capacity, having a stable job, the retirement benefits of her husband, a recently acquired residential house and vehicles, while complainant is struggling with her daily sustenance as a single 80-year old retired teacher, who cannot engage in a protracted legal battle with respondent. Respondent also challenged complainant to a confrontation in any forum. [2]
In a 1st Indorsement dated March 16, 2007, Court Administrator Christopher Lock referred the said complaint for respondent's Comment.[3]
In her Comment dated July 6, 2007 respondent apologized for the delay in the submission of her comment stating that it took her time to recover from the anxiety brought by the instant complaint which stated untruthful allegations anent A.M. No. OCA IPI 97-333-P which was already settled and terminated. She admits the existence of the promissory note and claims that she has been exerting efforts to comply therewith by remitting regularly the agreed bi-monthly installments to complainant. She further contends that while there were instances when she failed to remit on time, such lapses were never deliberate but due to circumstances beyond her control, such as the hospitalization of her ailing husband and the destruction of their properties by Typhoon Reming; that she never uttered unsavory remarks towards complainant and denies that she is living in luxury, as the car and. house referred to are owned by a married child and the retirement benefits of her husband are still being processed; that she promises to continue remitting her installments to settle the same the soonest possible time, and; that she is waiving her right to a formal hearing without necessarily admitting that she is guilty of the charges attributed against her by complainant.[4]
The OCA[5] in its report dated November 13, 2007 found that since respondent has acknowledged her indebtedness to complainant and that she has failed to regularly remit the payment agreed upon, she is guilty of willful failure to pay just debt for which she should be reprimanded with warning against the repetition of the same or similar acts.[6]
Complainant filed a Manifestation/Comment dated December 6, 2007 praying "for preferential and receptive action on her case against respondent, as may be feasible and warranted in the factual and legal premises."'[7]
In a Resolution dated January 28, 2008, the Court required the parties to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted.[8] Complainant filed her manifestation signifying her willingness to have the case submitted based on the pleadings filed[9] while respondent did not file any manifestation within the given period, perhaps because of her earlier manifestation in her Comment
The Court fully agrees with the OCA's findings and recommendation.
There is no question that respondent is guilty of willful failure to pay just debt which is an act. unbecoming of a public employee and is a ground for disciplinary action.[10] Just debts as defined in Sec. 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 refers to (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or (2) the claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.'"[11]
Respondent admitted that she executed a promissory note in favor of complainant and said that she is exerting effort to comply with the same, stating only that the times she failed to pay complainant were not willful but due to circumstances beyond her control.
Under Rule IV, Sec. 52 C (10) willful failure to pay just debts is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the, first offense, suspension of 1- 30 days for the second offense and dismissal for the third offense. Since this is respondent's first offense, the OCA correctly recommended that she be reprimanded for said offense.
The allegation of complainant that respondent executed the promissory note for P500,000.0Q for the dismissal of the administrative complaint she filed against respondent due to the latter's failure to return the amount of P9,618.66 given to her by complainant for the preparation of an appeal brief which respondent failed to do, cannot be given full credence. It is totally incongruous for respondent to execute a promissory note for P500,000.00 when the alleged amount she refused to return To complainant was only P9,618.66. Equally incongruous is the amount of P9,618.66 for the alleged preparation of appeal brief. Why was not the fee rounded off? Complainant gave no explanation. However, in her testimony in A.M. No. OCA IP1 No. 97-333-P, she asserted that the amount subject thereof represented the various loans obtained by respondent, who is a relative, for the tuition fees of respondent's children; and that respondent did not accept the task of preparing the appeal brief.[12] The claim therefore that respondent was "moonlighting" could not be taken seriously.
WHEREFORE, respondent Nonita Reonal-Red, Legal Researcher of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ligao City is found GUILTY of willful refusal to pay just debt for which she is REPMMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is ordered to pay her debt to complainant within thirty (30) days from notice of herein Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. P-08-2426 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2634-P) - Leonor Ronan Velasco v. Nonita Reonal-Red, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ligao City
RESOLUTION
Leonor Ronan. Velasco (complainant) charges Nonita Reonal-Red, (respondent) Legal Researcher of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ligao City of grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming a public officer, willful failure to pay just debts and violation of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees.
Complainant, in her Administrative Complaint dated February 28, 2007, alleges: In 1997, she filed before the Court an administrative case against respondent, docketed as A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 97-333-P, for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for soliciting money from her, a party-litigant in Civil Case No. 1582 for reconveyance and damages then pending at Branch 12, The money solicited was for the payment of respondent's services who was supposed to prepare complainant's appellant brief to be filed with the Court of Appeals (CA). Complainant gave respondent P8,000.00 in cash and P1,618.66 in check. However, no appellant's brief was filed with the CA resulting in the dismissal of the case to the prejudice of complainant. Due to respondent's refusal to return the money complainant gave her, complainant filed the said case which was referred to a judge for investigation. Before the hearing however, respondent asked complainant if they could amicably settle the matter and on January 9, 2000, respondent executed a promissory note obligating herself to pay complainant P500,000.00 for a period of five years. Taking pity on respondent and believing she would pay the full amount under the note, complainant testified before the Investigating Judge that the amount indicated in her complaint was a loan and that respondent never undertook to prepare her brief.[1]
Complainant' further avers: Respondent has only paid P175,000.00, out of the P500,000.00 she promised, the last payment of which was in September 2006 and, despite repeated demands, respon4ent failed to continue her payments and even expressed that she is no longer willing to pay the balance of P325,000.00 saying that she has more than paid the P9,000.00 she received from complainant. Respondent refuses to pay complainant despite her financial capacity, having a stable job, the retirement benefits of her husband, a recently acquired residential house and vehicles, while complainant is struggling with her daily sustenance as a single 80-year old retired teacher, who cannot engage in a protracted legal battle with respondent. Respondent also challenged complainant to a confrontation in any forum. [2]
In a 1st Indorsement dated March 16, 2007, Court Administrator Christopher Lock referred the said complaint for respondent's Comment.[3]
In her Comment dated July 6, 2007 respondent apologized for the delay in the submission of her comment stating that it took her time to recover from the anxiety brought by the instant complaint which stated untruthful allegations anent A.M. No. OCA IPI 97-333-P which was already settled and terminated. She admits the existence of the promissory note and claims that she has been exerting efforts to comply therewith by remitting regularly the agreed bi-monthly installments to complainant. She further contends that while there were instances when she failed to remit on time, such lapses were never deliberate but due to circumstances beyond her control, such as the hospitalization of her ailing husband and the destruction of their properties by Typhoon Reming; that she never uttered unsavory remarks towards complainant and denies that she is living in luxury, as the car and. house referred to are owned by a married child and the retirement benefits of her husband are still being processed; that she promises to continue remitting her installments to settle the same the soonest possible time, and; that she is waiving her right to a formal hearing without necessarily admitting that she is guilty of the charges attributed against her by complainant.[4]
The OCA[5] in its report dated November 13, 2007 found that since respondent has acknowledged her indebtedness to complainant and that she has failed to regularly remit the payment agreed upon, she is guilty of willful failure to pay just debt for which she should be reprimanded with warning against the repetition of the same or similar acts.[6]
Complainant filed a Manifestation/Comment dated December 6, 2007 praying "for preferential and receptive action on her case against respondent, as may be feasible and warranted in the factual and legal premises."'[7]
In a Resolution dated January 28, 2008, the Court required the parties to manifest whether they are willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted.[8] Complainant filed her manifestation signifying her willingness to have the case submitted based on the pleadings filed[9] while respondent did not file any manifestation within the given period, perhaps because of her earlier manifestation in her Comment
The Court fully agrees with the OCA's findings and recommendation.
There is no question that respondent is guilty of willful failure to pay just debt which is an act. unbecoming of a public employee and is a ground for disciplinary action.[10] Just debts as defined in Sec. 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 refers to (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or (2) the claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.'"[11]
Respondent admitted that she executed a promissory note in favor of complainant and said that she is exerting effort to comply with the same, stating only that the times she failed to pay complainant were not willful but due to circumstances beyond her control.
Under Rule IV, Sec. 52 C (10) willful failure to pay just debts is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the, first offense, suspension of 1- 30 days for the second offense and dismissal for the third offense. Since this is respondent's first offense, the OCA correctly recommended that she be reprimanded for said offense.
The allegation of complainant that respondent executed the promissory note for P500,000.0Q for the dismissal of the administrative complaint she filed against respondent due to the latter's failure to return the amount of P9,618.66 given to her by complainant for the preparation of an appeal brief which respondent failed to do, cannot be given full credence. It is totally incongruous for respondent to execute a promissory note for P500,000.00 when the alleged amount she refused to return To complainant was only P9,618.66. Equally incongruous is the amount of P9,618.66 for the alleged preparation of appeal brief. Why was not the fee rounded off? Complainant gave no explanation. However, in her testimony in A.M. No. OCA IP1 No. 97-333-P, she asserted that the amount subject thereof represented the various loans obtained by respondent, who is a relative, for the tuition fees of respondent's children; and that respondent did not accept the task of preparing the appeal brief.[12] The claim therefore that respondent was "moonlighting" could not be taken seriously.
WHEREFORE, respondent Nonita Reonal-Red, Legal Researcher of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Ligao City is found GUILTY of willful refusal to pay just debt for which she is REPMMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent is ordered to pay her debt to complainant within thirty (30) days from notice of herein Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 6-8.
[2] Rollo, pp. 5,9-12.
[3] Id. at 16.
[4] Id. at 18-19.
[5] Through then Deputy Court Administrator Jose P Perez
[6] Rollo, p. 4.
[7] Id. at 37-38.
[8] Rollo, p. 33.
[9] Id. at 41.
[10] Bago v. Feraren, 457 Phil. 363 (2003).
[11] Almonte v. Daque: A.M. No. P-06-2195, June 15, 2007, 524 SCRA 625.
[12] TSN A.M No. OCA-IPI No. 97-333-P, January 13, 2000, pp. 5-15 rollo, A.M. No. COA-IPI No 97-333-P, pp. 39-45.
