ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1625-P. October 11, 2004]

RELIWAYS vs. BAUTISTA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 11 2004 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1625-P (Reliways , Inc., represented by Asst. Mgr. Aurelio Vendivel, Jr. vs. Amelia E. Bautista, Court Interpreter, MeTC, Br. 64, Makati City.)

Considering the Report dated September 2, 2004 submitted by Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., to wit:

This refers to the Resolution dated 28 July 2004 of this Honorable Court, Second Division referring back to the Office of the Court Administrator this instant administrative case for evaluation, report and recommendation and at the same time directing the OCA to consider complainant's reply dated 9 February 2004 in its evaluation and recommendation.

In a COMPLAINT dated 21 April 2003, complainant Reliways, Inc., through its representative Mr. Aurelio Vendivel, Jr., charged herein respondent with willful failure to pay her debt of P25,248.35. Complainant claimed that respondent executed promissory notes as well as an Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney and promised to pay her debts with her monthly salary and retirement benefits. However, respondent allegedly utilized them to pay her indebtedness to other lenders.

In her COMMENT dated 24 November 2003, respondent admitted the clue execution of the promissory note dated 27 April 2001 for the loan of P7000.00 but questioned the authenticity of the signature appearing on the 29 May 2001 promissory note.

Respondent also stressed that she is willing to pay complainant but only the amount which she actually received as loan. She justified that the Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney which she executed in favor of herein complainant already authorized the latter to receive or take possession of checks pertaining to her representing her salary, bonus, allowances, etc. Hence, it is not true that she intentionally evaded the payment of her obligation.

Finally, respondent asserted that complainant's cause of action is civil in nature and this Office is not the proper forum for such action.

In its REPLY-AFFIDAVIT dated 9 February 2004, complainant insisted that the signature in the second promissory note belonged to respondent. According to Mr. Vendivel, every time he would demand payment from respondent, she would always say that she is running out of cash and would promise to pay as soon as the proceeds of the life insurance of her deceased husband is released. It was likewise clarified that the Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney was never implemented because the cash division of the Office of the Clerk of Court did not honor the document and respondent herself refused to implement it. Complainant added that respondent borrowed money during the time that the case of Reliways, Inc. versus Laurence Oligon was still pending.

A careful perusal of the pleadings filed by the parties reveals that the instant complaint is without merit. To be punishable, failure to pay just debts must be willful and deliberate. In the instant case, respondent assails the authenticity of the second promissory note and denies its due execution. Moreover, the Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney issued by herein respondent in favor of complainant, though subsequently dishonored by the Office of the Clerk of Court, negates the latter's claim of respondent's deliberate refusal to pay her just debt.

The Court has time and again declared that it is not and should not be treated as a collecting agency for indebtedness incurred by members of the judiciary. At any rate, complainant is not without recourse. It can file a corresponding civil action before the regular court for collection of sum of money.

Finally, complainant implied that respondent used her position when she acquired the loan during the time that complainant has a pending case before the court. Such contention is without merit. Complainant is engaged in the business of lending money, and the transaction with herein respondent appeared to be a part of the ordinary course of its business. Moreover, complainant failed to present evidence that respondent used her position to acquire the loan. The accusation appears to be an afterthought as it was not even raised in the initial complaint.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully recommends to the Honorable Court the DISMISSAL of the instant administrative case for utter lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation to be in accord with the facts and the law, the Court approves and adopts the same.

Accordingly, the administrative complaint against Amelia E. Bautista, Court Interpreter, MeTC, Branch 64, Makati City is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, respondent is admonished to be more heedful of her duty to pay her obligations on time.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE