ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. OCA IPI-05-2143-P. April 5, 2006]
RE: BILL JULIUS S. LAS PI�AS vs. MEDIATRIX CORAZON D. ANDALES, CLERK IV, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, DIGOS CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR
First Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated APR. 5, 2006
A.M. OCA IPI-05-2143-P (Re: Bill Julius S. Las Piñas vs. Mediatrix Corazon D. Andales, Clerk IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Digos City, Davao del Sur )
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT dated 7 January 2005 (with enclosures) of Bill Julius S. Las Piñas charging Mediatrix Corazon D. Andales, Clerk IV, MTCC, Digos City with Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee.
Complainant averred that on 25 December 2002, respondent obtained a loan from him in the amount of Php 75,700.00 and issued a personal check in payment therefor. When he deposited the subject check in his account, it was dishonored by the drawee bank for the reason, "ACCOUNT CLOSED". Thereafter, complainant made several demands to respondent to pay the said loan but the latter ignored the same and refused to pay the loan. Complainant added that series of conferences were made by Judge Carmelita S. Davin and even in the Prosecutor's Office under Prosecutor Christopher C. Abarilla with respondent just to persuade the latter to pay her loan, but still she refused to pay.
As a consequence, he was forced to file a criminal case against the respondent for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22, otherwise known as the Anti-Bouncing Checks Law. However, on 14 December 2004, the MTCC of Digos City issued an order referring the case for mediation. On the same date, respondent failed to appear on the said mediation proceeding which prompted the Mediator to reset the same on 21 December 2004. On said date, respondent again failed to appear without just cause despite the receipt of the notice of hearing.
COMMENT dated 9 May 2005 (with enclosures) of respondent Mediatrix Corazon Deluao-Andales.
Respondent contended that the subject matter of the administrative complaint filed against her by the complainant is now pending before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Digos City, Province of Davao del Sur, docketed at Criminal Case No. 117 (04) and 118 (04).* She however, denied the allegations of the complainant, claiming that she had already paid her loan.
According to the respondent, the truth of the matter is that she borrowed only a sum of Php 11,000.00 from the complainant evidenced by Check No. 0199817 dated 5 June 2002. On 15 June 2002, respondent was made to issue another check for Php 32, 252.00 to cover the principal amount plus the interest. When respondent was not able to pay the said amount, she was made to once again issue another check in the amount of Php 47,525.00.
Respondent pointed out that she paid some amounts to the complainant but the latter did not issue her any receipt. On 25 December 2002, respondent, for the third time, was made to issue another check for Php 75,700.00 to allegedly cover her unpaid account which consisted primarily of unpaid interests. Although respondent admitted that she failed to pay the whole amount she, however, contended that she gave to complainant some amounts but the latter did not issue any receipt.
Meanwhile, in April 2003, respondent attempted to pay the amount of Php 40,000.00 with the balance to be paid on or before September 2003 but the same was not accepted by the complainant and instead demanded the total amount of Php 102,000.00 (Annex "K-3"). Respondent submitted a copy of the note of a certain Atty. Leonardo D. Suario addressed to complainant asking the latter to accept the amount of Php 40,000.00 (Annex "F").
Respondent argued that she was forced by the complainant to issue the foregoing checks in view of the latter's threat that she will be dismissed from the service. Aside from the checks, respondent lamented that she was even compelled to sign blank documents like the blank trust receipt and promissory note. As she could no longer withstand the continuing increase of her loan obligation, respondent decided to fight back, hoping that the Supreme Court will understand the predicaments of government workers who are forced to transact business with loan sharks for their financial needs. Although the Usury Law was suspended in Central Bank Circular No. 905, series of 1982, effective 1 January 1983, and the parties were given wide latitude to agree on any interest rate, there is nothing in the said circular that grants the lender carte blanche authority to raise interests to levels which will either enslave their borrowers or would lead to the hemorrhaging of their assets. This is already declared by the Supreme Court in Cuaton vs. Salud, G.R. No. 158382, 27 January 2004, ruling that the interest of 8 to 10 per cent per month rate of interest is illegal for being excessive, iniquitous and unconscionable. Stipulations authorizing iniquitous or unconscionable interest are contrary to morals, if not against the law. Respondent even stressed that complainant is fond of threatening government workers who failed to pay their loans by means of filing against them in court.
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: Respondent submitted an ADDENDUM TO COMMENT dated 20 May 2005 (with enclosure) to support her claim that the complainant is taking undue advantage of the ordinary government workers like her.
EVALUATION: The instant case is an off-shoot of respondent's alleged refusal to pay a loan she obtained from the complainant. The charge has nothing to do with the respondent's official duties as a court personnel. For misconduct to constitute an offense, it should relate to, or be connected with, the performance of official function and duties of the public officer. The transactions entered into by and between the parties are private in nature.
At any rate, it has been said that to warrant administrative sanction, a government officer or employee should be found guilty of "willful failure to pay just debts" (Sec. 46 sub-par. 22, Chapter 7, Title 1, Book V, Executive Order 292, also known as the "Administrative Code of 1987"). In Flores v. Tatad, 96 SCRA 676, the Supreme Court ruled that, "the term 'just debts' shall apply only to a claim adjudicated by a court of law, or debts the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor". There is no "just debt" to speak of in the instant case as yet.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant administrative case be DISMISSED for being prematurely filed.
The record shows that a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22, docketed as Crim. Case No. 15846-2003, against respondent is still pending before the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC) of Digos City. Under Rule XIV, Section 52 (c) (10) of Resolution No. 991936 of the Civil Service Commission otherwise known as the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, "Just debts" pertains to: 1) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or 2) claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.+ Respondent's "obligation" does not fall under these classifications.
Finding the evaluation and recommendation of the Court Administrator to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Mediatrix Corazon D. Andales is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
* Should be Criminal Case No. 15846-2003. The aforecited Criminal Cases Nos. 117 (04) and 118 (08) are the cases filed by complainant against another court employee.
+ Frias v. Aguilar, 397 SCRA 502, 503 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
