Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1980 > March 1980 Decisions > A.M. No. P-1808 March 31, 1980 - AURORA FLORES v. ROSARIO TATAD:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-1808. March 31, 1980.]

AURORA FLORES, Complainant, v. ROSARIO TATAD, Assistant Librarian, Court of Agrarian Relations, Quezon City, Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:


In a sworn letter-complaint, dated January 10, 1978, Aurora Flores charged Rosario Tatad, Assistant Librarian of the Court of Agrarian Relations, with "wilful failure to pay just debt, an act unbecoming of a public official."cralaw virtua1aw library

Complainant alleges that from February to March of 1977, respondent secured from her several loans of different amounts totalling P5,412.00 with the promise to pay on or before April 28, 1977; that despite repeated demands thereafter made, respondent reacted merely by requesting several grace periods culminating in her execution of a promissory note on July 6, 1977, payable on or before August 31, 1977, but that upon maturity, respondent failed and refused to settle her obligations.

In her Comment dated January 31, 1978, respondent admitted her indebtedness and her failure to pay the loans on time but asserted that the delay is not malicious nor deliberate but due to force of circumstances. In her own words, she explained: "I am very much willing to pay the debts I owe Ms. Flores as manifested in my gesture. On July 1, 1977, I paid her Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) at the Court of Agrarian Relations and on July 11, 1977, I paid her Four Hundred Sixty Pesos (P460.00). Prior to these dates, she had at one time taken my salary amounting to forty-seven pesos only (P47.00), without any authority from me. In view of my situation, however, I did not complain anymore to the cashier . . . Just for the record please be informed that aside from the complaint pending before you, Ms. A. Flores has already filed a civil suit against me at the Quezon City Court and an administrative case before the Court of Agrarian Relations."cralaw virtua1aw library

Considering respondent’s admission of her failure to pay her indebtedness despite complainant’s repeated demands, her liability is sufficiently established and no further investigation is necessary.

Section 36 (b) (22) of Presidential Decree No. 807 provides as one of the grounds for disciplinary action.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

"(22) Wilful failure to pay just debts . . .;"

x       x       x


Section 19 (n), Rule XVIII, B, of the Civil Service Rules reiterates the foregoing provisions and defines the term "just debts" as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The term just debts’ shall apply only to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) claims adjudicated by a court of law,

or

(2) claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor."cralaw virtua1aw library

With respondent’s admission of the existence and justness of her indebtedness and her failure to pay the same, disciplinary administrative action is proper. Her submission that her failure to pay "is not deliberate but due to force of circumstances" will not exclude her from the scope of the aforequoted provisions. 1 Neither would the pendency of a civil case against respondent for collection of her debt bar this administrative suit, the thrust of which is directed at respondent’s actuations unbecoming of a public official.

Under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 8, series 1970, the administrative offense of wilful failure to pay just debts is classified as a light offense calling for a fine or suspension from one (1) day to thirty (30) days. The Court Administrator has recommended suspension of fifteen (15) days without pay, which we find reasonable.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

WHEREFORE, respondent Rosario Tatad is hereby suspended from office for fifteen (15) days without pay for wilful failure to pay just debts, an act unbecoming of a public official.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Makasiar, Fernandez, Guerrero and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Vide, Pineda v. Hizalan (Adm. Case No. P-242, May 28, 1975), 64 SCRA 160.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1980 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-30904 March 6, 1980 - MAXIMA BLOUSE POTENCIANO v. HERMINIO C. MARIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38833 March 12, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AIROL M. ALING

  • G.R. No. L-44363 March 12, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CELESTINO

  • G.R. No. L-40106 March 13, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO GARCIA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1388 March 28, 1980 - ANA F. RETUYA v. IÑEGO A. GORDUIZ

  • G.R. No. L-24659 March 28, 1980 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS v. FRANCISCA VDA. DE MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27743 March 28, 1980 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNION, ET AL. v. AMADOR E. GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30557 March 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO B. BALTAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-30707 March 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL DAFFON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32910 March 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDILLO LEBUMFACIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33013 March 28, 1980 - WILLIAM LINES, INC., ET AL. v. EUGENIO LOPEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34290 March 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. L-38345 March 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE AVELLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44690 March 28, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE P. TAMPUS

  • G.R. Nos. L-49541-52164 March 28, 1980 - ANTERO IGNACIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-276 March 31, 1980 - MARGARITA E. SIAN v. MA. NENA MAGDALUYO

  • A.M. No. P-1142 March 31, 1980 - SMITH BELL & COMPANY v. MARIO P. SAUR

  • A.M. No. 1762-CTJ March 31, 1980 - MANUEL BEDUYA v. PANFILO ALPUERTO

  • A.M. No. P-1808 March 31, 1980 - AURORA FLORES v. ROSARIO TATAD

  • G.R. No. L-27547 March 31, 1980 - SOFIA MAGTIRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28811 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO LUCERO

  • G.R. No. L-31755 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO S. MARTINEZ

  • G.R. No. L-32512 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMIDA RODRIGUEZ DE PASCUAL

  • G.R. No. L-32811 March 31, 1980 - FELIPE C. ROQUE v. NICANOR LAPUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32854 March 31, 1980 - GSIS EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION-CUGCO v. BENEDICTO PRUDON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33187 March 31, 1980 - CORNELIO PAMPLONA, ET AL. v. VIVENCIO MORETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33805-9 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEDTAL M. PAMPALUNA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34230 March 31, 1980 - THE POLICE COMMISSION v. GUARDSON R. LOOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36706 March 31, 1980 - COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HIGHWAYS v. FRANCISCO P. BURGOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38571 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADOR ATIENZA

  • G.R. No. L-42350 March 31, 1980 - FRANCISCO MOTORS CORPORATION v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43618 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO T. ANDAG

  • G.R. No. L-44643 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFO ADVINCULA

  • G.R. No. L-46362 March 31, 1980 - PEDRITA S. MARTE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-46992 March 31, 1980 - FRANCISCO CAÑEJA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47627 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-48585 March 31, 1980 - FELICIANO DE GUZMAN v. TEOFILO GUADIZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51674 March 31, 1980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMILIA DICHOSO