Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > November 2007 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-05-1944 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1763-P) : November 28, 2007] FILIDIAN RURAL BANK OF ANTIPOLO, INC. BY HIRO BUDHRANI V. ESTRELITA M. VALMORIDA, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 67, MARIVIN* O. DUPAYA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 153; REGINA N. MELCHOR, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 152; CHRISTINE SJ. BLANCA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 69; VIRGILIO I. DE GUZMAN, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 71; MAY MARION Q. GASCON, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER I, OCC; ROSALIE VERGEL DE DIOS SAN JUAN, CLERK IV, OCC; CARMELITA P. QUINA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER I, OCC; LOURDES A. SABDANI, INTERPRETER III, BRANCH 69; VIRGINIA B. NASAYAO, UTILITY WORKER, OCC; CARMEN S. CARIÑO, RECORDS OFFICER II, OCC; GRACE M. MALE, LEGAL RESEARCHER II, BRANCH 70; ANGELICA A. VERGARA, INTERPRETER III, BRANCH 262; CESAR B. RAMIREZ, UTILITY WORKER I, OCC, AND; LUZ T. CORTES, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 68, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 28 November 2007:

A.M. No. P-05-1944 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1763-P) - FILIDIAN RURAL BANK OF ANTIPOLO, INC. by HIRO BUDHRANI v. ESTRELITA M. VALMORIDA, Process Server, Branch 67, MARIVIN* O. DUPAYA, Court Stenographer III, Branch 153; REGINA N. MELCHOR, Court Stenographer III, Branch 152; CHRISTINE SJ. BLANCA, Court Stenographer III, Branch 69; VIRGILIO I. DE GUZMAN, Process Server, Branch 71; MAY MARION Q. GASCON, Administrative Officer I, OCC; ROSALIE VERGEL DE DIOS SAN JUAN, Clerk IV, OCC; CARMELITA P. QUINA, Administrative Officer I, OCC; LOURDES A. SABDANI, Interpreter III, Branch 69; VIRGINIA B. NASAYAO, Utility Worker, OCC; CARMEN S. CARI�O, Records Officer II, OCC; GRACE M. MALE, Legal Researcher II, Branch 70; ANGELICA A. VERGARA, Interpreter III, Branch 262; CESAR B. RAMIREZ, Utility Worker I, OCC, and; LUZ T. CORTES, Court Stenographer III, Branch 68, all of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.

RESOLUTION

In a letter-complaint dated July 31, 2003, Filidian Rural Bank of Antipolo, Inc. represented by Hiro Budhrani (complainant) charged several employees of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, namely: Estrelita M. Valmorida, Process Server, Branch 67; Marivin O. Dupaya, Court Stenographer III, Branch 153; Regma N. Melchor, Court Stenographer III, Branch 152; Christine SJ. Blanca, Court Stenographer III, Branch 69; Virgilio I. De Guzman, Process Server, Branch 71; May Marion Q. Gascon, Administrative Officer I, OCC; Rosalie Vergel De Dios San Juan, Clerk IV, OCC; Carmelita P. Quina, Administrative Officer I, OCC; Lourdes A. Sabdani, Interpreter III, Branch 69; Virginia B. Nasayao, Utility Worker, OCC; Carmen S. Carino, Records Officer II, OCC; Grace M. Male, Legal Researcher II, Branch 70; Angelica A. Vergara, Interpreter III, Branch 262; Cesar B. Ramirez, Utility Worker I, OCC, and; Luz T. Cortes, Court Stenographer III, Branch 68 (respondents), with willful failure to pay just debts.^[1]

Attached thereto are copies of the writs of execution issued by Judge Amorfina Cerrado-Cezar of Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Antipolo City.^[2]

In SCA No. 4434 filed by complainant against �Estrelita M. Valmonda, et al.� the court ordered defendants to pay P6,500.00, jointly and severally plus interest of 5% from September 25, 2001, the date of default, until the obligation is fully paid.^[3] In SCA No. 4443 against �Carmelita P. Quina, et al.� the court ordered defendants to pay P14,500.00jointly and severally plus 39% per annum from September 25, 2001 until full payment, plus penalty charges of 5% per month on the total amount due until fully paid.^[4] In these cases, the defendants were also ordered to pay P10,000.00 as attorney's fees, and cost of suit.^[5]

In Civil Cases No. 4435 against �Marivin Dupaya, et al.�^[6] No. 4440 against �Regina P. Melchor, et al.�^[7] No. 4441 against "Virgilio I. De Guzman, et al."^[8] and No. 4437 against "Virginia B. Nasayao, et al.�^[9] the court ordered respondents to each pay the amount of P10,000.00 as principal. In Civil Case No. 4436 against �May Marion Q. Gascon, et al." the principal amount involved is P14,000.00.^[10] In these cases, the defendants were also ordered to pay the add-on interest of 39% per annum from September 2001 until full payment, penalty charge of 5% per month from date of default until full payment, attorney's fees equivalent to 20% of the total obligation, and cost of suit.^[12]

In Civil Case No. 4439 against �Christine SJ. Blanca, et al.� the court cited the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement where the defendants agreed to pay complainant the amount of P59,573.62 in 12 months, including 39% interest per annum.12 While in Civil Case No. 4438 against �Rosalie Vergel De Dios San Juan, et al� the court cited the judgment based on the Compromise Agreement where the defendants agreed to pay the amount of P25,372.35 in 12 months, including 39% interest per annum.^[13]

The Honorable Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., as then Court Administrator, required the respondents through 1st Indorsements all dated September 18, 2003, to submit their comments on the complaint within 10 days from receipt thereof.^[14]

Respondents Valmorida, Dupaya, Melchor, Ramirez, Blanca, De Guzman, Gascon, San Juan, Quina, Sabdani, Nasayao, Carino and Male, in their separate comments, admitted the existence of their respective obligations. They deny however that there was willful failure on their part to pay their debts as they have in fact already made partial payments. They also claim that their failure to fully pay their obligations is due to financial difficulties and circumstances beyond their control. They aver that they will not turn back on their obligations and pray for compassion and understanding with a promise that they will fully clear their obligations as soon as their circumstances permit.^[15] Gascon and Quina in their comments also pray that the Court Administrator would intervene so that the 39% per annum interest would be reduced.^[16]

Respondents Cortes and San Juan in their comments averred that complainant no longer has anything to claim against them as they have already paid their principal obligation.^[17]

Respondent Vergara failed to submit her comment within the period given, despite receipt of the l^st Indorsement dated September 18, 2003.^[18] The Court Administrator thus sent a 1^st Tracer letter to her dated March 12, 2004, requiring her for the second time, to file said comment.^[19] Despite receipt of said letter, Vergara still did not comply.

In the Report dated October 18, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) made the following evaluation:

While it may be just for an individual to incur indebtedness unrestrained by the fact that he is a public officer or employee, caution should be taken to prevent the dubious circumstances that might inevitably impair the image of the public office.

A �just debt� applies to claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor, a fact so clearly established in the instant case by the admission of respondents themselves.

It may be true that respondents experience financial difficulty in paying said obligations; however, said difficulty does not excuse them from paying their debts. Having incurred debts, respondents have the moral and legal duty to pay them when they become due.

As regards the contention of respondent Cortez that she had already paid in full her obligation, we find the same to be without merit. Her allegation that she had indeed paid her entire obligation should have been

raised during the pendency of the case in court for its collection and not in the instant complaint.

Time and again, respondents must be reminded that court personnel must comply with just contractual obligations to presence the decency within the judiciary. Clearly, respondents� willful failure to pay their just debt m unbecoming of a public employee and a ground for disciplinary action.^[20]

The OCA then recommended:

1. That the instant complaint against the above-mentioned respondents be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
   


2. That respondent Carmelita P. Quifia be SUSPENDED for a period of thirty (30) days without pay pursuant to Section 52-C (10) of the CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 dated 31 August 1999, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely;
   


3. That respondent Angelica A. Vergara be DIRECTED to submit her comment on the instant complaint;
   
   
4. That all other respondents be REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
   
   
5. That said respondents be ADVISED to be more provident in handling their financial obligations.^[21]
   

The OCA also stated that verification from the OCA-Office of Administrative Services revealed that:

1. Respondent Carmelita P. Quina has been previously suspended for fifteen (15) days in A.M. No. P-87-113 for �willful failure to pay just debts.�
   
   
2. Respondent Christine SJ. Blanca filed her application for retirement effective 31 August 2002; however, to date, the same has not yet been approved.^[22]
   

In the Resolution dated January 17, 2005, the Court no longer required respondent Vergara to submit her comment in view of her repeated non-compliance with the directives of the OCA despite her receipt thereof and instead required all the parties to manifest if they are willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.^[23]

Complainant as well as respondents Male, Gascon, Sabdani, Melchor, De Guzman, Dupaya, San Juan, Cortes, Quma, Carino and Blanca, submitted their manifestation stating their willingness to have the case thus submitted.^[24] For the failure of respondents Vergara and Nasayao to submit their manifestation within the period given, however, the Court in the Resolution dated June 25, 2007, deemed said respondents to have submitted the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.^[25]

Valmorida filed a Supplemental Pleading/Comment stating that she has already made substantial if not over payments. She thus prays that she be removed from the list of parties in the present case.^[26] In a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, complainant stated that it is desisting from the prosecution of the action insofar as Valmorida is concerned.^[27] It also submitted Budhrani's Affidavit of Desistance dated August 16, 2005, stating that Valmorida had paid her obligations pursuant to the Writ of Execution issued by the MTCC, Branch 2, Antipolo City.^[28] In the Resolution dated October 12, 2005, the Court granted complainant's prayer that the case be dismissed against Valmorida.^[29]

In an Additional Manifestation dated February 25, 2005, Male prays that her name be dropped from the list of respondents considering that she has already paid more than P11,000.00 when her original loan was only P10,000.00.^[30] In a Manifestation dated May 12, 2005, Male again requested that the instant case against her be dismissed in view of the Order of the MTCC of Antipolo City dated April 11, 2005 which approved the compromise agreement entered into by her and complainant.^[31] Sabdani in her Manifestation dated February 24, 2005 also prays that her name be dropped from the list of respondents considering that her payments have already reached P37,993.84 when her original loan was only p16,000.00.^[32]

The Court also noted that in a Resolution dated October 18, 2004 in A.M. No. 04-9-556-RTC (Re: Absence Without Official Leave (AWOL) of Ms. Christine SJ. Blanca, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 69), the Court had resolved to drop Blanca from the rolls for having been on AWOL since August 1, 2002 and declared her position as Court Stenographer III, vacant.^[33]

In the letters dated August 3, 2007 and August 29, 2007, San Juan, Gascon, Cortes, Quina, Dupaya, Male, Melchor, Ramirez, Sabdam and De Guzman moved for the early resolution of the case.^[34]

The Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be well taken.

Respondents are all clearly liable for willful failure to pay just debts. �Just debts� as defined in Sec. 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 pertains to: (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or (2) claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.^[35]

In this case, the claims of complainant had already been adjudicated by courts of law and their existence admitted by respondents. Under Sec. 22(1), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292 as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, willful failure to pay just debts is classified as a light offense, punishable by reprimand for the first infraction, suspension for 1 to 30 days for the second offense and dismissal for the third^[36]

Having incurred just debts, respondents have the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle the same when they fall due. They must comply with just contractual obligations, act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the court�s integrity since they are employees thereof.^[37]

While the Court is sympathetic to the respondents� conditions, they have the moral duty to pay their obligations despite their financial difficulties.^[38] And while there may be a question as to the propriety of the interests of their obligations, said matter cannot be resolved in this case but should be addressed in the proper judicial forum.^[39]

The Court is duty bound to correct whatever it perceives as an improper conduct among court employees by ordering them to do what is proper in the premises.^[40] Respondents should be ordered to pay the balance of their indebtedness to complainant within three months from receipt of this

Resolution.^[41] Further, respondents should be cautioned that a violation of this order will be a basis for another administrative charge for �willful failure to pay just debts� which shall then be considered as a second offense punishable by suspension of 1 to 30 days among other serious charges arising from a willful violation of a lawful order of this Court.^[42]

Respondents are reminded that the image of the courts as a true temple of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. Court employees should therefore be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of their official duties but also in their personal and private dealings with others so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community.^[43]

Male�s prayer that the case against her be dismissed on the ground that the MTCC of Antipolo City approved the Compromise Agreement she entered into with complainant cannot be granted because until now, there is no showing that she has fully paid her debt. In any event, her administrative liability for willful failure to pay just debt has already attached for her failure to fully clear her obligation up to this time.^[44]

Anent the dismissal of Blanca from the rolls, it is well to clarify that the Court retains the authority to resolve the instant administrative case against her since the complaint was filed on July 31, 2003 which was before she was dropped from the rolls per the Court's Resolution dated October 18, 2004.^[45]

Since this is the first offense of this nature committed by Dupaya, De Guzman, Gascon, Melchor, Blanca, San Juan,^[46] Sabdani, Nasayao, Cari�o,^[47] Male, Vergara, Ramirez and Cortes, the penalty imposable on them is reprimand.^[48]

As to Quina however, the recommended penalty of suspension for 30 days is proper since this is her second offense for willful failure to pay just debts. In a Resolution dated August 22, 1990 in A.M. No. P-87-113 (Rural Bank of Balagtas, Bulacan v. Carmelita Quina), she was already suspended for 15 days for the same offense.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Marivin O. Dupaya, Court Stenographer III, Branch 153; Regina N. Melchor, Court Stenographer III, Branch 152; Christine SJ. Blanca, Court Stenographer III, Branch 69; Virgilio I. De Guzman, Process Server, Branch 71; May Marion Q. Gascon, Administrative Officer I, OCC; Rosalie Vergel De Dios San Juan, Clerk IV, OCC; Lourdes A. Sabdani, Interpreter III, Branch 69; Virginia B. Nasayao, Utility Worker, OCC; Carmen S. Carino, Records Officer II, OCC; Grace M. Male, Legal Researcher II, Branch 70; Angelica A. Vergara, Interpreter III, Branch 262; Cesar B. Ramirez, Utility Worker I, OCC, and Luz T. Cortes, Court Stenographer III, Branch 68, all of the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City guilty of willful failure to pay just debt for which they are REPRIMANDED.

The Court finds Carmelita P. Quina, Administrative Officer I. OCC, guilty for the second time of willful failure to pay just debt for which she is SUSPENDED for thirty (30) days.

All respondents are WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future, including a violation of this Resolution, shall be dealt with more severely.

All the above named respondents are ordered to pay complainant the balance of their indebtedness within a period of three (3) months from finality of herein Resolution. Failure to comply herewith is basis for another administrative charge warranting stiffer penalty.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondents' 201 files.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^* Spelled as �Marivyn� in other parts of the records.

^[1] Rollo,p. 1.

^[2] Id. at 3-20.

^[3] See rollo, p.3, citing MTCC Decision dated May 6, 2002.

^[4] Id. at 6, citing MTCC Decision dated May 22, 2002.

^[5] Id. at 3,6.

^[6] Id. at 4, MTCC Decision dated September 9, 2002.

^[7] Id. at 16.

^[8] Id. at 10.

^[9] Id. at 12, MTCC Decision dated June 21, 2002.

^[10] Id. at 8, MTCC Decision dated August 26, 2002.

^[11] Id. at 4, 8, 10, 12, 16.

^[12] Id. at 13-14, MTCC Decision dated May 6, 2002.

^[13] Id. at 18-19.

^[14] Id. at 21-35.

^[15] Rollo, pp. 36, 44- 45, 53, 57, 59, 61-62, 64-67, 69-70, 80-83, 85.

^[16] Id. at 62, 67.

^[17] Id. at 64-65, 91-92.

^[18] Id. at 35.

^[19] Id. at 104.

^[20] Rollo,p. 106.

^[21] Id. at 106-107.

^[22] Id. at 106.

^[23] Id. at 108.

^[24] Rollo, pp. 110, 122, 131, 134, 137, 139, 186.

^[25] Id. at 176.

^[26] Id. at 143-144.

^[27] Id. at 160.

^[28] Id. at 162.

^[29] Id. at 173.

^[30] Id. at 128.

^[31] Id. at 151-152.

^[32] Id. at 134.

^[33] Id. at 180.

^[34] Rollo, pp. 187, 192.

^[35] Almonte v. Daque, A.M. No. P-06-2195, June 15, 2007; In Re: Complaint for Failure to Pay Just Debts Against Esther T, Andres, A.M. No. 2004-40-SC, March 1, 2005, 452 SCRA 654, 661; Marata v. Fernandez, A.M. No. P-04-1871, August 9, 2005, 466 SCRA 45, 47; Orasa v. Seva, A.M. No. P-03-1669, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 75, 83.

^[36] Almonte v. Daque, supra note 35; Bisnar v. Nicandro, A.M. No. P-00-1427, February 14, 2007, 515 SCRA 608, 613; Marata v. Fernandez, supra note 35, at 48.

^[37] Bisnar v. Nicandro, supra note 36; Marata v. Fernandez, supra note 35, at 48; Orasa v. Seva, supra note 35, at 84.

^[38] Manaysay v. Samaniego, A.M. No. P-06-2133, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 258, 260.

^[39] Id.

^[40] Almonte v. Daque, supra note 35; Marata v. Fernandez, supra note 35, at 49.

^[41] See Almonte v. Daque, supra note 35.

^[42] Almonte v. Daque, supra note 35; Marata v. Fernandez, supra note 35, at 49.

^[43] LBC Bank Vigan Branch v. Guzman, A.M. No. P-06-2270, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 23, 33-34; see also Orasa v. Seva, supra note 35.

^[44] See Bisnar v. Nicandro, supra note 36.

^[45] See Commission on Audit v. Pamposa, A.M. No. P-07-2291, June 25, 2007.

^[46] In A.M. No. RTJ-05-1907 entitled ,�Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor v. Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio, Rosalie G. San Juan and Arnel Leynes� dated December 6, 2006, San Juan was found guilty of simple misconduct and suspended for one month and one day without pay.

^[47] In A.M. No. P-00-1374 entitled �Esperanza F. Gellez v. Carmen S. Cari�o� dated March 13, 2000, Cari�o was admonished to be more careful in the performance of her duties; while in OCA IPI No. 03-1535, entitled �Elvira P. Losbanes v. Carmen S. Cari�o.�dated February 18, 2004 she was strongly reprimanded for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

^[48] Bisnar v. Nicandro, supra note 36, at 615.