MACRINA M. BISNAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MYRLA P. NICANDRO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 217, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.

Bisnar versus Nicandro

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Macrina M. Bisnar charges Myrla P. Nicandro, a Court Stenographer of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 217, Quezon City, with willful failure to pay just debts. The complainant alleges that the respondent borrowed money from her in 1996, issued postdated checks to guarantee payment, and that those checks all bounced because the account had been closed, and that the respondent refused to pay despite demand. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats the personal debts of judicial personnel — that a court employee's private dealings are not truly private, and that refusal to answer the Court's own orders is a separate offense.

Procedural History

The matter began as a complaint-affidavit dated August 11, 1998. The Office of the Court Administrator required the respondent to comment. In its Agenda Report dated August 7, 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator evaluated the complaint, found that the respondent had chosen to remain silent, and recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be held liable for willful failure to pay just debt, with a penalty of suspension for thirty days without pay.

The Supreme Court, in a Resolution of September 20, 2000, docketed the complaint as a regular administrative matter and required the respondent to comment. When no comment came, the Court required her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. Still receiving no word, the Court imposed a fine of 1,000 pesos, or imprisonment of five days, and again required compliance. The respondent moved for reconsideration, claiming she never received the order and that the case had already been amicably settled. The Court denied the motion and required her to comment. When she still failed, the Court increased the fine to 2,000 pesos, or imprisonment of ten days. She paid the fine but still did not comment. After further resolutions and warnings, the Court, in a Resolution of October 11, 2006, deemed the case submitted for resolution without her comment. The case thus reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter, and the Court resolved it on the records.

Facts

Sometime in 1996, the respondent requested a loan from the complainant in the total amount of 51,300 pesos. To guarantee payment, the respondent issued several postdated checks. When these were presented for payment, all of them bounced because the account had been closed.

Despite requests to pay, the respondent failed and refused to pay. The complainant then filed her complaint-affidavit in August 1998, invoking the prohibition on willful failure to pay just debts under the administrative rules, Presidential Decree Number 807, and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Throughout the proceedings, the respondent never filed the required comment. Her only appearance on the record was a motion for reconsideration in which she asked for indulgence, claimed she had not received the order to comment, and asserted that the case had already been the subject of an amicable settlement between the parties. The Court noted that this claim of settlement was itself tantamount to an admission that she was indebted to the complainant.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts.
• Whether or not the respondent is likewise liable for gross insubordination for refusing to comply with the resolutions of the Court requiring her to comment on the complaint.
• Whether or not the respondent's claim of an amicable settlement exculpates her from liability.

Applicable Provisions

Section 46, Chapter 6 of Book V, Title I, Subtitle A of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

Willful failure to pay just debts shall be a ground for disciplinary action.

This is the substantive ground on which the respondent's liability for the unpaid loan rests.

Section 22, paragraph 1 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order Number 292, as amended by Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 19, series of 1999, provides:

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 transgression, and dismissal for the third offense.

This fixes the penalty, and because the respondent's offense was her first of this nature, the penalty is reprimand.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts. It agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that her deliberate refusal to refute the charge meant the allegations were true and could not be denied. It stressed that a court personnel, being a public servant, must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in official duties but also in personal and private dealings, to preserve the court's good name. Having incurred a just debt, it is the respondent's moral duty and legal responsibility to settle it when it becomes due, and her refusal to give any explanation for her failure to pay manifested a willful refusal to pay a just debt. Because this was her first offense of this nature, the penalty is reprimand.

On the third issue, the Court held that the bare allegation of an amicable settlement did not exculpate her. The loan was obtained in 1996 and there was no concrete showing that it had been paid. Even assuming payment, she had refused to pay for several years, and her liability had already attached.

On the second issue, the Court found her liable also for gross insubordination. It held that a resolution of the Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request, nor complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Her deliberate refusal to comply evinced gross misconduct and insubordination, warranting a fine of 5,000 pesos.

Doctrine

A court employee who incurs a just debt and willfully refuses to pay it when due is administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts, a light offense under the civil service rules, punishable by reprimand for the first infraction, suspension for the second, and dismissal for the third. The obligation is not merely contractual but ethical: public servants must observe honesty and integrity in their personal and private dealings to preserve the judiciary's good name. A resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint is not a mere request; refusal to comply, or partial, inadequate, or selective compliance, constitutes gross insubordination punishable by fine. Finally, a party's silence in the face of a charge, and a bare claim of settlement, may be taken as admission of the debt.

Disposition

The Court adjudged the respondent guilty of willful failure to pay just debt, for which she was reprimanded, and guilty of gross insubordination, for which she was ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 pesos; it further ordered her to pay the complainant 51,300 pesos within thirty days, warned her that repetition would be dealt with more severely, and directed that a copy of the resolution be attached to her personnel file.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a resolution of the Court requiring comment is not a mere request, and willful failure to pay a just debt is a light offense punished by reprimand on the first infraction. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of judicial employees for private debts and the separate offense of gross insubordination for ignoring Court orders.