CELESTE V. ALMONTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. BERNABE C. DAQUE, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, CALAMBA, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

Almonte versus Daque

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Celeste Almonte against Bernabe Daque, a Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba, Misamis Occidental. The complainant charges the respondent with willful failure to pay a just debt. The case matters because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a court employee's unpaid, court-adjudicated obligation — not as a private quarrel, but as conduct unbecoming a public employee and a ground for disciplinary action under the Civil Service rules.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a letter-complaint dated February 18, 2005 before the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator required the respondent to comment, and when he failed to comply, sent a tracer reiterating the directive. The respondent eventually filed a letter-comment dated February 6, 2006. The Office of the Court Administrator then submitted an Agenda Report dated June 14, 2006, finding the complaint meritorious and recommending that the respondent be reprimanded and warned, and that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. The Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution on the pleadings; the complainant complied, the respondent did not, and the Court dispensed with the manifestation. The case was resolved as an administrative matter by the Supreme Court.

Facts

The complainant alleged that the respondent had a loan long overdue and that, despite several demands and promises, the debt remained unpaid. A writ of execution issued on September 6, 2001 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Oroquieta City, established that the respondent was indebted to the complainant in the amount of 169,700 pesos, with 12 percent interest per annum computed from the time the obligation became due and demandable until payment, plus 15,000 pesos and other legal fees.

By the Sheriff's Return of Service dated February 26, 2002, the respondent had paid only 20,000 pesos. In his comment, the respondent did not deny the debt. He explained that he was sending two nursing students to college and was remiss in his obligation; that his children had since graduated; and that he now had the capacity and sincerity to settle, asking that payment be on installment basis. He insisted he had no intention of avoiding the obligation.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for willful failure to pay a just debt.
• Whether or not the penalty of reprimand is proper for a first offense of willful failure to pay just debts.
• Whether or not the Court may order the respondent to pay the balance of his indebtedness in the administrative proceeding.

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 provision that makes the respondent's unpaid obligation a disciplinary matter rather than a purely civil one.

Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order Number 292 defines just debts:

Just debts refers to claims adjudicated by a court of law; or claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.

Both limbs of this definition are present here, since the claim was adjudicated by a court and its justness was admitted by the respondent.

Section 22, paragraph 1, Rule XIV of the same Omnibus Rules, 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 and dismissal for the third.

This fixes the penalty, given that this is the respondent's first offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent administratively liable. The complainant's claim had already been adjudicated by a court of law, and its existence and justness were admitted by the debtor. That made the respondent liable for willful failure to pay a just debt, an act unbecoming of a public employee and a ground for disciplinary action. His excuse — sending his children to college — did not condone the obligation.

On the second issue, the Court applied the classification of the offense. Willful failure to pay just debts is a light offense, punishable by reprimand for the first infraction. Since this was the respondent's first case of willful failure to pay just debts, a penalty of reprimand was in order.

On the third issue, the Court held that within an administrative case it is duty bound to correct improper conduct among court employees by ordering them to do what is proper. It therefore directed the respondent to pay the balance of his indebtedness under the writ of execution within a reasonable time. The Court warned that a violation of that order would be a basis for another administrative charge for willful failure to pay just debts, to be considered a second offense punishable by suspension of one to thirty days, among other serious charges arising from a willful violation of a lawful order of the Court.

Doctrine

Willful failure to pay just debts is a ground for disciplinary action against a public employee. A debt is a just debt when it is a claim adjudicated by a court of law, or a claim whose existence and justness are admitted by the debtor. Willful failure to pay just debts is a light offense, punishable by reprimand for the first infraction, suspension of one to thirty days for the second, and dismissal for the third. In an administrative case, the Court may order the erring employee to pay the balance of the indebtedness, and violation of that order may be treated as a second offense.

Disposition

The Court reprimanded the respondent for willful failure to pay a just debt amounting to conduct unbecoming a court employee, ordered him to pay the balance of his indebtedness within three months from finality of the resolution, and warned him that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the two-limb definition of a just debt: a claim adjudicated by a court, or one whose existence and justness the debtor admits. Examiners use this case to test the classification of willful failure to pay just debts as a light offense and the graduated penalties of reprimand, suspension, and dismissal.