Willful failure to pay just debts by a public official a ground for disciplinary actions?

Upon evaluation of the verified complaint and the comment thereon, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño recommended that the respondent be reprimanded and severely warned to be more circumspect in the conduct of her activities as a court employee, and to observe strict propriety and decorum in dealing with other people.[2]

The Court agrees with and adopts the foregoing recommendation.

As correctly pointed out by Deputy Court Administrator Elepaño, despite the amicable settlement reached by the parties, the respondent should nonetheless be held administratively liable for her actuations.  Significantly, it was only when the verified complaint was filed against her that respondent exerted efforts to make arrangements to pay her obligation to the complainant.  Before the filing of the complaint, the respondent consistently ignored the complainant’s repeated demands.

The respondent is, thus, liable under Section 46, Chapter 7, Title I, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) which covers the respondent as a court personnel.  The said provision reads in part:

Section 46.  Discipline: General Provisions. –   (a) No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due process.

. . .

(b)     The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:

. . .

(22)        Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes to the government . . .

Further, Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the 1987 Administrative Code defines “just debts” as including those “claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.” It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent admitted the existence of her debt to the complainant in this case.

The same rule classifies the willful failure to pay just debts as a light offense and prescribes the penalty of reprimand for the first offense, suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense.  Apparently, this is the respondent’s first offense; hence, the penalty of reprimand is proper.  It must be stressed that the penalty imposed by the law is not directed at the respondent’s private life but at her actuation unbecoming a public official.[3]

It bears stressing at this point that employees of the judiciary should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their personal and private dealing with other people so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community.[4]

WHEREFORE, respondent Salvacion Sermonia, Clerk IV of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 26, is REPRIMANDED for her willful failure to pay just debts, which amounts to conduct unbecoming a court employee.  The commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.


About Erineus

Born on December 28, 1965, Surallah, South Cotabato, Southern Mindanao, Philippines.
This entry was posted in Administrative Law, Judicial and Legal Ethics, Question and Answers and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s