FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-00-1421. April 11, 2002]
CHRISTINE G. UY, complainant, vs. BONIFACIO MAGALLANES, JR, PROCESS SERVER, RTC, BRANCH 30, BAYOMBONG, NUEVA VIZCAYA, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
This is an administrative
complaint filed against respondent Bonifacio Magallanes, Jr., a process server
of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, Branch 30, for willful
failure to pay debts.
The letter-complaint[1] dated June 16, 1998 states that on several occasions
in 1997, respondent bought construction supplies amounting to P86,725.00 from
complainant Cristine Uy. It alleged
that respondent represented that he could pay his debt because he is an
employee of the court. Notwithstanding
repeated demands, however, respondent refused to pay and bragged that he is an
employee of the court.
In his comment,[2] respondent admits his debt but claims that he had
already made partial payments in the amount of P12,000.00, the last of
which was given on December 8, 1998 for which he was issued a receipt by
complainant's secretary; that he was not given a receipt for the payment he
made on October 12, 1998 although it was noted in complainant's personal
notebook; and that he has a verbal agreement with complainant that he will pay
monthly until his obligation is fully paid.
In reply, complainant
averred that the allegations of respondent are false, the truth being that
respondent continuously failed to pay despite repeated demands.
In a Memorandum dated
July 11, 2000, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo found respondent's
willful failure to pay just debts unbecoming of a public official and hence a
ground for disciplinary action. He
recommends that respondent be suspended from the service for three months and
be ordered to pay his obligations with a warning that a repetition of the same
or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
We agree with the Court
Administrator that respondent should be held administratively liable for
failure to pay his debts. His
allegation that he has made partial payments is not supported by evidence. It is unnatural for respondent not to ask
for receipts to evidence his partial payments.
Hence, the Court gives more credence to the claim of complainant that
respondent refused to pay despite repeated demands.
It goes without saying
that respondent is administratively liable.
In Martinez vs. Muņoz,[3] the Court held the Branch Clerk of Court
administratively liable for his unjust refusal to pay his indebtedness,
pursuant to the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292),
specifically the provisions on the Civil Service Commission which covers the
respondent as a court personnel. It
applied Section 46, Chapter 7, Subtitle A (Civil Service Commission), Title I,
Book V thereof which provides as follows:
"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:
x x x x x x
(22) Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes to the government; x x x"
"Just debts" as
defined under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules refer to those claims
the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor. In the case at bar, in light of respondent's
admission of his indebtedness and his unjust refusal to pay it, his
administrative liability under the Revised Administrative Code is settled.[4] The penalty
imposed by the law is not directed at his private life but at his actuations
unbecoming a public official.
The same rule classifies
willful failure to pay just debts as a light offense and prescribes the penalty
of reprimand for the first offense, suspension for one to thirty days for the
second offense, and dismissal for the third offense. Apparently, this is respondent's first offense which would merit
only a reprimand and not suspension of three months as recommended by the Court
Administrator. It is not denied,
however, that respondent not only unjustly refused to pay but worse, bragged
about his being a court employee to evade his obligation. Hence, he deserves a severe reprimand. Following the ruling in Martinez,
however, we cannot order respondent to pay his indebtedness to complainant as
recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator because this Court is not
a collection agency.
WHEREFORE, respondent BONIFACIO MAGALLANES, JR.,
process server, Branch 30, of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva
Vizcaya, is SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for his willful failure to pay his 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.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Kapunan, and Ynares-Santiago, JJ.,
concur.