Republic of
the
THIRD DIVISION
Complainant, (Formerly OCA IPI No.
98-505-P)
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO,
and
NACHURA,* JJ.
MYRLA
P. NICANDRO,
Court
Stenographer, Regional
Trial
Court, Branch 217,
Respondent. February 14, 2007
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Before us
is a Complaint-Affidavit[1]
dated
Complainant
alleges that: sometime in 1996,
respondent requested for a loan from the complainant in the total amount of
Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred Pesos (P51,300.00); to guarantee
payment of said amount, respondent issued several postdated checks which, when
presented for payment, all bounced due to account closed; despite request to
pay, respondent failed and refused to pay; respondent's continued refusal to
pay her debt prejudiced complainant and the same is grossly prejudicial to the best interest of
the service as contained in No. 19 of Memorandum Circular No. 30, s. 1989 as
well as Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807 and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713
(Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
In its First
Indorsement dated
In the Agenda Report[3] dated August 7, 2000, the OCA submitted its evaluation and recommendation, to wit:
EVALUATION: Complainant had sufficiently established
that respondent is indebted to her, but up to the time of the filing of the
instant complaint it has not been paid.
On the other hand, respondent chose to remain silent on the charge even
after she was furnished with a copy of the complaint and was directed to file
comment thereon. Respondent's deliberate
refusal to refute the charge only means that the allegations are true and she cannot deny
them.
A court personnel, being a public servant, must
exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity, not only in the performance
of her official duties but also in her personal and private dealings with other
people, to preserve the court's good name and standing. Failing in this respect, respondent should be
held liable.
Under the Revised Schedule of Penalties for
Administrative Offenses, willful failure to pay just debt is punishable by a
reprimand, for first offense; suspension for 1-30 days, for second offense; and
dismissal for third.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the
consideration of the Honorable Court are the following recommendations:
1. That the instant complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular
administrative matter; and
2. That respondent MYRLA P. NICANDRO, Court Stenographer,
RTC, Branch 217, Quezon City, be held LIABLE for
Willful Failure to Pay Just Debt and she be meted a penalty of suspension for
thirty (30) days without pay to be served immediately upon notice.
In its
Resolution of
The period
within which to comply lapsed without respondent submitting her comment. The Court, in its Resolution[5]
of P1,000.00, or a penalty of
imprisonment of five days, and required respondent to comply with the
Resolution of
In her Motion for Reconsideration[7] dated January 23, 2002, respondent begs the indulgence of the Court to reconsider its Resolution and afford her the right to be heard considering that she did not receive the order for her to comment on the complaint filed against her, not to mention the fact that the instant case has already been the subject of an amicable settlement between the parties.
The Court,
in its Resolution[8] of
Notwithstanding
the Resolutions of the Court, respondent failed and still fails to submit her
comment. Thus, the Court, in a
Resolution of P2,000.00, or a penalty of imprisonment
of 10 days, and required respondent to submit her comment.
On P2,000.00
fine[9]
without complying with the Resolution of
The Court,
in its Resolution[10]
of
For deliberate failure to comply, the Court, in its Resolution of October 11, 2006, deemed the case submitted for resolution without respondent's comment.
The Court agrees with the OCA that respondent should be held administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts.
Section 46,
Chapter 6 of Book V, Title I, Subtitle A (Civil Service Commission) of the
Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292) provides that willful
failure to pay just debts shall be a ground for disciplinary action.
As rightly evaluated by the OCA, respondent chose to remain silent on the charge; and her deliberate refusal to refute the charge only means that the allegations are true and she cannot deny them. And as borne by the records, respondent's averment that the present administrative case had already been the subject of an amicable settlement between the parties[11] is tantamount to an admission that she is indebted to the complainant.
Respondent’s bare allegation that the case had been the subject of an amicable settlement between the parties will not exculpate her from liability. The loan was obtained in 1996 and until now, there is no concrete showing that it has been paid. And even if assuming the loan had been paid, it is a fact that she refused to pay the same for several years; and her liability for willful failure to pay just debts had already attached.
In Bago v. Feraren,[12]
the Court held that having incurred a just debt, it is respondent's moral duty
and legal responsibility to settle it when it becomes due. She must comply with just contractual
obligations, act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the
court's integrity since she is an employee thereof.[13] Her refusal to give any explanation for her
failure to pay complainant manifests her willful refusal to pay a just debt.[14]
Section
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, provides that 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.
Respondent
cannot escape the fact that she did not meet the exacting standards required of
a government employee, which warrants administrative sanction from this
Court. It appearing that this is the
first time that respondent has committed an offense of this nature, the penalty
imposable upon her is reprimand.
However, we
find respondent liable also for gross insubordination for not complying with the Court Resolutions
requiring her to comment on the Complaint-Affidavit.
It should
be borne in mind 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 from the Court, nor should it be
complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively.[15] Moreover, the Court should not and will not
tolerate future indifference of respondent to administrative complaint and
resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaint.[16] Respondent's deliberate refusal to comply
with the Resolutions of this Court evinces gross misconduct and
insubordination.[17]
In fine, respondent should also be held liable for gross
insubordination for refusing to file her comment despite our repeated
orders for her to do so. Refusal to
comply with the orders of this Court constitutes gross insubordination that
warrants disciplinary sanction for which she should be fined P5,000.00.[18]
This Court reiterates its policy not to tolerate or condone
any conduct, act, or omission that falls short of the
exacting norms of public office, especially on the part of those expected to
preserve the image of the judiciary.[19] Thus, it will not shirk from its responsibility of
imposing
ACCORDINGLY,
respondent Myrla P. Nicandro,
Court Stenographer, RTC, Branch 217, P5,000.00.
Respondent
is likewise ordered to PAY complainant Macrina
M. Bisnar the amount of P51,300.00 within 30
days from receipt of this Resolution.
Moreover,
respondent is sternly 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.
Let a copy
of this Resolution be attached to the 201 file of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
(On Leave)
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
* On Leave.
[1] Rollo, p.
1.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12] 457 Phil. 363 (2003).
[13]
[14]
[15] Florendo
v. Cadano, A.M. No. P-05-1983,
[16]
[17] Florendo
v. Cadano, supra note 15.
[18] Marata v. Fernandez, A.M.
No. P-04-1871,
[19] Maderada v. Mediodea, 459 Phil. 701, 719 (2003).