SECOND DIVISION
|
ELVISA
ROSALES, Complainant,
- versus - DOMINADOR M Respondent. |
A.M.
No. P-08-2447 [Formerly
A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2447-P] Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: April
10, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
By a sworn Afffidavit-Complaint
dated
The Executive Judge of the Regional
Trial Court, Tandag, Surigao del
Sur to whom the complaint was referred for investigation, report and recommendation
after respondent had filed his Comment, gave the following account reflecting
the facts that gave rise to the filing of the complaint:
Sometime in the early part of
March, 2005, respondent’s wife, a Tupperware dealer sold to Complainant two (2)
items for P2,358.00 on installment basis.
Because Complainant found difficulty paying the items in cash, respondent’s
wife accepted the former’s two (2) pigs as full payment
thereof.
In the same month, Complainant sold
to respondent’s wife the former’s motorcycle sidecar
for P20,000.00, also on installment basis. The
agreement was verbal. The sidecar used to be attached to the motorcycle of
Complainant’s live-in partner, Mario Clavero. She
happened to own the [s]idecar as part of the amicable
settlement of the Physical Injury Case she lodged before the Office of the
Chief of Police of Tandag, Surigao del
Sur, against her live-in partner (Exhibits “2” and “2-A”).
Respondent’s wife made a downpayment of P4,000.00
(Exhibit “3”) and paid subsequent instal[l]ments in the total amount of only P5,200.00 (Exhibits
“3-A”, “3-B” and “3-C”). Because of respondent’s wife’s failure to pay the
balance of the purchase price of the Sidecar, differences between her and
respondent, on one hand, and Complainant and her live-in partner, on the other
hand, ensued. The latter demanded full payment of the balance of the price in
the amount of P10,200.00. In turn, the former
stopped further payment.[5]
The Executive Judge noted that complainant did not present evidence. Respondent presented, however, complainant’s AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE, subscribed and sworn to before her counsel, Atty. Limuel L. Auza.
The Executive
Judge went on to note as follows:
Apparently,
Atty. Auza was able to arrange an out-of-court
meeting between Complainant and Respondent and the latter’s wife, during which,
Respondent agreed to pay Complainant the amount of P25[,]000.00
as full settlement of the Sidecar account of Respondent and his wife (Exhibit
“1”). By and large, therefore, the allegations of the Complain[an]t,
except those admitted, expressly or impliedly, by Respondent, are not deemed
proved.
However, the following are either expressly or impliedly admitted by the Respondent:
1. There was, indeed, a transaction
by and between Complainant and Respondent’s wife involving the sale by the
former to the latter of a Motorcycle Sidecar for P20[,]000.00,
payable [i]n instal[l]ments. There was no written contract.
2.
Of the P20[,]000.00 consideration of the
sale, only P9[,]200.00 was
paid, leaving a balance of P10[,]800.00.
3. When conflict ensued due to the non-payment of the balance of the purchase price, both Respondent and Complainant’s live-in partner, who reconciled with the former, intervened and thenceforth decided the respective courses of action to take in the conflict.
4.
Respondent stopped payment,
claiming that Complainant’s live-in partner demanded not only the immediate
full payment of the balance of the
purchase price but also P75.00 per day multiplied by the number of days delay in the payment.
The Undersigned believes that it was improper (not necessarily misconduct, which signifies “intentional wrong doing”) for Respondent to intervene in the above transaction and take the cudgel, so to speak, for his wife, creating, in the process, the impression that he was emboldened to act in the manner that he did because of his exalted position in the Municipal Trial Court of Tandag. Indeed, it is not entirely remote that, as alleged by the Complainant in her AFFIDAVIT-COMPLAINT, at one time or another Respondent bragged about his connection with the Court, thus impress[ing] upon the Complainant that he wielded authority and influence that could prejudice the Complainant in her pending Grave Threat Case.
Likewise,
it was improper for Respondent to
stop payment of the balance of the purchase price of the Sidecar, just
because Complain[ant’s] live-in partner charged the penalty
of P75.00 per day of delay in the payment. He could have paid the balance
of the purchase price as a manifestation of fairness in the deal. Indeed, he
was in a position to pay as he did
ultimately pay the penalty charges, but only after he was apparently persuaded
by Complainant’s counsel, as shown in the Affidavit of Desistance of the
Complainant, which he submitted as his own evidence before the undersigned
Investigator (Exhibit “1”).
Respondent’s non-payment of just obligation, which is submitted to be wil[l]ful, is considered a light offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The corresponding penalty for the first offense is reprimand, for the second, suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days, and for the third, dismissal.[6] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The Executive Judge thus recommended
that respondent be reprimanded for willful failure to pay just debt, and
warned against involving himself, directly or indirectly, in transactions, wherein
he could be perceived to have used or taken advantage of his position as court
personnel.[7]
By Resolution of
The Court finds the OCA recommendation
well-taken.
This Court’s jurisdiction to proceed with an
administrative case despite the desistance of the complainant is settled. In Vilar
v. Angeles, [10] the Court stressed:
. . . [T]he
withdrawal of the complaint or the desistance of a complainant does not warrant
the dismissal of an administrative complaint. This Court has an interest in the
conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the judiciary and in
ensuring at all times the proper delivery of justice to the people. No
affidavit of desistance can divest this Court of its jurisdiction under Section
6, Article VII[I] of the Constitution to investigate
and decide complaints against erring employees of the judiciary. The issue
in an administrative case is not whether the complain[ant]
has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the employees have
breached the norms and standards of the courts.[11] (Underscoring supplied)
That respondent settled his obligation
with complainant during the pendency of the present
complaint does not exculpate him from administrative liability.[12] Willful failure to pay just
debt amounts to conduct unbecoming a court employee.[13]
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service,[14]
willful failure to pay just debt 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 offense.[15]
This
appears to be respondent’s first infraction.
WHEREFORE, respondent Dominador
Monesit, Sr., Court Interpreter, Municipal Trial
Court of Tandag, Surigao del
Sur is, for willful failure to pay a just debt, REPRIMANDED. He is further WARNED
to be more circumspect and to avoid acts, official or otherwise, which may
be perceived by the public to be taking advantage of his position as an
employee of the Judiciary.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice Chairperson |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
[1] Rollo, pp. 5-13.
[2] An
Act Establishing Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees, to Uphold the Time-Honored Principle of Public Office being a Public
Trust, Granting Incentives and Rewards for Exemplary Service enumerating
prohibited acts and transactions and providing penalties for violations thereof
and for other purposes.
[3] An
Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their Children, Providing for
Protective Measures for Victims, Prescribing Penalties therefore and for other
purposes.
[4] Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
[5] Rollo, pp. 56-57.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] A.M. No. P-
06- 2276,
[11]
[12] Reliways, Inc. v. Rosales,
A.M. No. P-07-2326,
[13] Hanrieder v. De Rivera,
A.M. No. P-05-2026,
[14] Resolution
No. 991936 of the Civil Service Commission dated
[15] Section 52 (c) (10).