THIRD DIVISION
|
TEOPICIO
TAN, Complainant, - versus
- SALVACION D. SERMONIA, CLERK IV,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES,
Respondent. |
|
A.M. No.
P-08-2436 (Formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 06-2394-P) Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, PERALTA, and BERSAMIN,*
JJ. Promulgated: August 4, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J:
Before this Court is an
administrative complaint filed by Teopicio Tan (Tan) against Salvacion D.
Sermonia (Sermonia), Clerk IV of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Iloilo City, for willful
failure to pay just debts and conduct unbecoming a court employee.
According to the Complaint[1]
dated P15,145.50, promising to pay
for the same within 30 days. However,
after the lapse of the said period, Sermonia failed to pay her debt. Everytime Tan demanded payment from Sermonia,
the latter got angry and uttered bad words against the former. Tan made his final demand on P15,145.50, plus 12% interest per annum, from the date of
demand until full payment, and 25% of the amount payable as attorney’s fees, as
well as to pay the costs of the suit.
On
In response, Sermonia sent the OCA a letter[4]
dated
Acting
on said Agenda Report, the Court issued a Resolution[6]
dated 9 July 2007 directing Sermonia to file her comment within a
non-extendible period of 10 days from notice, and to show cause why she should
not be administratively dealt with for her failure to file the same comment
despite the extended period previously granted her.
Sermonia
filed her Comment[7] only on
On
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Court that respondent Salvacion Sermonia, Clerk IV, MTCC, Iloilo City be SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year for willful failure to pay just debts and for failure to comply with the directive of the Office of the Court Administrator and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
On
The Court agrees in the findings of
the OCA, except in the recommended penalty.
A review of the
records would reveal that Sermonia was indeed guilty of willful failure to pay a
just debt.
“Just debts” refer to (1) claims
adjudicated by a court of law; or (2) claims the existence and justness of
which are admitted by the debtor.[11]
In the case at bar, there is no
question that Sermonia admitted her debt to Tan when the former stated in her
Comment that:
3. [Sermonia], while refusing to pay the debt subject of Civil Case No. 20730, did not do so willfully. Rather, she was only constrained and found difficulty to do so as she was in disagreement with the accuracy and justness of the amount that was being demanded of her by [Tan]. In fact, she had actually made partial payments thereon but has misplaced the small pieces of paper that was issued to her to prove the same. She was just biding for time during which she could have found these small pieces of paper and, thereby, reduce her liability.
4. When [Tan] filed Civil Case No. 20730, [Sermonia] did not file a responsive pleading anymore knowing that without those misplaced small pieces of paper she, nevertheless, would not succeed in reducing her liability anyway. In this regard, in one occasion she just approached the counsel of [Tan] and told him, that she is just submitting herself to the usual course of the proceedings without interposing any defense, in effect, acknowledging the existence of her subject indebtedness. In doing so, she was of the honest belief that she will even make matters much easier for [Tan], who would as a consequence quickly obtain a favorable judgment from the court, which he could cause to be executed for satisfaction anytime.[12] (Emphasis supplied.)
As can be gleaned above, Sermonia does
not deny she has an unpaid debt to Tan. Sermonia,
though, alleges that she refused to pay the amount demanded by Tan, because she
disagreed with the accuracy and justness thereof, given that she had already
made previous partial payments of her debt.
This is a matter, however, which this Court can no longer take
cognizance of in the resolution of the present administrative case.
It must be remembered that Tan
already instituted Civil Case No. 20730, an action for collection of sum of
money, against Sermonia, before the MTCC.
It was in Civil Case No. 20730 where Sermonia could have appropriately
assailed the amount being demanded by Tan and raised the defense of previous
payments made. Yet, Sermonia chose not to
file an answer to Tan’s Complaint in Civil Case No. 20730, because she
purportedly lost the receipts which could prove the previous payments she had
made on her debt. Sermonia deemed it
best to just let Civil Case No. 20730 proceed without opposition from her
part. The MTCC rendered its Decision on P15,145.50,
plus 12% interest per annum, 25% attorney’s fees, and costs of the suit. Even with this final and executory[13]
judgment of the MTCC in Civil Case No. 20730, Sermonia has still failed to
finally settle her obligation to Tan.
In consideration of the foregoing,
Tan’s claim against Sermonia is a just debt, not only because its existence and
justness are admitted by the latter, but also because it was already
adjudicated by the MTCC. It is a just
debt that remains unpaid by Sermonia.
Sermonia’s averment of financial
difficulties is not a sufficient excuse for failing to pay her debt to Tan. Nonpayment is not Sermonia’s only option. Instead of meeting Tan’s demands for payment
with anger and foul utterances, Sermonia could have just humbly requested a
readjustment of the terms of her debt to something more manageable for her to
comply with, given her financial circumstances.
Having incurred a just debt, Sermonia
had the moral duty and legal responsibility to settle it when it became
due. In the words of this Court in In
Re: Complaint for Failure to Pay Just Debts Against Esther T. Andres[14]:
The Court cannot overstress the need for circumspect and proper behavior on the part of court employees. “While it may be just for an individual to incur indebtedness unrestrained by the fact that he is a public officer or employee, caution should be taken to prevent the occurrence of dubious circumstances that might inevitably impair the image of the public office.” Employees of the court should always keep in mind that the court is regarded by the public with respect. Consequently, the conduct of each court personnel should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of onus and must at all times be characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety and decorum. x x x.
Indeed, when Sermonia backtracked on
her promise to pay her debt, such act already constituted a ground for
administrative sanction,[15]
for any act that would be a bane to the public trust and confidence reposed in
the judiciary shall not be countenanced.[16] Sermonia’s unethical conduct has diminished
the honor and integrity of her office, stained the image of the judiciary and
caused unnecessary interference, directly or indirectly, in the efficient and
effective performance of her functions. Certainly, to preserve decency within
the judiciary, court personnel must comply with just contractual obligations,
act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards. Like all other court personnel, Sermonia is
expected to be a paragon of uprightness, fairness and honesty not only in all
her official conduct but also in her personal actuations, including business
and commercial transactions, so as to avoid becoming her court’s albatross of
infamy.[17]
The gravamen of Sermonia’s offense is
her unwillingness to pay a just obligation. The penalty imposed by the law is not directed
at Sermonia’s private life, but at her actuation unbecoming a public official.[18]
Section 22(1), Rule XIV of the
Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292, as amended by CSC
Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, provides that willful failure to
pay just debts is classified as a light offense, punishable by reprimand for
the first infraction, suspension for one to 30 days for the second
transgression, and dismissal for the third offense.
Sermonia has been previously charged
twice for nonpayment of debts in Madia-as Lending Corporation v. Salvacion
Sermonia[19]
and GRIO Lending Services v. Salvacion Sermonia,[20]
and was reprimanded by the Court in both instances. Thus, this is Sermonia’s third case of willful
failure to pay a just debt, which would have called for her dismissal from
service.
Nevertheless,
Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service,[21] grants
the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances
in the imposition of the proper penalty.
The Court has also ruled that where a penalty less punitive would
suffice, whatever missteps may be committed by labor ought not to be visited
with a consequence so severe.[22] It is not only for the law’s concern for the
workingman; there is, in addition, his family to consider. Unemployment brings
untold hardships and sorrows on those dependent on wage earners.[23]
As a result, in several
administrative cases, the Court has refrained from strictly imposing the
penalties provided by the law or rules, in the presence of factors such as the
offending court employee’s length of service, acknowledgment of his or her
infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, advanced age, and
other humanitarian and equitable considerations.[24]
In
the case at bar, the Court, taking into consideration Sermonia’s more than 30
years in government service, her voluntary acknowledgment of her indebtedness
to Tan, her financial and health
difficulties, and the not so substantial amount of her unpaid obligation, finds
that suspension for six months without pay is already sufficient penalty.
As a final matter, the Court resolves
the show-cause order it issued against Sermonia for her failure to timely file
her Comment as directed by the OCA.
Sermonia claims that she has the
highest respect for this Court and has no intention of disregarding her duty to
obey its orders and processes without delay.
She explains that she did not file a comment as directed because she
believed, in all honesty and good faith, that while she was civilly liable for
a just debt, her failure to settle the same did not amount to an administrative
charge for “willful refusal to pay just debt amounting to conduct unbecoming of
a court employee.” In this regard, she
asks for the understanding and compassion of this Court, again taking into
consideration her 30 years of continuous and dedicated service in the
judiciary.
The
Court is not persuaded. The Court finds Sermonia’s
defense of honesty and good faith utterly baseless. It should be recalled that Sermonia, at
first, asked for, and was granted by the OCA, an extension of time to file her
comment because she had yet to engage the services of a counsel. This was evidently inconsistent with her
subsequent assertion that she did not immediately file her comment, believing
in good faith that she did not need to file at all, since she could not be held
liable for the administrative charge against her.
Sermonia’s
failure to comply with the OCA’s directive to submit her comment on Tan’s
Complaint constitutes a clear and willful disrespect, not just for the OCA, but
also for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over
trial court officers and employees through the OCA. In fact, it can be said that Sermonia’s non-compliance
is tantamount to insubordination to the Court itself. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court
should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly
and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a
recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court’s lawful
order and directive.[25]
This contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued
by the Court has, likewise, been considered as an utter lack of interest to
remain with, if not contempt of, the system.[26]
Sermonia’s insolence is further aggravated by the fact that she is an employee
of the Judiciary, who, more than an ordinary citizen, should be aware of her duty
to obey the orders and processes of the Supreme Court without delay. For her failure to timely file her comment on
Tan’s Complaint as directed by the OCA, Sermonia should be admonished.
WHEREFORE, respondent Salvacion D. Sermonia, Clerk
IV of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, P15,145.50, plus 12% interest per annum, 25%
attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit, as decreed in the MTCC Decision dated
29 December 2003 in Civil Case No. 20730, within six (6) months from receipt of
this Resolution.
Additionally, Sermonia is ADMONISHED for her repeated failure to
promptly file her Comment as directed by the Office of the Court Administrator.
Finally, Sermonia is 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 Sermonia’s 201 file.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate
Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice
* Associate
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin was designated to sit as additional member replacing
Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Raffle dated
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2] Id.
at 7.
[3]
[4] Id.
at 9.
[5]
[6] Id.
at 14.
[7] Id.
at 15-19.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] See Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.
[12] Rollo, p. 16.
[13]
[14] 493 Phil. 1, 11 (2005).
[15] Villaseñor v. De Leon, 447 Phil. 457, 464 (2003).
[16] In Re: Complaint for Failure to Pay Just Debts Against Esther T. Andres, supra note 14.
[17] Villaseñor
v. De
[18] Grio Lending Services v. Sermonia, 463 Phil. 14, 17 (2003), citing Uy v. Magallanes, Jr., 430 Phil. 211, 214 (2002).
[19] A.M.
No. P-02-1563,
[20] Supra note 18.
[21] CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19-99,
[22] Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Mr.
Fernando P. Pascual, A.M. No. 2005-16-SC,
[23] Mendoza
v. Navarro, A.M. No. P-05-2034,
[24] In Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division (A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & 2001-8-SC, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 1), where therein respondents were found guilty of dishonesty, the Court, for humanitarian considerations, in addition to various mitigating circumstances in respondents' favor, meted out a penalty of six-month suspension instead of imposing the most severe penalty of dismissal from service. In imposing a lower penalty on respondents, the Court took note of the following mitigating circumstances: (1) for ELIZABETH L. TING: her continued long years of service in the judiciary amounting to 21 years; her acknowledgment of her infractions and feelings of remorse; the importance and complexity of the nature of her duties (i.e., the preparation of the drafts of the Minutes of the Agenda); the fact that she stays well beyond office hours in order to finish her duties; and her Performance Rating which has always been "Very Satisfactory" and her total score of 42 points, which is the highest among the employees of the Third Division of the Court; and (2) for respondent ANGELITA C. ESMERIO: her continued long years of service in the judiciary amounting to 38 years; her faithful observance of office rules and regulations from the time she submitted her explanation-letter up to the present; her acknowledgment of her infractions and feeling of remorse; her retirement on 31 May 2005; and her family circumstances (i.e., support of a 73-year old maiden aunt and a 7-year old adopted girl).
In Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr. (A.M. No. P-99-1342, 20 September 2005, 470 SCRA 218), the penalty of dismissal imposable against therein respondent Norberto V. Doblada, Jr., was reduced by the Court to six-month suspension without pay for the attendant equitable and humanitarian considerations, to wit: Doblada, Jr. had spent 34 years of his life in government service, and he was about to retire; this was the first time that he was found administratively liable per available record; Doblada, Jr. and his wife were suffering from various illnesses that required constant medication, and they were relying on Doblada Jr.'s retirement benefits to augment their finances and to meet their medical bills and expenses.
In Civil Service Commission v. Belagan (G.R. No. 132164, 19 October 2004, 440 SCRA 578, 601), Allyson Belagan, who was charged with sexual harassment and found guilty of Grave Misconduct, was meted out the penalty of suspension from office without pay for one year, instead of the heavier penalty of dismissal, given his length of service, unblemished record in the past, and numerous awards.
In Buntag v. Pana (G.R. No. 145564, 24 March 2006, 485 SCRA 302), the Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Ombudsman when they took into consideration Corazon G. Buntag's length of service in the government and the fact that this was her first infraction. Thus, the penalty of dismissal for Falsification of Official Document was reduced to merely one-year suspension.
[25] Tugot v. Judge Coliflores, 467 Phil. 391, 402 (2004).
[26] Parane
v. Reloza, A.M. No. MTJ-92-718,