FIRST DIVISION
|
WILSON B.
TAN,
Petitioner, -versus - JESUS F. HERNANDO, Respondent. |
A.M. No.
P-08-2501 Present: PUNO, CJ., Chairperson, CARPIO, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: August
28, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
All Judiciary employees are expected
to be exemplars of fairness and honesty in both their official conduct and
their personal actuations, including their business and commercial
transactions. The community sees them in no other light. Thus, we insist
upon this standard in dealing with the administrative
complaint against an employee in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
The antecedents follow.
By his letter-complaint dated July 5,
1999,[1] complainant
Wilson Tan charged respondent Jesus F. Hernando, Clerk IV, with dishonesty,
moral turpitude and conduct unbecoming a public officer. He alleged that on
October 1, 1998, Hernando, then with the Office of the Clerk of Court, went to his
store to borrow P3,000.00 because Hernando then needed money; that as
payment Hernando promised to deliver his October 1998 half-month salary check
worth P3,000.00 upon receiving it, which promise was reflected on an
acknowledgement receipt; that Hernando reneged on his promise and did not pay
his obligation despite repeated demands; and that the act of Hernando compelled
him to commence a criminal case for estafa
against Hernando.[2]
In his comment dated P3,000.00
from the complainant on P1,500.00.
On
In his report and recommendation
dated
a) That the decision on the matter be
held in abeyance until after a verdict was promulgated in Criminal Case No.
L-345 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Dumaguete City (that
is, the criminal case the complainant had filed against Hernando charging him
with other deceits), because said case was based on the same facts involved in
the administrative matter; or
b) That Hernando be suspended for 5 days, without
pay, for dishonesty due to his failure to keep his promise to pay to the
complainant the obligation of P3,000.00.
On
On
On
Through her letter dated P3,000.00
and interest at the rate of 12% per annum
from
In the same report, Executive Judge
Bustamante also made the following recommendation, to wit:
Mr. Hernando is in the twilight of his years. In his youth, he may have committed certain indiscretions. But he was a model employee, well-liked and steadfast in his work as clerk in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the then Court of First Instance and later the Regional Trial Court. He married late and had children who are still of tender ages (the youngest is ten years old). This is the reason why he had to resort to borrowing as his salary is not enough to support a growing family as the wife is unemployed. Mr. Hernando was humble enough to admit that as of the moment, he could not pay his obligation to Dr. Tan as he is living on a day to day basis as his salary was cut off upon retirement.
The
undersigned therefore recommends that the Court adopts the findings of his
honor, Roderick A. Maxino, who found that he is civilly liable to Dr. Wilson B.
Tan in the amount of P3,000.00 and that he be ordered to pay the aforesaid
amount with interest of 12% from
The undersigned humbly recommends that Mr. Hernando be allowed to retire so that the retirement benefits due him be released.
On
In the memorandum dated
The
trial court absolved respondent of the crime of other deceits but found him
civilly liable to complainant in the amount of P3,000.00 with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from
Considering the foregoing, we recommend that Respondent be found guilty of “willful failure to pay just debts” which is classified as a light offense and punishable as follows: 1st offense - reprimand; 2nd offense - suspension for one (1) day to thirty (30) days; 3rd offense - dismissal. 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.
This
being respondent’s first offense, the imposable penalty would have been a
reprimand. However, since respondent
already reached the compulsory retirement age on
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent Jesus F. Hernando be FINED in the amount of P5,000.00.
We adopt the recommendation of the Court
Administrator because it was supported by the evidence on record.
Having incurred just debts,
Hernando had the moral and legal duty to pay
them when they became due. As a court employee, he must comply with his valid
contractual obligation, act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards to
preserve the Judiciary’s integrity and reputation. Unfortunately, he failed to prove
that he had adequately discharged his obligation. Hence, his actuations warrant condign disciplinary
action.
The law on disciplinary action for nonpayment of
just debts is Section 46(b)(22), Chapter 7, Subtitle A (Civil Service
Commission), Title I, Book V of Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (The Revised Administrative Code of 1987),
which pertinently states:
Sec. 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
(22) Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due to the government;
x x x
Under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing
Book V of EO No. 292, as modified by Section 52(C)(10), Rule IV of Resolution
No. 991936 of the Civil Service Commission (Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), just debts
include: 1) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or 2) claims the existence
and justness of which are admitted by the debtor. Hernando’s obligation falls
under both classifications.
Hernando cannot escape administrative
responsibility. As we said in Orasa v. Seva:[13]
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 (sic) onus and must at all times be
characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety and decorum.
The Court Administrator recommends a fine of P5,000.00,
in lieu of reprimand, the penalty for the violation to be imposed on a
first-time offender like Hernando. The recommendation is premised on the fact
that he had meanwhile retired from the service, rendering reprimand an
impractical and ineffectual penalty. Although we agree that a fine is
appropriate under the circumstances, we hold that the amount be only P1,000.00
considering that Hernando had already been adjudged by the MTCC in the criminal
case to pay to the complainant the amount of P3,000.00.
WHEREFORE, respondent
Jesus F. Hernando is fined in the amount of P1,000.00.
In the interest of justice and for humanitarian
reasons, the Court directs that the respondent’s retirement benefits be
released to him at the soonest possible time.
SO ORDERED.
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice