Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION
|
Re: Complaint filed by paz
de vera lazaro against edna magallanes, Court
Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28; and bonifacio g. magallanes, process server, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 30, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. |
A.M No. P-11-3003 (Formerly A.M. IPI No. 08-2970-P) Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April 25, 2012 |
|
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
r e s o l u t i o n
SERENO, J.:
Before the Court is an administrative
complaint for failure to pay just debts, dishonesty and extortion filed by Paz
De Vera Lazaro (Lazaro), a retired schools district supervisor of Bambang,
Nueva Vizcaya against respondents Edna and Bonifacio Magallanes (spouses
Magallanes). Edna Magallanes is a Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 28; while Bonifacio Magallanes is a Process Server, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 30, both of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya.
The facts are as follows:
Complainant Lazaro lent to
respondent spouses Magallanes a total of ₱135,000
on four separate occasions in the first half of 2005. Respondents offered two
land titles and a revolver as collaterals for the loan. One of the land titles
turned out to have been encumbered in the amount of ₱400,000.
Because respondents did not
make any payment in spite of promises to do so, complainant was forced to bring
the matter to the Barangay Lupon on
04 August 2007. The parties reached an amicable settlement, whereby respondents
promised to pay their obligation by 30 August 2007. However, Lazaro received
only token amounts of ₱5,000 and ₱3,000 from the spouses Magallanes.
In their Comment dated 30
October 2008, respondents admit incurring the aforesaid loans, but deny the
charges in the Complaint. They also claim that they have already paid ₱77,000 of their total obligation. Moreover,
they contend that, had they defaulted on their payments, Lazaro should have
forfeited in her favor the collaterals they had offered to secure the loans.
On 03 December 2010, the
Court received Lazaros 29 November 2010 Affidavit of Desistance which stated
that complainant did not want to pursue the administrative complaint anymore,
and that she agreed to settle the matter amicably with respondents.
On 07 December 2010, we also
received a handwritten amicable settlement dated 05 December 2010 signed by the
parties. In the document, respondents promised to pay a total of ₱120,000 inclusive of the remaining loan
balance of ₱70,000 and interest of ₱50,000 upon the dismissal of the case.
On 08 August 2011, the Court
received a letter dated 29 July 2011 signed by complainant Lazaro, reporting
that spouses Magallanes had paid her the whole amount of ₱120,000 on 23 June 2011. She also reported
that respondents had expressed their sorrow and asked for pardon for the
discomfort and trouble they had caused her. She then reiterated her request that
the Complaint she filed be dismissed.
This Court has consistently
ruled that the withdrawal of a Complaint does not warrant its dismissal,
because the issue in an administrative case is not whether the complainant has
a cause of action against the erring court employee, but whether the latter has
breached the courts norms and standards.[1]
This Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of all employees of the
judiciary.
Accordingly, we find spouses
Magallanes not guilty of willful failure to pay just debts, considering that
they have paid their entire obligation including the interest on the loan.
However, we note with strong
displeasure the conduct of respondent spouses Magallanes, who obtained several
loans without paying for them at the agreed time. It took more than six years for them to pay
their entire obligation.
To recall, complainant Lazaro
was forced to bring the matter to the Barangay
Lupon. Respondents promised therein to pay their obligation by 30 August
2007. However, she received only the token amounts of ₱5,000 and ₱3,000
from them.
We also note that one of the
land titles that respondents gave as collateral turned out to have been
encumbered in the amount of ₱400,000, a
fact they did not deny.
Moreover, while we are
pleased to learn from complainant Lazaro that, as promised, she has been paid
the entire obligation of ₱120,000 on 23
June 2011, we note that respondents promise to her was conditioned upon her
execution of an Affidavit of Desistance which she accordingly executed.
All these facts constitute
conduct that reflects badly on the judiciary, diminishing the honor and integrity
of the offices they hold. This is especially true when we consider that,
respondents were admittedly given the loans because they were considered prominent
persons in the community; and that they were considered as such, presumably
because they worked in the judiciary.
In Villaseor v. De Leon,[2]
we emphasized that to preserve decency within the judiciary, court personnel
must comply with just contractual obligations, act fairly and adhere to high
ethical standards. In that case, we said that respondent was 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 courts albatross of infamy.
We expect nothing less than the
same conduct from respondents in the present case.
Wherefore, the administrative Complaint
is hereby DISMISSED. Respondents are
warned that, whether official or personal, any future conduct that falls short
of the high ethical standards expected of them as court employees shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA
LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO |
|
|
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ |
|
Associate Justice |
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BIENVENIDO L. REYES |
|
|
Associate Justice |
|