THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-21-002. March 1, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4907-P]
MARIA VICTORIA S. DELOS SANTOS, complainant,vs. NONITA J. LORENZO, COURT INTERPRETER II, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 19, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 1, 2021, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-21-002 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4907-P] (Maria Victoria S. Delos Santos v. Nonita J. Lorenzo, Court Interpreter II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Manila, Branch 19). — For resolution is the letter-complaint of TJ Lending Investors, Inc. (TJLII), represented by herein complainant Maria Victoria S. Delos Santos (Delos Santos), against Nonita J. Lorenzo (Lorenzo), Court Interpreter II in Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Manila, Branch 19. HTcADC
The complainant alleged in her letter-complaint 1 that TJLII granted Lorenzo a loan amounting to P70,762.00 payable in 10 equal monthly installments, i.e., P7,076.00, without interest from March 31, 2015 until December 31, 2015 as per Promissory Note dated February 11, 2015. 2 However, Lorenzo failed to pay her monthly obligations to TJLII. Thus, Lorenzo sent an undated letter 3 to TJLII apologizing for her failure to pay the amount P7,076.00 on March 31, 2015 and promising to pay on or before April 8, 2015. However, Lorenzo failed to comply with her obligations. Hence, on February 23, 2016, TJLII sent a demand letter 4 asking Lorenzo to pay the balance of her loan in the total amount of P57,262.00 without any interest. Still, Lorenzo failed to pay. An administrative complaint for grave misconduct was then filed by TJLII, represented by Delos Santos, against Lorenzo.
In her Comment, 5 Lorenzo averred that the loan she contracted with TJLII was not related to her official functions as court interpreter but was done in her personal capacity as payment for her medical expenses. She claimed that she had a previous loan agreement with TJLII in the total amount of P14,000.00 and that she already paid P8,000.00 thereof. However, she could no longer pay the remaining balance of P6,000.00. Thus, TJLII threatened to file a case against her and she was then forced to execute the Promissory Note dated February 11, 2015. She maintained that she is willing to pay her debts and that she had no intention to violate the law or flagrantly disregard any established rule.
Report and Recommendation of
In a Memorandum dated December 16, 2020, 6 the OCA recommended that Lorenzo be found guilty of willful failure to pay just debts, a ground for disciplinary action. The findings of the OCA are quoted in part, thus:
In the instant case, respondent admits that she executed the 11 February 2015 Promissory Note with TJLII for a loan of PhP70,762.00, receipt of which she acknowledged. Her defense that they had a prior agreement for a loan of PhP14,000.00, that she made payments thereon, and that she was forced to sign the 11 February 2015 Promissory Note is unsupported by any evidence except her self-serving claims. It should also be remembered that a threat to sue is not unlawful. While this Office commiserates with respondent's state of health, that led her to avail of complainant's loan facility, we cannot condone her failure to pay her just debt which stands at Fifty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Two Pesos (PhP57,262.00) as of 23 February 2016.
Having admitted her indebtedness to TJLII and the justness thereof, her administrative liability under the foregoing provision of the RRACCS is undisputed. However, records of this Office show that this is respondent's first infraction. Thus, we find the penalty of reprimand to be proper under the circumstances. 7 CAIHTE
Our Ruling
We adopt and approve the findings and recommendations of the OCA that Lorenzo should be reprimanded and sternly warned for willful failure to pay just debts.
Executive Order No. (EO) 292, otherwise known as the "Administrative Code of 1987," provides that a public employee's failure to pay just debts is a ground for disciplinary action. Section 22, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292, as modified by Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Rules), defines "just debts" as those: (a) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or (b) claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.
Lorenzo acknowledged having contracted a loan with TJLII in the total amount of P70,762.00 as per Promissory Note dated February 11, 2015. She also admitted her previous loan from TJLII in the total amount of P14,000.00 of which she was able to pay only an amount of P8,000.00. However, her contention that she was threatened by TJLII and was forced to execute the Promissory Note dated February 11, 2015 was not supported by any evidence on record. It bears stressing that the alleged remaining balance of P6,000.00 does not correspond to the amount stated in Promissory Note dated February 11, 2015, i.e., P70,762.00.
What is apparent from the records is that Lorenzo failed to comply with her obligations under the Promissory Note dated February 11, 2015. In fact, her assertion of willingness to pay her debts to TJLII constitutes an acknowledgement on her part of the existence of such debt. Indeed, the loan balance of P57,262.00 is a just debt and its existence was both recognized by Lorenzo and TJLII. Lorenzo's willful failure to pay a just debt is unbecoming a public official and is a ground for disciplinary action.
As explained in In re: Complaint for Failure to Pay Just Debts Against Esther T. Andres, 8 willful refusal to pay just debts, much like misconduct, considers punishment of errant public officers or employees whose acts or conduct may inevitably impair the image of the judiciary:
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. . . . 9 aScITE
Under Section 22 (i), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the EO No. 292, as amended by Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, willful failure to pay just debts constitutes a light offense penalized by reprimand on the first offense, suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days on the second offense, and dismissal on the third offense. This being Lorenzo's first offense, she is thus reprimanded for her failure to pay just debts, with a stern warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE, respondent Nonita J. Lorenzo, Court Interpreter II, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19, is adjudged GUILTY of willful failure to pay just debts, for which she is hereby REPRIMANDED. Further, she is STERNLY WARNED that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to her 201 file.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-5.
2.Id. at 7-8.
3.Id. at 9.
4.Id. at 10.
5.Id. at 15-17.
6.Id.; unpaginated.
7.Id.; unpaginated.
8. 493 Phil. 1 (2005).
9.Id. at 11.