Rural Bank of Rizal, Inc. v. Bation

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. P-17-3739. June 19, 2017.]

RURAL BANK OF RIZAL, INC., REPRESENTED BY ATTY. ALBERT T. CONCHA, JR., petitioner,vs. PEDRO RIO G. BATION, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, SAPANG DALAGA-CONCEPCION, SAPANG DALAGA, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 19, 2017, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. P-17-3739[FormerlyOCA IPI No. 14-4348-P](Rural Bank of Rizal, Inc., represented by Atty. Albert T. Concha, Jr. vs. Pedro Rio G. Bation, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sapang Dalaga-Concepcion, Sapang Dalaga, Misamis Occidental). — The Court resolves to:

(1) NOTE complainant's Manifestation dated November 7, 2016 in compliance with the Resolution of September 14, 2016, that it is willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the complaint and comment; and

(2) RE-DOCKET the instant administrative complaint against Pedro Rio G. Bation, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sapang Dalaga-Concepcion, Sapang Dalaga, Misamis Occidental, as a regular administrative matter. HTcADC

For resolution is the Administrative Complaint 1 dated August 18, 2014 filed by complainant Rural Bank of Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte, Inc. (RBRZNI) charging respondent Pedro Rio G. Bation, Interpreter I at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Sapang Dalaga-Concepcion, Misamis Occidental, for violation of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

In its Complaint, RBRZNI alleged that on April 11, 2007, respondent obtained a loan from it in the amount of PhP44,000 with 15% interest per annum. Accordingly, a promissory note was signed by respondent with the undertaking to pay the loan in monthly installments of PhP2,484 from April 11, 2007 until March 31, 2009. Despite repeated demands, however, respondent refused to pay his loan after its maturity totaling to PhP179,708.80 including penalties and interests. 2

Consequently, RBRZNI filed a Small Claims Case against respondent at the MCTC of Rizal-Sibutad, Zamboanga del Norte, docketed as Civil Case No. SC-71-R. 3

On November 28, 2013, the MCTC rendered its Decision Based on the Compromise Agreement 4 wherein the parties agreed that the total amount of respondent's liability is PhP100,000 and will be paid in this manner: (i) PhP17,000 not later than December 31, 2013; and (ii) PhP17,000 every 31st day of the month thereafter not later than May 31, 2014.

Due, however, to respondent's continued refusal to pay his obligation, RBRZNI filed a Motion for Execution on June 19, 2014. Thereafter, the MCTC issued a Writ of Execution on June 30, 2014. 5

On October 28, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued its First Indorsement 6 requiring respondent to file his Comment within 10 days from receipt thereof.

In his Comment, 7 respondent countered that the entire loan obligation had been fully settled as shown by the Official Receipt 8 issued by RBRZNI with an annotation that the amount paid was in full payment of the loan obligation incurred by him.

Also, Bation asseverated that there was no willful refusal on his part to pay his loan obligation to RBRZNI. In support thereof, he maintained that he consistently made several payments to RBRZNI even prior to the institution of Civil Case No. SC-71-R.

Thereafter, RBRZNI filed before this Court its Motion to Withdraw Administrative Complaint 9 dated February 20, 2015, wherein it manifested that its claim against respondent had already been settled sometime in January 2015.

In its May 13, 2015 letter to RBRZNI, the OCA informed the former that in Rodriguez v. Eugenio, 10 this Court held that administrative matters or cases are not dependent on the will or pleasure of the complainant, who may, for reasons of his own, condone what may be detestable considering that public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary.

On June 17, 2016, Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino, issued their Report and Recommendation 11 wherein they recommended the re-docketing of the instant administrative complaint against respondent as a regular administrative matter. Further, they recommended that respondent be reprimanded for willful failure to pay a just debt, which amounts to conduct unbecoming a court employee.

After review, this Court finds that the recommendation of the OCA to reprimand respondent is proper under the circumstances.

To begin with, the OCA correctly held that the full payment of respondent's obligation to RBRZNI will not render the instant administrative case moot and academic. In Villaseñor v. De Leon, 12 this Court reiterated that the proceedings in an administrative case are not directed at respondent's private life but her actuations unbecoming a public employee. Thus, the discharge of a court employee's debt does not render the same moot.

Here, it is undisputed that respondent obtained a loan from RBRZNI which he failed to pay when it fell due. It may be true that he has difficulty in paying said obligation. Such difficulty, however, is not a valid ground to excuse him from paying his debts. As correctly observed by the IBP-CBD, respondent's subsequent full payment of his obligation will not operate to free him from any administrative liability. The Report and Recommendation in part reads:

Respondent's failure to pay his obligation despite the decision of the trial court should make him administratively liable for "failure to pay just debts". Even the fact that respondent settled his obligation with complainant during the pendency of the present administrative complaint cannot free him from administrative liability. Willful failure to pay a just debt amounts to conduct unbecoming a court employee. x x x. 13

Hence, respondent's actuations warrant disciplinary action. As an employee of the court, he has the duty to comply with just contractual obligations, act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards to preserve the court's integrity. 14

The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service penalized the willful failure to pay just debts. Under Section 22, Rule XIV thereof, just debts include claims the existence of which are admitted by the debtor. In the present case, considering respondent's admission of the loan, the offense here is covered in this category. As to the penalty, a first time violation thereof warrants the penalty of reprimand. 15 Here, since this is respondent's first offense, such penalty applies to him.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator is APPROVED. Respondent Pedro Rio G. Bation is found GUILTY of willful failure to pay a just debt and is hereby REPRIMANDED. He is sternly WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. aScITE

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.

2.Id. at 1.

3.Ibid.

4.Id. at 9.

5.Id. at 1.

6.Id. at 14.

7.Id. at 20-21.

8.Id. at 22.

9.Id. at 25.

10. A.M. No. RTJ-06-2216, April 20, 2007.

11.Rollo, pp. 28-31.

12. A.M. No. P-03-1685, March 20, 2003.

13.Rollo, p. 30.

14.Frias v. Aguilar, A.M. No. P-02-1597, February 17, 2003.

15.Campomanes v. Violon, A.M. No. P-11-2983, July 25, 2012.