SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. SB-18-25-P. April 3, 2019.](Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-38-SB-P)
SPOUSES SERAFIN V. BELLEZA III AND CRISTINE C. BELLEZA, complainants, vs.WILHELMINA L. VENTURA, COURT STENOGRAPHER IV, OFFICE OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE ROLAND JURADO, SANDIGANBAYAN, QUEZON CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 03 April 2019which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. SB-18-25-P (Formerly OCA IPI No. 17-38-SB-P) — SPOUSES SERAFIN V. BELLEZA III AND CRISTINE C. BELLEZA versus WILHELMINA L. VENTURA, Court Stenographer IV, Office of Associate Justice Roland Jurado, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City
This case stems from a Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated November 24, 2016 filed by complainant spouses Serafin V. Belleza III and Cristine C. Belleza (Cristine) (spouses Belleza), charging respondent Wilhelmina L. Ventura (Ventura), Court Stenographer IV, Office of Associate Justice Roland Jurado, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City, with violation of Section 3 (e), Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3019 2 and Grave Misconduct.
The facts show that sometime in 2015, Ventura introduced herself to Cristine as the wife of a retired judge with a lending business at the Sandiganbayan. 3 Ventura represented that an investment would yield as much as seven (7) to ten (10) percent monthly interest. 4 As a result, Cristine invested the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in Ventura's business venture. 5 Later, the spouses Belleza jointly invested an additional amount of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). 6
When the promised return of their investments failed to materialize, the spouses Belleza repeatedly demanded from Ventura the return of their money totaling Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P250,000.00). 7 Due to Ventura's failure to comply, the spouses Belleza initiated the instant case.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its 1st Indorsement 8 dated May 19, 2017, directed Ventura to submit her comment on the complaint.
In her Comment 9 dated June 30, 2017, Ventura denied having a lending business and claimed to have known Cristine as her friend from childhood. 10 Ventura explained that the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) from Cristine was actually meant to pay off suppliers for her buy and sell business, which was made known to Cristine at that time she turned over the money. 11 Instead, Ventura alleged that it was Cristine who expressed interest in joining her business as her partner, to which she agreed. 12 However, when the business encountered financial difficulties, Ventura was unable to pay back her obligations, claiming that she was only able to return Seventy Thousand Pesos (P70,000.00). 13 CAIHTE
As to the charges, Ventura argued that she could not be held liable for violations of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code and R.A. 3019 as such cases fall within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, not the OCA. Nonetheless, she denied employing deceitful means to acquire the money and that she could not be held liable for the risks inherent to business ventures. 14 Ventura further argued that her alleged transactions with the spouses Belleza have no relation to her functions as a court stenographer and that no bad faith could be inferred from her dealings with them. 15
In the OCA's Report 16 dated October 2, 2017, the OCA recommended the following:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
(1) the instant administrative complaint against Wilhelmina L. Ventura, Court Stenographer IV, Office of Associate Justice Roland Jurado, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and
(2) respondent Ventura be found GUILTY of willful failure to pay just debts amounting to conduct unbecoming a court employee and, accordingly, REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar offense shall be dealt with severely by the Court. 17
In the Court's Resolution 18 dated January 10, 2018, the instant matter was ordered re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.
The Court's Ruling
After a judicious scrutiny of the records, the Court sees no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the OCA in its Report dated October 2, 2017.
Section 46 (F) (9), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) 19 punishes the willful failure to pay just debts as a light offense. "Just debts" are defined as "claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor."
In the case at bar, there is no question that Ventura admitted borrowing money from the spouses Belleza and only offered as an excuse for her non-payment the alleged financial predicament she has after her business suffered losses. 20 The Court notes, however, that her claim is unsubstantiated by the records. Moreover, Ventura even admitted to making an initial payment of Seventy Thousand Pesos (P70,000.00) to cover her indebtedness to the spouses Belleza. 21 All the requisites for the offense of willful failure to pay just debts are therefore present.
In Tordilla v. Amilano, 22 citing Tan v. Sermonia, 23 the Court explained the rationale for imposing administrative sanctions on court personnel who fail to settle their just debts:
Indeed, when [respondent] backtracked on her promise to pay her debt, such act already constituted a ground for administrative sanction, for any act that would be a bane to the public trust and confidence reposed in the judiciary shall not be countenanced. [Respondent'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, [respondent] 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. 24 DETACa
Anent the penalty, under Section 46 (F) (9), Rule 10 of the RRACCS, the willful failure to pay just debts is classified as a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense; suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days for the second; and dismissal from the service for the third. Hence, considering that this is Ventura's first infraction, the penalty of reprimand is warranted under the circumstances.
WHEREFORE, Wilhelmina L. Ventura, Court Stenographer IV, Office of Associate Justice Roland Jurado, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City, is found GUILTY of willful failure to pay just debts and, accordingly is hereby REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.
SO ORDERED. (REYES, J., JR., J., on wellness leave)"
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-9. The Complaint-Affidavit is for "Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code" but in the 1st Indorsement and the OCA Report, it is stated that the Complaint-Affidavit charged Ventura with violation of R.A. 3019 and Grave Misconduct, see id. at 33 and 47.
2. ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT, August 17, 1960.
3.Rollo, pp. 4, 47.
4.Id. at 5, 47.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 30-31.
8.Id. at 33.
9.Id. at 34-41.
10.Id. at 34, 48.
11.Id. at 35, 38.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 48.
15.Id. at 48-49.
16.Id. at 47-50.
17.Id. at 50.
18.Id. at 52.
19. Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 1101502, promulgated on November 8, 2011.
20.Rollo, p. 49.
21.Id.
22. 753 Phil. 23 (2015).
23. 612 Phil. 314, 322 (2009).
24.Tordilla v. Amilano, supra note 22, at 30.