| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
577 Phil. 170
FIRST DIVISION
[ A.M. No. P-07-2362, June 13, 2008 ]
MAGDALENA P. CATUNGAL COMPLAINANT, V.S. JOCELYN C. FERNANDEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABA, LA UNION, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
This is a complaint for failure to pay a just debt filed by Magdalena P. Catungal (Catungal) against Jocelyn C. Fernandez (Fernandez), Court Stenographer I, Municipal Trial Court, Caba, La Union.
On 14 March 2003, Fernandez bought four cavans of rice worth P4,800 from Catungal. Fernandez signed a note[1] acknowledging her receipt of the rice and promised to pay the P4,800 on 15 March 2003.
Fernandez failed to pay on 15 March 2003. Catungal repeatedly demanded payment from Fernandez. Despite the repeated demands, Fernandez refused to pay. Fernandez kept on promising Catungal that she would pay her debt; however, she never did. Every time Catungal demanded payment, Fernandez made up an excuse why she could not pay: (1) in a letter[2] dated 19 March 2003, she stated that she was in Baguio; (2) in a letter [3] dated 27 March 2003, she stated that she had not received a certain check and that she was in Baguio; (3) in a letter[4] dated 2 June 2003, she stated that a certain piece of jewelry was in Baguio and that she was on leave; (4) in a letter[5] dated 5 June 2003, she stated that her child was not able to bring the piece of jewelry from Baguio; (5) in a letter [6] dated 9 June 2003, she stated that she was going to Baguio to get the piece of jewelry; (6) in a letter[7] dated 23 June 2003, she stated that she would receive money from someone; and (7) in a letter [8] dated 21 July 2003, she stated that she got sick and that she would borrow money.
In an affidavit-complaint [9] dated 26 February 2004 and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Catungal charged Fernandez with willful failure to pay a just debt. In its 1st Indorsement[10] dated 8 October 2004, the OCA directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. Fernandez ignored the 1st Indorsement. In its 1st Tracer dated 18 March 2005, the OCA directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. Fernandez ignored the 1st Tracer. In a Resolution dated 5 June 2006, the Court required Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint and to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with for repeatedly refusing to comment. Fernandez ignored the 5 June 2006 Resolution.
In a Resolution dated 19 March 2007, the Court dispensed with Fernandez's comment and referred the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
In a Report dated 25 June 2007, the OCA found Fernandez liable for willful failure to pay a just debt. Considering that this is the third time Fernandez willfully failed to pay a just debt and considering her refusal to comment on the affidavit-complaint, the OCA recommended that she be dismissed from the service. However, since Fernandez was already removed from the service on 13 December 2005 for unsatisfactory performance, the OCA recommended that she be fined P5,000 instead. In a Resolution dated 22 August 2007, the Court re-docketed the case as a regular administrative matter.
The Court finds Fernandez liable for willful failure to pay a just debt and for insubordination.
Willful failure to pay just debts is administratively punishable.[11] It is unbecoming a court employee and a ground for disciplinary action.[12]
Just debts refer to claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.[13]
Fernandez's failure to comment on the affidavit-complaint implies her admission of the existence and justness of Catungal's claim.[14] Also, Fernandez's letter dated 21 July 2003 clearly shows her admission of the existence of the debt and her repeated failure to pay it:
Section 52(C)(10) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[16]
classifies willful failure to pay just debts as a light offense punishable by a reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one to 30 days for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense. This is the third time the Court has found Fernandez guilty of willful failure to pay a just debt. In Marata v. Fernandez,[17] the Court found her liable for willful failure to pay her debt of P95,000. In Bernal, Jr. v. Fernandez ,[18] the Court found her liable for willful failure to pay her debt of P20,108.
Aside from failing to pay her debt, Fernandez displayed her indifference by repeatedly refusing to comment on the affidavit-complaint. In its 1st Indorsement dated 8 October 2004 and 1st Tracer dated 18 March 2005, the OCA directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. In its Resolution dated 5 June 2006, the Court directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. Fernandez opted to ignore all these directives. Her disregard of the OCA's and the Court's directives is disrespectful[19] and betrays a recalcitrant streak in character. A resolution of the Court should not be construed as a mere request. It should be complied with promptly and completely.[20]
Refusal to comply with the Court's directives constitutes insubordination,[21] which is a defiance of authority. It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. This is the third time the Court has found Fernandez guilty of insubordination. In Marata [22] and Bernal, Jr.,[23] the Court found her liable for insubordination for refusing to comment on the administrative complaint against her.
In Judge Aquino v. Fernandez,[24] the Court found Fernandez liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to type a draft order. In all three administrative cases decided against her, the Court sternly warned Fernandez that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Indeed, Fernandez is incorrigible and unfit to be a court employee. She should be meted the ultimate penalty of dismissal. However, because she was already removed from the service on 13 December 2005, the Court can no longer impose such penalty. In lieu of dismissal, the Court imposes a fine and disqualifies her for reemployment in the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Jocelyn C. Fernandez, Court Stenographer I, Municipal Trial Court, Caba, La Union, GUILTY of WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY A JUST DEBT and INSUBORDINATION. Accordingly, the Court FINES her P5,000. She is also disqualified for reemployment in the judiciary.
Puno, C.J. (Chairperson), Corona, Azcuna and Leonardo-De Castro., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 5.
[2]Id. at 6.
[3]Id. at 7.
[4]Id. at 8.
[5]Id. at 9.
[6]Id. at 10.
[7]Id. at 11.
[8]Id. at 12.
[9]Id. at 3-4.
[10]Id. at 13.
[11] Section 52(C) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:
[13] Section 52(C)(10) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[14] Bernal, Jr. v. Fernandez, A.M. No. P-05-2045, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 29, 32.
[15] Rollo, p. 12.
[16] Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated 31 August 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.
[17] A.M. No. P-04-1871, 9 August 2005, 466 SCRA 45, 47.
[18] A.M. No. P-05-2045, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 29, 32-33.
[19] Florendo v. Cadano, A.M. No. P-05-1983, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 448, 454-455.
[20] Imbang v. Del Rosario, A.M. No. 03-1515-MTJ, 19 November 2004, 443 SCRA 79, 83-84.
[21] Supra note 18 at 33.
[22] Supra note 17 at 48-49.
[23] Supra note 18 at 33.
[24] Judge Aquino v. Fernandez, 460 Phil. 1, 13 (2003).
On 14 March 2003, Fernandez bought four cavans of rice worth P4,800 from Catungal. Fernandez signed a note[1] acknowledging her receipt of the rice and promised to pay the P4,800 on 15 March 2003.
Fernandez failed to pay on 15 March 2003. Catungal repeatedly demanded payment from Fernandez. Despite the repeated demands, Fernandez refused to pay. Fernandez kept on promising Catungal that she would pay her debt; however, she never did. Every time Catungal demanded payment, Fernandez made up an excuse why she could not pay: (1) in a letter[2] dated 19 March 2003, she stated that she was in Baguio; (2) in a letter [3] dated 27 March 2003, she stated that she had not received a certain check and that she was in Baguio; (3) in a letter[4] dated 2 June 2003, she stated that a certain piece of jewelry was in Baguio and that she was on leave; (4) in a letter[5] dated 5 June 2003, she stated that her child was not able to bring the piece of jewelry from Baguio; (5) in a letter [6] dated 9 June 2003, she stated that she was going to Baguio to get the piece of jewelry; (6) in a letter[7] dated 23 June 2003, she stated that she would receive money from someone; and (7) in a letter [8] dated 21 July 2003, she stated that she got sick and that she would borrow money.
In an affidavit-complaint [9] dated 26 February 2004 and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Catungal charged Fernandez with willful failure to pay a just debt. In its 1st Indorsement[10] dated 8 October 2004, the OCA directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. Fernandez ignored the 1st Indorsement. In its 1st Tracer dated 18 March 2005, the OCA directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. Fernandez ignored the 1st Tracer. In a Resolution dated 5 June 2006, the Court required Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint and to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with for repeatedly refusing to comment. Fernandez ignored the 5 June 2006 Resolution.
In a Resolution dated 19 March 2007, the Court dispensed with Fernandez's comment and referred the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
In a Report dated 25 June 2007, the OCA found Fernandez liable for willful failure to pay a just debt. Considering that this is the third time Fernandez willfully failed to pay a just debt and considering her refusal to comment on the affidavit-complaint, the OCA recommended that she be dismissed from the service. However, since Fernandez was already removed from the service on 13 December 2005 for unsatisfactory performance, the OCA recommended that she be fined P5,000 instead. In a Resolution dated 22 August 2007, the Court re-docketed the case as a regular administrative matter.
The Court finds Fernandez liable for willful failure to pay a just debt and for insubordination.
Willful failure to pay just debts is administratively punishable.[11] It is unbecoming a court employee and a ground for disciplinary action.[12]
Just debts refer to claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.[13]
Fernandez's failure to comment on the affidavit-complaint implies her admission of the existence and justness of Catungal's claim.[14] Also, Fernandez's letter dated 21 July 2003 clearly shows her admission of the existence of the debt and her repeated failure to pay it:
I'm sorry Manang last Saturday na collapse kasi ako saka sabi ni Aweng, wala pa raw pera. Kaya nag-absent ako ngayon para magremedyo ng pambayad ko sa iyo, punta ako ng Agoo para umutang ng pambayad ko sa yo sa moneyline. Bukaska na lang punta ate last promise ko na sa yo.[15]Fernandez's letters, her refusal to comment on the affidavit-complaint, and the fact that the debt has remained unpaid since 15 March 2003 conclusively show that Fernandez willfully failed to fulfill her obligation to Catungal.
Section 52(C)(10) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[16]
classifies willful failure to pay just debts as a light offense punishable by a reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one to 30 days for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense. This is the third time the Court has found Fernandez guilty of willful failure to pay a just debt. In Marata v. Fernandez,[17] the Court found her liable for willful failure to pay her debt of P95,000. In Bernal, Jr. v. Fernandez ,[18] the Court found her liable for willful failure to pay her debt of P20,108.
Aside from failing to pay her debt, Fernandez displayed her indifference by repeatedly refusing to comment on the affidavit-complaint. In its 1st Indorsement dated 8 October 2004 and 1st Tracer dated 18 March 2005, the OCA directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. In its Resolution dated 5 June 2006, the Court directed Fernandez to comment on the affidavit-complaint. Fernandez opted to ignore all these directives. Her disregard of the OCA's and the Court's directives is disrespectful[19] and betrays a recalcitrant streak in character. A resolution of the Court should not be construed as a mere request. It should be complied with promptly and completely.[20]
Refusal to comply with the Court's directives constitutes insubordination,[21] which is a defiance of authority. It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. This is the third time the Court has found Fernandez guilty of insubordination. In Marata [22] and Bernal, Jr.,[23] the Court found her liable for insubordination for refusing to comment on the administrative complaint against her.
In Judge Aquino v. Fernandez,[24] the Court found Fernandez liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to type a draft order. In all three administrative cases decided against her, the Court sternly warned Fernandez that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Indeed, Fernandez is incorrigible and unfit to be a court employee. She should be meted the ultimate penalty of dismissal. However, because she was already removed from the service on 13 December 2005, the Court can no longer impose such penalty. In lieu of dismissal, the Court imposes a fine and disqualifies her for reemployment in the judiciary.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Jocelyn C. Fernandez, Court Stenographer I, Municipal Trial Court, Caba, La Union, GUILTY of WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY A JUST DEBT and INSUBORDINATION. Accordingly, the Court FINES her P5,000. She is also disqualified for reemployment in the judiciary.
Puno, C.J. (Chairperson), Corona, Azcuna and Leonardo-De Castro., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 5.
[2]Id. at 6.
[3]Id. at 7.
[4]Id. at 8.
[5]Id. at 9.
[6]Id. at 10.
[7]Id. at 11.
[8]Id. at 12.
[9]Id. at 3-4.
[10]Id. at 13.
[11] Section 52(C) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:
C. The following are light offenses with [the] corresponding penalties:[12] Re: Willful Failure to Pay Just Debts against Mr. Melquiades A. Briones, A.M. No. 2007-11-SC, 10 August 2007, 529 SCRA 689, 695.
x x x x
10. Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due to the government1st offense - ReprimandThe term "just debts" shall apply only to:
2nd offense - Suspension (1-30 days)
3rd offense - Dismissal
- Claims adjudicated by a court of law; or
- Claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.
[13] Section 52(C)(10) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
[14] Bernal, Jr. v. Fernandez, A.M. No. P-05-2045, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 29, 32.
[15] Rollo, p. 12.
[16] Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated 31 August 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.
[17] A.M. No. P-04-1871, 9 August 2005, 466 SCRA 45, 47.
[18] A.M. No. P-05-2045, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 29, 32-33.
[19] Florendo v. Cadano, A.M. No. P-05-1983, 20 October 2005, 473 SCRA 448, 454-455.
[20] Imbang v. Del Rosario, A.M. No. 03-1515-MTJ, 19 November 2004, 443 SCRA 79, 83-84.
[21] Supra note 18 at 33.
[22] Supra note 17 at 48-49.
[23] Supra note 18 at 33.
[24] Judge Aquino v. Fernandez, 460 Phil. 1, 13 (2003).