SECOND DIVISION
[Adm. Matter No. 2758-P. June 29, 1982.]
SOL M. SIPIN, Complainant, v. GLORIA GIRONELLA, Respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Respondent, an employee in the Criminal Section, Docket Division, CFI of Manila received from complainant several pieces of jewelry amounting to P4,900.00 to be sold in cash on commission basis, and if not sold, to be returned on demand. Respondent failed to give to complainant either the proceeds of the sale or the pieces of jewelry despite repeated demands.
Complainant filed an administrative case against her for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for unlawful failure to pay just debt. Respondent admitted having incurred the obligation and claimed that the jewelries were sold on credit; that the buyers failed to pay; and that she is now paying for the jewelries in installment.
The Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable for failure to pay just debt and sentenced her to suspension from office for fifteen (15) days without pay.
Complainant filed an administrative case against her for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for unlawful failure to pay just debt. Respondent admitted having incurred the obligation and claimed that the jewelries were sold on credit; that the buyers failed to pay; and that she is now paying for the jewelries in installment.
The Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable for failure to pay just debt and sentenced her to suspension from office for fifteen (15) days without pay.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE AGAINST COURT EMPLOYEE; FAILURE TO PAY JUST DEBT; WARRANTS DISCIPLINARY ACTION UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW. — Under Section 36(b)(22) Presidential Decree No. 807, the willful failure to pay just debts is a ground for disciplinary action. The term "just debts" apply to (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law, or (2) claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor (Sec. 19(n), Rule XVIII, B, Civil Service Rules). In the case at bar, respondent admitted the existence of her indebtedness to the complainant.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY. — Under the Civil Service Commission Memo Circular No. 8, series of 1970, the administrative offense of willful failure to pay just debts is classified as a light offense calling for a fine or suspension from one (1) day to thirty (30) days.
ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A COURT PERSONNEL; WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY JUST DEBTS AS GROUND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION; CASE AT BAR. — What is punished by statute is willful failure to pay just debts. Accordingly, the debt must not only be a just one, there must also be a wilful failure to pay it. In the instant case while there is admittedly a just debt, the failure to pay it is not willful. In fact, the respondent is now paying her debt albeit in installment with the complainant. Respondent should be exonerated.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY. — Under the Civil Service Commission Memo Circular No. 8, series of 1970, the administrative offense of willful failure to pay just debts is classified as a light offense calling for a fine or suspension from one (1) day to thirty (30) days.
ABAD SANTOS, J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
1. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT AGAINST A COURT PERSONNEL; WILLFUL FAILURE TO PAY JUST DEBTS AS GROUND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION; CASE AT BAR. — What is punished by statute is willful failure to pay just debts. Accordingly, the debt must not only be a just one, there must also be a wilful failure to pay it. In the instant case while there is admittedly a just debt, the failure to pay it is not willful. In fact, the respondent is now paying her debt albeit in installment with the complainant. Respondent should be exonerated.
D E C I S I O N
DE CASTRO, J.:
In a sworn complaint dated January 27, 1982, Sol M. Sipin charges Gloria Gironella an employee in the Criminal Section, Docket Division, Court of First Instance of Manila, the respondent in this administrative matter with "conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and for unlawful failure to pay just debt." Complainant alleges that on February 1, 1978, respondent receive from her several pieces of jewelry amounting to P4,900.00 with the agreement to sell the same for cash and for her to received a commission if able to sell, or to return the said pieces of jewelry immediately or upon demand; that when she demanded from respondent the proceeds of the sale and for the return of the several pieces of jewelry taken by her, the latter said that she will return them as soon as possible; that notwithstanding the lapse of about two (2) months, and despite repeated demands, respondent failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to return the said pieces of jewelry and instead, she kept on hiding whenever complainant went and visited her at home or in her office; and that up to the present, respondent has not yet paid or returned the aforesaid pieces of jewelry.cralawnad
In her counter-affidavit 1 respondent admitted having incurred the obligation for which reason, an estafa case was filed against her before the City Court of Manila. However, she claimed that she was not given the chance to defend herself, or to present any evidence to support her innocence; that the persons to whom she sold the jewelries on credit have failed to pay her, which is the reason why she is now shouldering the burden of paying for the jewelries; that she and complainant have agreed before the Court that she will pay the amount in installment; and that she has already paid complainant the amount of P1,630.00, leaving a balance of P3,270.00, contrary to the allegation that she wilfully refuses to pay her just debts.
The Court Administrator, now Associate Justice Lorenzo Relova, in his memorandum states thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Considering respondent’s admission of her failure to return the pieces of jewelry or their value despite complainant’s repeated demands, we respectfully submit that her liability is sufficiently established and no further investigation is necessary.
"Section 36 (b) (22) of Presidential Decree No. 807 provides as one of the grounds for disciplinary action.
"(22) Wilful failure to pay just debts . . .;
"x x x"
"Section 19(n), Rule XVIII, B, of the Civil Service Rules reiterates the foregoing provisions and defines the term "just debts" as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The term ‘just debts’ shall apply only to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) claims adjudicated by a court of law, or
(2) claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor."cralaw virtua1aw library
In Administrative Matter No. P-1808, entitled: Aurora Flores v. Rosario Tatad, Assistant Librarian, Court of Agrarian Relations, Quezon City, the First Division of this Court in its decision promulgated on March 31, 1980, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"With the respondent’s admission of the existence and justness of her indebtedness and her failure to pay the same, disciplinary administrative action is proper. Her submission that her failure to pay ‘is not deliberate but due to force of circumstances’ will not exclude her from the scope of the aforequoted provisions. Neither would the pendency of a civil case against respondent for collection of her debt bar this administrative suit, the thrust of which is directed at respondent’s actuations unbecoming of a public official.
"Under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 8, series 1970, the administrative offense of wilful failure to pay just debts is classified as a light offense calling for a fine or suspension from one (1) day to thirty (30) days. The Court Administrator has recommended suspension of fifteen (15) days without pay, which we find reasonable.
"WHEREFORE, respondent Rosario Tatad is hereby suspended from office for fifteen (15) days without pay for wilful failure to pay just debts, an act unbecoming of a public official."cralaw virtua1aw library
"In instant case, respondent also admitted having received the jewelries in question which she claimed sold on credit to persons who failed to pay her and for which reason "I am now shouldering the responsibility of paying for the amount of the jewelries these persons got and the complainant and I have agreed before said court that I will pay the amount in installment for said jewelries and which I am now doing."cralaw virtua1aw library
"In line with the decision of this Honorable Court in the aforesaid Administrative Matter No. P-1808, the undersigned respectfully recommends that respondent Gloria Gironella be suspended from office for fifteen (15) days without pay for wilful failure to pay just debts, an act unbecoming of a public official."cralaw virtua1aw library
We find the recommendation reasonable and fair under the attendant circumstances and hereby adopt the same.chanrobles law library : red
Accordingly, respondent Gloria Gironella is hereby SUSPENDED from office for fifteen (15) days, without pay for wilful failure to pay just debts.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
ABAD SANTOS J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I dissent. What is punished by statute is wilful failure to pay just debts. Accordingly, the debt must not only be a just one, there must also be a wilful failure to pay it. In the instant case while there is admittedly a just debt, the failure to pay it is not wilful. In fact, the respondent is now paying her debt albeit in installments in accordance with her agreement with the complainant. I vote for exoneration.
Concepcion, Jr., J., concurs.
In her counter-affidavit 1 respondent admitted having incurred the obligation for which reason, an estafa case was filed against her before the City Court of Manila. However, she claimed that she was not given the chance to defend herself, or to present any evidence to support her innocence; that the persons to whom she sold the jewelries on credit have failed to pay her, which is the reason why she is now shouldering the burden of paying for the jewelries; that she and complainant have agreed before the Court that she will pay the amount in installment; and that she has already paid complainant the amount of P1,630.00, leaving a balance of P3,270.00, contrary to the allegation that she wilfully refuses to pay her just debts.
The Court Administrator, now Associate Justice Lorenzo Relova, in his memorandum states thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Considering respondent’s admission of her failure to return the pieces of jewelry or their value despite complainant’s repeated demands, we respectfully submit that her liability is sufficiently established and no further investigation is necessary.
"Section 36 (b) (22) of Presidential Decree No. 807 provides as one of the grounds for disciplinary action.
"(22) Wilful failure to pay just debts . . .;
"x x x"
"Section 19(n), Rule XVIII, B, of the Civil Service Rules reiterates the foregoing provisions and defines the term "just debts" as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"The term ‘just debts’ shall apply only to:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) claims adjudicated by a court of law, or
(2) claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor."cralaw virtua1aw library
In Administrative Matter No. P-1808, entitled: Aurora Flores v. Rosario Tatad, Assistant Librarian, Court of Agrarian Relations, Quezon City, the First Division of this Court in its decision promulgated on March 31, 1980, said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"With the respondent’s admission of the existence and justness of her indebtedness and her failure to pay the same, disciplinary administrative action is proper. Her submission that her failure to pay ‘is not deliberate but due to force of circumstances’ will not exclude her from the scope of the aforequoted provisions. Neither would the pendency of a civil case against respondent for collection of her debt bar this administrative suit, the thrust of which is directed at respondent’s actuations unbecoming of a public official.
"Under Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 8, series 1970, the administrative offense of wilful failure to pay just debts is classified as a light offense calling for a fine or suspension from one (1) day to thirty (30) days. The Court Administrator has recommended suspension of fifteen (15) days without pay, which we find reasonable.
"WHEREFORE, respondent Rosario Tatad is hereby suspended from office for fifteen (15) days without pay for wilful failure to pay just debts, an act unbecoming of a public official."cralaw virtua1aw library
"In instant case, respondent also admitted having received the jewelries in question which she claimed sold on credit to persons who failed to pay her and for which reason "I am now shouldering the responsibility of paying for the amount of the jewelries these persons got and the complainant and I have agreed before said court that I will pay the amount in installment for said jewelries and which I am now doing."cralaw virtua1aw library
"In line with the decision of this Honorable Court in the aforesaid Administrative Matter No. P-1808, the undersigned respectfully recommends that respondent Gloria Gironella be suspended from office for fifteen (15) days without pay for wilful failure to pay just debts, an act unbecoming of a public official."cralaw virtua1aw library
We find the recommendation reasonable and fair under the attendant circumstances and hereby adopt the same.chanrobles law library : red
Accordingly, respondent Gloria Gironella is hereby SUSPENDED from office for fifteen (15) days, without pay for wilful failure to pay just debts.
SO ORDERED.
Barredo (Chairman), Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Escolin, JJ., concur.
Separate Opinions
ABAD SANTOS J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I dissent. What is punished by statute is wilful failure to pay just debts. Accordingly, the debt must not only be a just one, there must also be a wilful failure to pay it. In the instant case while there is admittedly a just debt, the failure to pay it is not wilful. In fact, the respondent is now paying her debt albeit in installments in accordance with her agreement with the complainant. I vote for exoneration.
Concepcion, Jr., J., concurs.
Endnotes:
1. p. 7, Rollo.
