Conduct unbecoming

This case should serve as a reminder and warning to government employees regarding their administrative liability in case of failure or refusal to pay their just debts. The question here is whether a withdrawal of the administrative complaint filed against them due to settlement of said debt automatically frees them from administrative liability. This is the case of Gene, an employee in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court in Ilocos.

Gene obtained a loan of P20,000 from a bank (LBC) for which he signed a Promissory Note undertaking to pay the amount borrowed in 24 installments payable on the 15th and 30th of the month. After paying about 20 installments, Gene defaulted on the installments. Despite written and oral demands to pay his obligation, Gene still failed. Finally, after several years of waiting and demanding to no avail LBC already filed an administrative complaint against Gene.

When required by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to comment on the complaint, Gene also failed to comply but instead just settled his obligation. Hence, LBC already filed with the OCA a Motion seeking the dismissal of its administrative complaint on the ground that Gene has already settled his obligation. Gene followed this up with his own letter to the OCA for the dismissal of the complaint against him.

But the OCA refused to dismiss the complaint on the ground that "proceedings against a civil service employee for misconduct, malfeasance, or misfeasance cannot just be withdrawn anytime by the complainant nor should they depend on complainant’s whims and caprices. The OCA said that the complainant is in a sense only a witness and the purpose of his complaint is not only to collect from Gene but also to seek administrative disciplinary action against him. The OCA pointed out that the penalty for such disciplinary action is not directed against Gene’s private life but at his actuation unbecoming a public employee.

Gene thus had to file his explanation. He said that his failure to fulfill his obligation was not willful as the only reason was that he disagreed with LBC’s computation of the interest and penalties imposed on top of the principal amount of the loan although he did not present any document to show he questioned said erroneous computation. However, in almost the same breadth he candidly stated that even had he wanted to pay his monetary obligation, he had no financial capacity to do so. Therefore, Gene reiterated his plea for the dismissal of the complaint since any way he had already settled his obligation. Should OCA dismiss the complaint?

No. In administrative cases, the object is not retribution for the complainant but rather the preservation of the integrity and competence of the Judiciary in policing its ranks and enforcing discipline among its erring employees. Hence, LBC’s withdrawal of the complaint will not prevent the investigation and subsequent imposition of penalty if the employee is found to have erred.

Under EO 292 and its implementing Rules a public employee’s willful failure to pay just debts is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first infraction. "Just debts refer to claims adjudicated by a court of law or claims admitted by the debtor as existing and just. In this case, Gene does not dispute the existence and justness of his obligation. Hence, it is a just debt under the second category. His explanation that his failure is not willful merely reflects an afterthought and deserves scant consideration. He failed to present any evidence that he indeed disputed the computation. Worse, it took him several years before he actually settled his obligation. Gene is therefore guilty of willful failure to pay just debts. However since this is his first offense, only the penalty of reprimand applies to him.

Court employees should be living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in his personal and private dealings with others so as to preserve at all times the good name and standing of the courts in the community (LBC Bank etc. vs. Guzman et.al. A.M. P-06-2270, December 6, 2006).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]