Dubious circumstances

Court employees are not prohibited from obtaining credit accommodation or incurring debts. But they have to see to it that they pay their indebtedness. Otherwise they may be administratively sanctioned, like what happened to JV, a court process server of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a city in Mindanao.

In the course of the construction of his house, JV went to the hardware store of Ferdie located in the city to purchase cement, plywood and GI sheets. He introduced himself and showed to Ferdie some documents as proof that he is a court process server of the RTC. Then he explained to Ferdie that he was short of funds for the construction of his house but he had a pending GSIS loan application. So he requested Ferdie to deliver the construction materials worth P4,510 with a promise that he would pay them with 20 percent interest as soon as he received the proceeds of the GSIS loan. Relying on JV’s words and his being a court employee, Ferdie agreed and delivered said materials on February 3, 2001.

Three months later, Ferdie demanded payment from JV, but the latter said that his loan has not yet been released. He promised though that he will pay his obligation with interest. That promise went on and on for seven years but JV had not paid a single centavo. When Ferdie sent another demand letter on June 15, 2007, JV once more promised that he will pay within 15 days, but he never did. So Ferdie filed a complaint for Estafa against JV before the Ombudsman. The latter however referred the said complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for administrative disciplinary action.

In reply, JV denied evading his obligation to pay Ferdie. He said that he had to attend first to the needs of his wife who suffered a massive stroke and died a month later. He likewise manifested that he tried to make partial payment to Ferdie but the latter refused it. He thus asked the Court to give him more time to settle the obligation.

But after investigation the OCA found JV guilty of willful failure to pay a just debt and conduct unbecoming a court employee and recommended that he be fined P5,000. Was the OC correct?

Yes. While it may be just for an individual to incur indebtedness unrestrained the fact that he is a public officer or employee, caution should be taken to prevent the occurrence of dubious circumstances that might inevitably impair the image of the public office. Thus the conduct of each court personnel must at all times be characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety and decorum.

JV’s allegation of financial difficulties is not a sufficient excuse for failing to pay his debt to Ferdie. His claim that he had no intention of evading his obligation is negated by the fact that it took him more than seven years before he attempted to pay it. His pronouncement that he is a court employee induced Ferdie to trust him and extend credit to him. Thus his non-payment of the obligation for more than 7 years not only tainted his name but the court’s image as well. His unethical conduct has diminished the honor and integrity of his office and stained the image of the judiciary. His settlement of his obligation during the pendency of the complaint will not exculpate him from administrative liability for conduct unbecoming a court employee. So he should be fined P5,000 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely (Chan vs,Olegario, A.M. P-09-2714, December 6, 2010).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]