Celeste v. Daque
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Celeste V. Almonte charged respondent Bernabe C. Daque, Sheriff IV, with willful failure to pay a just debt. Complainant alleged that respondent had an overdue loan which remained unpaid despite several demands and promises. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to comment on the complaint. Respondent failed to comply initially but later submitted a letter-comment explaining his delay was due to sending his children to college and expressing his sincerity to settle the obligation on an installment basis. The OCA found the complaint meritorious, noting a writ of execution from RTC, Oroquieta City, showing respondent was indebted to complainant in the amount of P169,700.00 plus interest and fees, with only P20,000.00 paid. The OCA recommended that respondent be reprimanded and warned. The Petition: The Supreme Court required the parties to manifest their willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings. Complainant complied affirmatively, but respondent failed to do so. The Court dispensed with the filing of the manifestation.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Bernabe C. Daque is administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts. Whether the penalty of reprimand is appropriate for the offense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court held respondent Bernabe C. Daque administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts. He was reprimanded and ordered to pay the balance of his indebtedness within three (3) months from finality of the Resolution, with a warning that repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Bernabe C. Daque is administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts: The Court affirmed the OCA's finding that respondent is administratively liable. Section 46, Chapter 6 of Book V, Title I, Subtitle A of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. No. 292) explicitly states that willful failure to pay just debts is a ground for disciplinary action. The Court clarified that "just debts" include claims adjudicated by a court of law or claims admitted by the debtor. In this case, the complainant's claims were adjudicated by the RTC, and their existence and justness were admitted by the respondent. Therefore, his failure to pay constituted conduct unbecoming of a public employee. On whether the penalty of reprimand is appropriate for the offense: The Court found that a penalty of reprimand is in order. Section 22(1), Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, as amended by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, classifies willful failure to pay just debts as a light offense. For a first infraction, the penalty prescribed is reprimand. Since this was respondent's first offense of this nature, the penalty of reprimand was deemed appropriate. The Court also directed respondent to pay the outstanding balance of his indebtedness within a reasonable time, emphasizing that failure to comply would constitute a second offense.
Main Doctrine
Willful failure to pay just debts is classified as a light offense under the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, punishable by reprimand for the first infraction. Such failure constitutes conduct unbecoming a public employee and is a ground for disciplinary action.