A.M. No. R-586-P November 27, 1986
Constancia Fabrigaras, complainant, vs. Nora B. Nemeño, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Constancia Fabrigaras, a retired school teacher, filed an administrative complaint for “conduct unbecoming of a government employee” against respondent Nora B. Nemeño, a Court Interpreter at the Regional Trial Court in Manila. Fabrigaras alleged that on October 28, 1985, Nemeño obtained from her several pieces of 24-karat jewelry valued at P6,500.00. The respondent executed a promissory note agreeing to pay a downpayment the following day and the balance in installments, with full payment due by December 30, 1985.
Despite repeated demands, Nemeño failed to pay any portion of the debt or return the jewelry. This forced Fabrigaras to pay her own supplier, causing her financial damage and inconvenience due to her almost daily, futile visits to Nemeño’s office to seek payment. In her Comment, Nemeño admitted receiving the jewelry and failing to pay but argued that the dismissal of a related estafa complaint by the Fiscal’s Office precluded administrative liability, limiting the matter to a civil case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Nora B. Nemeño is administratively liable for her failure to pay her debt to complainant Constancia Fabrigaras.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent Nora B. Nemeño guilty of misconduct and willful failure to pay a just debt, both grounds for disciplinary action under Section 36(b) of Presidential Decree No. 807 (The Civil Service Decree). The investigating judge correctly noted that Nemeño, as a court employee holding a public trust, has an obligation to settle her just debts. Her admission of the debt’s existence and her failure to pay established the “justness” of the claim as defined by Civil Service rules.
The Court rejected Nemeño’s defense that the dismissal of the estafa case barred administrative proceedings. Administrative liability is separate from criminal liability and depends on the employee’s breach of the standards of conduct demanded from public servants. By willfully failing to honor her contractual obligation, Nemeño engaged in conduct unbecoming a public official, which tarnishes the judiciary’s integrity. Court personnel must act fairly and adhere to high ethical standards, including fulfilling just financial commitments.
Considering the economic situation and her admitted inability to pay, the Court modified the investigating judge’s recommendation. Respondent Nemeño was suspended for fifteen (15) days without pay and sternly admonished to pay the debt or return the jewelry within fifteen days from notice. Failure to comply would result in a more severe penalty. A copy of the resolution was ordered attached to her personal file.