A.M. No. P-02-1603; July 23, 2002
Gepte M. Perez, complainant, vs. Maria Isabel D. Hilario, Social Worker II, Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 113, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gepte M. Perez, a Court Stenographer III, alleged that respondent Maria Isabel D. Hilario, a Court Social Worker, borrowed P3,000 from him in November 1998. Despite promises to repay, Hilario failed to settle the debt. On April 5, 2001, she executed a promissory note to pay within six months. She paid only P500 in July 2001 and defaulted on the balance despite demands. Perez filed a sworn administrative complaint on October 12, 2001.
On December 14, 2001, after the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required her comment, Hilario fully paid her debt, prompting Perez to withdraw his complaint. Hilario then requested the case’s dismissal, citing the settlement. The OCA noted the payment was delayed by just over a month and recommended case closure, but highlighted this was Hilario’s second similar offense, having been previously reprimanded in A.M. No. P-00-1433 for willful failure to pay a just debt.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Maria Isabel D. Hilario is administratively liable for willful failure to pay a just debt, notwithstanding the full payment and withdrawal of the complaint.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found the provision of the Revised Administrative Code (Book V, Section 46) and the Omnibus Rules of the Civil Service (Rule XIV, Section 22) applicable. Willful failure to pay a just debt is a ground for disciplinary action, defined as a claim whose existence and justness are admitted by the debtor. Hilario never denied the debt’s existence or justness in her comment, admitting only to subsequent settlement.
The withdrawal of the complaint does not negate administrative culpability. Administrative proceedings are not dependent on a complainant’s whims, as the complainant acts merely as a witness; the purpose is to uphold public service standards, not merely to settle private obligations. Thus, payment and withdrawal do not absolve the respondent.
Considering this as Hilario’s second offense for the same misconduct, the prescribed penalty under Civil Service rules is suspension for one to thirty days. The Court tempered the penalty due to prevailing economic conditions and her eventual payment, imposing a five-day suspension. She was sternly warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely.