AM P 02 1587; (June, 2002) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-02-1587. June 5, 2002. NAAWAN COMMUNITY RURAL BANK, represented by ATTY. IDE L. ROA, complainant, vs. MERCED R. MARTINEZ, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cagayan de Oro City, respondent.
FACTS:
Naawan Community Rural Bank filed a complaint against Merced R. Martinez, a court stenographer, for willful failure to pay a just debt. Respondent, as a co-maker on a promissory note, bound herself jointly and severally to pay a loan of P5,000.00. Upon default, the bank obtained a judgment against her and her co-makers in 1990. Despite this final judgment, respondent failed to settle the debt, which had ballooned to over P15,000.00 by 1999.
The Supreme Court required respondent to comment on the administrative complaint. Despite receiving the orders and a subsequent warning, she failed to file any comment for nearly three years, leading the Court to consider her as having waived the right to do so.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Merced R. Martinez is administratively liable for willful failure to pay a just debt and for disobedience to lawful orders of the Supreme Court.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found the charge of willful failure to pay a just debt substantiated. Under the Revised Administrative Code and its Implementing Rules, a “just debt” includes claims adjudicated by a court. Respondent’s obligation, confirmed by a final judgment, squarely falls under this definition. Her willful refusal to pay was further inferred from her silence and failure to contest the allegations in the administrative case despite repeated opportunities. The legal maxim “qui tacet consentire videtur” (silence gives consent) applies, as her inaction constituted an implied admission of the truth of the charges.
Such conduct is unbecoming of a court employee, who must act with integrity and comply with just obligations to uphold the judiciary’s dignity. Under the rules, willful failure to pay a just debt is a light offense punishable by reprimand for a first offense, which was imposed. Additionally, her nearly three-year failure to obey the Court’s directives to comment constituted a separate transgression, demonstrating disregard for the duty to obey Supreme Court orders promptly. She was thus reprimanded and admonished to be more diligent in following Court directives.