G.R. No. P-04-1871. August 9, 2005
Jose P. Marata, Complainant, vs. Jocelyn C. Fernandez, Court Stenographic Reporter I, Municipal Trial Court, Caba, La Union, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jose P. Marata alleged that he and respondent Jocelyn C. Fernandez, a court stenographic reporter, executed a compromise agreement in a civil case wherein respondent acknowledged a debt of ₱95,000.00. The agreement, approved by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), required monthly and daily payments, with a clause making the entire balance due upon default for two consecutive months. After respondent defaulted, the MCTC issued a writ of execution. The sheriff reported that respondent concealed her personal belongings to prevent levy and allegedly boasted to others that, as a court employee, she was “untouchable” and preferred to spend money on mahjong than pay her debt.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to file her comment on the complaint. Despite receiving the order and a subsequent tracer, and despite a Supreme Court Resolution ordering her to comment and show cause why she should not be cited for contempt, respondent failed to file any explanation. She was thus deemed to have waived her right to submit a comment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Jocelyn C. Fernandez is administratively liable for her conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for willful failure to pay a just debt and for gross insubordination. A “just debt” under civil service rules includes claims adjudicated by a court or claims admitted by the debtor. Respondent’s debt, acknowledged in a court-approved compromise agreement, qualifies as such. Her failure to pay, coupled with her actions to evade execution and her derogatory statements, constitutes a willful failure to settle a just obligation. This is a light offense, and as a first infraction, it merits a reprimand.
Concurrently, respondent’s repeated refusal to comply with the directives of the OCA and the Supreme Court to file her comment constitutes gross insubordination, a grave offense warranting a fine of ₱5,000.00. The Court, however, clarified it is not a collection agency and thus cannot order salary deductions for the debt. Nevertheless, within its administrative disciplinary power, it ordered respondent to pay the outstanding balance of ₱86,170.00 (after deducting a partial payment) to complainant within six months. Violation of this order may constitute a second offense of willful failure to pay a just debt and other serious charges.