A.M. No. P-14-3241. February 4, 2015.
MARY-ANN S. TORDILLA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NAGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH 27, Complainant, vs. LORNA H. AMILANO, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NAGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH 61, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mary-Ann S. Tordilla and respondent Lorna H. Amilano are both Court Stenographers III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City. In April 2005, eleven RTC stenographers, including complainant and respondent, planned to attend a national convention and seminar in Iloilo City. They solicited funds from the City Government of Naga to cover expenses. Complainant alleged that she was later excluded from the list of attendees, but the cash advance intended for her was still received by respondent. On February 1, 2007, complainant received a demand letter from the City Auditor to pay an unliquidated cash advance of ₱5,914.00. Upon checking the Disbursement Voucher, complainant saw respondent’s signature forged under her own. When confronted, respondent admitted receiving the cash advance on complainant’s behalf and executed an Affidavit dated March 5, 2008, promising to reimburse the amount by June 15, 2008, but failed to do so. Complainant received another demand letter on July 8, 2009. Despite reminders, respondent only made promises to pay, prompting the filing of the administrative complaint for dishonesty and willful failure to pay just debts. In her defense, respondent claimed complainant backed out of the seminar, that she was authorized as the liaison officer to receive all cash advances, that complainant had been cleared by the City Government per a July 28, 2011 Certification, and that she had already settled the account. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended finding respondent guilty of simple misconduct and imposing a ₱1,000.00 fine.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court concurred with the OCA’s finding of liability but disagreed with the classification of the offense and the recommended penalty. The Court held that respondent is guilty of willful failure to pay just debts, a light offense under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. “Just debts” include not only claims adjudicated by a court but also claims whose existence and justness are admitted by the debtor. Respondent admitted the debt by executing an affidavit promising payment and by eventually settling the account. Her failure to pay the debt for six years constituted willful refusal. The penalty is imposed not on her private life but on her actuation unbecoming of a public official, which damages the judiciary’s integrity. As a first offense, the prescribed penalty is reprimand. Accordingly, respondent was found GUILTY of willful failure to pay just debts and was REPRIMANDED, with a stern warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely.