AM 208; (January, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-208. January 27, 1981. ISABELO GARCIANO, complainant, vs. WILFREDO OYAO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Isabelo Garciano alleged that in February 1968, respondent Wilfredo Oyao, a court employee, borrowed P568.00 from him. The respondent executed a promissory note and a special power of attorney authorizing the complainant to collect his first quincena salary until the debt was paid. However, the respondent consistently collected his salary ahead of the complainant, preventing any collection. Despite partial payments reducing the principal balance to P300.00 by July 1973, and despite executing subsequent promissory notes in July and August 1973 promising full payment, the respondent failed to settle the obligation.
The respondent admitted the indebtedness but pleaded financial hardship, offering to pay P50.00 monthly from his salary, which he claimed was P273.00. He stated he was the sole breadwinner for a large family and could not pay in a lump sum. He expressed willingness to pay via installments.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent’s willful failure to pay a just debt over an extended period constitutes conduct unbecoming a court employee and warrants disciplinary action.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found the respondent administratively liable. His explanation was unsatisfactory. The debt remained unpaid for over twelve years despite his promises and the execution of multiple promissory notes. His claim of financial hardship was belied by his personnel file, which showed he had only one daughter and his salary had increased to P435.16 monthly by 1975. His financial instability was partly due to his own habitual absenteeism.
The Court ruled that a public officer’s willful failure to pay a just debt for such a prolonged period is conduct unbecoming of a public official. It violates the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, requiring the highest degree of responsibility and integrity. As a docket clerk and later clerk of court, the respondent occupied a sensitive position in the administration of justice. His conduct could erode public confidence in the judiciary, as it creates a risk that his personal financial dealings might improperly influence or be perceived as influencing his official duties. While not necessarily constituting graft under existing statutes, such impropriety may lead to prohibited acts.
The respondent was admonished to pay his debts when due. He was directed to pay the complainant P50.00 monthly until the P300.00 principal and accrued interest were fully settled.