A.M. No. P-242 May 28, 1975
PEDRO PINEDA, petitioner, vs. MARIO A. HIZALAN, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pedro Pineda filed an administrative complaint against respondent Mario A. Hizalan, a deputy sheriff of Manila, on May 26, 1972. The charges stemmed from Hizalan’s failure to pay monthly rentals of P130.00 from January to April 1972 for a room in Pineda’s apartment in Makati. This failure led Pineda to file an ejectment case. The Secretary of Justice, in a decision dated February 6, 1973, found Hizalan guilty of two charges: willful failure to pay a just debt and conduct unbecoming a public officer. The latter charge was based on Hizalan’s departure from the rented premises without notifying Pineda, allegedly to avoid service of a writ of execution for the judgment debt of nearly P660.00. The Secretary ordered Hizalan to be considered resigned from office effective immediately.
Hizalan filed a motion for reconsideration, which was referred to the Supreme Court following the 1973 Constitution’s grant of administrative supervision over court personnel. In his motion, Hizalan admitted the debt but explained his non-payment was due to severe financial difficulties caused by successive illnesses of his three children, which necessitated urgent medical expenses. He claimed he prioritized his children’s medical needs over the rental debt. Regarding his departure, he asserted he left not surreptitiously but in the presence of Pineda’s daughter, intending to avoid further accruing debt.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty of forced resignation imposed on respondent deputy sheriff for failure to pay a just debt and alleged unbecoming conduct is appropriate under the circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the motion for reconsideration and modified the penalty. The Court found Hizalan’s explanations credible and mitigating. His failure to pay was not willful but arose from a dire family financial crisis where he chose to allocate resources to his children’s medical care. His act of vacating the premises, while ill-advised, was done openly and with the intent to prevent his debt from increasing further, not to maliciously evade legal process. Notably, the parties had reached an amicable settlement in February 1973, with Hizalan making a partial payment.
Applying Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 8, series of 1970, the Court classified the offense of willful failure to pay a just debt as a light offense, for which the maximum penalty is suspension for thirty days without pay. The more severe charge of conduct unbecoming was deemed unsubstantiated under the explained circumstances. The Court held that the original penalty of forced resignation, which had kept Hizalan out of service for over two years, was grossly disproportionate. Consequently, the Court reconsidered the Secretary’s decision. The penalty was reduced to a thirty-day suspension without pay, with a warning. The remainder of the over two-year separation period was deemed an excused absence without pay. Hizalan was ordered reinstated to his position as deputy sheriff, without back pay, contingent upon his passing a required medical examination and presenting a medical clearance.