A.M. No. P-01-1460; February 28, 2002
ESPERANZA L. DE GUZMAN, complainant, vs. NORMA M. BURCE, Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Esperanza L. de Guzman, wife of a retired judge and manager of Sal-Ad Credit Enterprises, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Norma M. Burce, a Clerk of Court. The charges included dishonesty for failure to pay a just debt, conduct unbecoming a court employee, and falsification of a provisional receipt. Complainant alleged that respondent obtained several cash advances totaling ₱32,500, excluding interest, but refused full payment, insisting her balance was only ₱13,000 which she had settled. Complainant presented a demand letter and a copy of Provisional Receipt No. 0179 without the “Bal.-13,000.00” entry.
Respondent admitted borrowing but contested the amounts and terms. She claimed she received only ₱22,500, as ₱2,500 was deducted as advance interest, and that her loans were via checks, not cash. She asserted she made partial payments, including one with an amelioration check, and that the “Bal.-13,000.00” notation on the receipt was legitimately entered by complainant’s own employee, Flordeliza Ochoco. Respondent also noted that a criminal case for falsification she filed against her had been dismissed by the City Prosecutor and the Department of Justice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for dishonesty, conduct unbecoming a court employee, and falsification based on her failure to pay a debt and the alleged alteration of a receipt.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit. On the charge of failure to pay a just debt, the Court ruled it cannot act as a collection agency. There was a fundamental disagreement on the actual principal amount owed, the payments made, and the imposition of interest, which were matters more appropriate for civil litigation. Given the dispute, respondent’s refusal to pay could not be deemed willful or dishonest.
Regarding the falsification charge, the Court found it unsubstantiated. The evidence showed that the entries in the disputed provisional receipt, including the balance notation, were made by complainant’s former employee, Flordeliza Ochoco. This was corroborated by the resolutions from the City Prosecution Office and the Department of Justice, which dismissed the criminal complaint for falsification against respondent precisely because Ochoco confirmed she made all the entries. Thus, no administrative liability for falsification or dishonesty attached to respondent.