A.M. No. P-01-1466. September 3, 2003. EDUARDO F. BAGO, complainant, vs. JOEL FERAREN, Sheriff III, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Eduardo F. Bago filed an administrative complaint against respondent Joel Feraren, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, for non-payment of a just debt. Bago alleged that Feraren borrowed P4,500.00 from him on October 3, 1997, as evidenced by a promissory note promising payment within ten days. As of the complaint’s filing on July 22, 1999, the debt remained unpaid. Bago contended this act violated Section 4(A)(c) of Republic Act No. 6713 , the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
In his Comment, respondent Feraren admitted the debt but disputed administrative liability under R.A. No. 6713 . He argued that the cited provision governs conduct in the discharge of official duties, and his personal loan transaction was unconnected to his official functions as a sheriff. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Feraren administratively liable based on his admission and recommended a reprimand under the Revised Administrative Code.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Joel Feraren is administratively liable for his failure to pay a personal debt.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable, but not under R.A. No. 6713 as initially cited. The Court agreed with Feraren that Section 4(A)(c) of R.A. No. 6713 pertains to standards of personal conduct in the discharge of official duties. Since the act of borrowing was not connected to his official functions, liability under that specific law was misplaced.
However, the Court upheld administrative liability under Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 6, Section 46(b)(22) of Executive Order No. 292, the Revised Administrative Code, which explicitly provides that willful failure to pay just debts is a ground for disciplinary action. Implementing rules define “just debts” to include claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor. Feraren’s clear admission of the debt’s existence and justness squarely places his obligation within this category.
His failure to pay for over two years without a valid excuse constitutes willful failure to pay a just debt, an act unbecoming of a court employee that tarnishes the judiciary’s integrity. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, this is a light offense punishable by reprimand for the first offense. The Court imposed this penalty but clarified it cannot act as a collection agency to grant civil indemnity. Respondent was sternly warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely.