ADM. MATTER NO. P-03-1669, October 5, 2005
JONOLITO S. ORASA, Complainant, vs. MANUEL S. SEVA, Clerk of Court II, MCTC Polangui, Albay, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jonolito S. Orasa alleged that respondent Manuel S. Seva, Clerk of Court II, and his wife obtained a loan from him. Despite a compromise agreement judicially approved on October 25, 2001, which stipulated that a writ of execution would issue upon default of two installments, respondent failed to pay. Consequently, complainant’s counsel filed a motion for a writ of execution. On the scheduled hearing, they discovered the motion was not calendared. Respondent claimed the motion lacked the counsel’s signature, but complainant’s lawyer pointed out the signature on the second page. The motion was eventually heard and granted, but respondent, in his capacity as Clerk of Court, still failed to prepare the writ, prompting this administrative complaint for nonpayment of a just debt and gross misconduct.
In his comment, respondent admitted the debt but explained financial difficulties due to his children’s education. He asserted he never refused payment, had made partial payments, and ultimately settled the obligation in full by June 2002. Regarding the writ, he maintained the motion initially lacked a signature, which was why it was not calendared, and denied any intention to defraud or take advantage of his position.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for willful failure to pay a just debt and for misconduct in relation to his failure to calendar the motion and issue the writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for willful failure to pay a just debt. The Court emphasized that court personnel, as public servants, must exemplify integrity and probity not only in official duties but also in personal conduct to preserve public trust in the judiciary. Respondent’s failure to pay his loan on time, necessitating a court suit and a compromise agreement, constituted a willful failure to settle a just obligation. His financial difficulties, while understandable, do not absolve him from this administrative infraction, as his actions fell short of the high ethical standards required.
However, the charge of gross misconduct for allegedly failing to calendar the motion and issue the writ was not substantiated. The evidence showed the motion was eventually heard and granted. The Court found no conclusive proof that respondent’s initial failure to calendar it was a deliberate act to obstruct justice. Considering it was respondent’s first offense in 38 years of service, the penalty was mitigated. Respondent was found guilty of willful failure to pay a just debt and was REPRIMANDED with a stern warning.