AM P 05 2066; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-05-2066. September 12, 2005
Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation, represented by Alexander S. Oreta, Complainant, vs. Dominador B. Caubalejo, Court Stenographer II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tacloban City, Branch 1, Respondent.
FACTS
The complainant, Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corporation (Quedancor), through Alexander S. Oreta, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Dominador B. Caubalejo, a Court Stenographer II, for conduct unbecoming of a court employee. The charge stemmed from the respondent’s failure to pay a ₱10,000.00 loan obtained from Quedancor, payable in monthly installments, despite repeated demands.
In his defense, the respondent admitted the loan but claimed he believed his remaining balance was only ₱8,313.18 due to assurances from a previous manager. He expressed intent to pay and requested restructuring, arguing the administrative case should not prosper as the transaction was purely private, incurred before his entry into the judiciary, and unrelated to his official functions.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent’s willful failure to pay a just debt constitutes conduct unbecoming of a court employee warranting administrative discipline.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and found the respondent administratively liable. The Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the private nature of the transaction insulated him from discipline. It emphasized that judiciary employees must be paragons of integrity not only in official duties but also in personal dealings to preserve the court’s honor and public confidence. The act of willfully failing to pay a just debt, as classified under Civil Service Resolution No. 99-1936, is a light offense that tarnishes the judiciary’s image. The gravamen of the offense is the unwillingness to honor a just obligation, which the respondent admitted by acknowledging the loan’s existence and his failure to pay. The penalty is imposed not on the private act itself but on the conduct unbecoming of a public official. Accordingly, the Court reprimanded the respondent and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.