AM P 08 2447; (April, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-08-2447. April 10, 2008.
Elvisa Rosales, complainant, vs. Dominador Monesit, Sr., Court Interpreter, Municipal Trial Court, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, respondent.
FACTS
The complaint arose from a private sale transaction. Respondent’s wife purchased a motorcycle sidecar from complainant Elvisa Rosales for P20,000.00 on an installment basis. After a down payment and subsequent installments totaling P9,200.00, the respondent’s wife stopped payments, leaving a balance of P10,800.00. Complainant and her live-in partner demanded full payment of the balance. The respondent, a court interpreter, intervened on his wife’s behalf and also ceased further payments, allegedly because the complainant’s partner imposed a penalty charge for the delay.
During the investigation by the Executive Judge, complainant submitted an Affidavit of Desistance, indicating an out-of-court settlement where respondent agreed to pay P25,000.00 to fully settle the obligation. The Executive Judge found that while the specific allegations of oppression and deceit were unproven, respondent had improperly intervened in the transaction and willfully stopped payment of the just debt.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Dominador Monesit, Sr. is administratively liable for his actions concerning the private transaction and his failure to pay a just debt.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that its disciplinary authority over judiciary personnel is not divested by a complainant’s desistance or a subsequent settlement of the private obligation. The core issue is whether the employee breached the norms and standards of the judiciary, not the private rights of the complainant.
The act of willfully failing to pay a just debt constitutes conduct unbecoming a court employee. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, this is a light offense. For this first infraction, the prescribed penalty is reprimand. The Court found the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation well-taken. Respondent was reprimanded for willful failure to pay a just debt. He was also sternly warned to be more circumspect and to avoid any acts, official or otherwise, that could create a public perception that he is exploiting his position in the judiciary.