A.M. No. R-70-P October 8, 1985
Alfredo de Chavez, complainant, vs. Jesus R. Lescano, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alfredo de Chavez sought assistance to compel respondent Jesus R. Lescano, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Lipa City, to redeem a real property. De Chavez alleged that Lescano, with another individual, borrowed his Torrens title and mortgaged it with the Philippine National Bank (PNB), Lipa City Branch, as collateral for a loan. Respondent admitted the transaction, claiming it was with de Chavez’s consent, evidenced by a Special Power of Attorney executed in favor of his co-borrower. Respondent also acknowledged an affidavit from 1974 recognizing the debt and his loan’s delinquency due to financial difficulties, while requesting the bank for an extension.
The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Demetrio M. Batario, Jr., who recommended outright dismissal, noting complainant’s apparent satisfaction after respondent executed a March 1984 affidavit promising to pay P1,000 monthly from his salary. Complainant did not appear at the scheduled hearing thereafter.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Jesus R. Lescano is administratively liable for his conduct in relation to the mortgage transaction and his failure to settle the loan obligation.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court disagreed with the investigating judge’s recommendation for dismissal. While complainant may have been temporarily appeased by the 1984 affidavit, the Court emphasized its duty to exercise vigilance for the protection of a complainant who is at a disadvantage, possibly due to ignorance or lack of education, invoking Article 24 of the Civil Code.
The legal logic centers on respondent’s willful failure to pay a just debt, a ground for disciplinary action under Section 36(b)(22) of Presidential Decree No. 807 (The Civil Service Decree). A just debt includes claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor, as defined by Civil Service rules. Respondent admitted the debt in his 1974 and 1984 affidavits. Despite this, he made no substantial payments over a decade, allowing the obligation to approximately double from P10,000 to P20,000 and exposing complainant to the risk of foreclosure and inability to use his property. His excuse of financial difficulties does not exculpate him, as his conduct demonstrated a lack of diligence in fulfilling a contractual obligation.
The Court found that respondent, a court personnel, took advantage of his friendship with complainant and engaged in conduct that tarnished the judiciary’s image. Following precedents, the Court imposed a fifteen-day suspension without pay for this light offense, as classified under relevant Civil Service circulars. Respondent was also ordered to adhere to his payment commitment, report the debt balance, submit proof of payments, and was sternly warned that failure to pay regularly would result in more severe disciplinary action.