G.R. No. OCA IPI No. 13-4069-P, April 12, 2023
JOCELYN B. SORENSEN, COMPLAINANT, VS. ORVILLE G. SANTOS, SHERIFF IV, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PAGADIAN CITY, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

In 1999, before entering the Judiciary, respondent Orville G. Santos and his wife obtained a loan from complainant Jocelyn B. Sorensen in the amount of PHP 810,000.00. The checks issued for repayment were dishonored. In 2005, Sorensen filed criminal cases for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Santos. Upon Santos’s promise to pay, the cases were provisionally dismissed, and he executed a promissory note to pay PHP 1,000.00 monthly starting January 31, 2006, until PHP 564,000.00 was fully paid. Santos failed to pay, prompting Sorensen to file this administrative complaint for “Willful Failure to Pay Just Debt.” Santos admitted the loan and claimed he had been making monthly payments to Sorensen’s sister, who managed the lending business, from January 2006 until August 2011, when the business ceased operations and the sister moved. He stated he failed to pay only when no one came to collect and that he was willing to pay, denying any willful refusal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Orville G. Santos is administratively liable for willful failure to pay a just debt.

RULING

No. The administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Court held that “willful failure to pay just debt” under the second category—where the existence and justness of the debt are admitted by the debtor—is no longer included as a light charge under the applicable disciplinary framework for judiciary personnel, A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC (amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court). This rule only penalizes willful failure to pay “judgment debts” (claims adjudicated by a court), not admitted debts. Since the alleged infraction is not punishable under the current rules, there is no basis for disciplinary action.
Furthermore, even assuming the offense was covered, the element of “willfulness” was not proven. The gravamen of the offense is the unwillingness or intentional refusal to pay. Here, Santos regularly paid from 2006 to 2011, and his failure to pay thereafter stemmed from the creditor’s cessation of operations and a subsequent demand for full payment contrary to the agreed installment terms. Sorensen did not present substantial evidence that Santos no longer intended to fulfill his obligation. Absent willfulness, the failure to pay does not impair the image of the Judiciary to warrant disciplinary sanctions.