SPS. CANOS v. ATTY. ESCOBIDO

SPOUSES RODEL and ELEANOR CANOS, Complainants, - versus  - ATTY.  LOUISE MARIE THERESE B. ESCOBIDO, Clerk of Court V, Branch 19, Regional Trial Court, Digos City, Respondent.

A.M. No. P-15-3315

February 6, 2017

FACTS:

When Escobido learned that Sps. Cafios are selling jewelry and imported goods, she offered to get some items to resell as she used to be in the same business. Since Sps. Cafios trusted Escobido as clerk of court and as a lawyer, they agreed to her proposal. Sometime between January and November 2010, Escobido purchased from Sps. Cafios, on credit, various jewelry and imported goods amounting to P 4,777,945.00. The purchases were covered by Trust Receipt Agreements. As payment, Escobido issued postdated checks, some of which were made good during the first ten months. However, the rest of the checks amounting to P3,827,299.30 were returned or refused payment by the drawee banks for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED." Aside from Escobido's purchases on credit, she also borrowed money from Sps. Cafios. As payment, she issued postdated checks in the total amount of Pl 64,866.10 which were likewise dishonored for the same reason.

On February 15, 2012, Escobido executed an Undertaking and acknowledged only P2,545,339.25 as the amount she owed to Sps. Cafios. Despite the demands by Sps. Cafios, she refused to pay her obligations amounting to P3,604,065.40 Finally, Sps. Cafios alleged that Escobido also used her position and profession to intimidate and coerce them from filing cases against her.

In her defense, Escobido claimed belied Sps. Cafios' allegations. She claimed she had known Rodel since 1993 when she was still studying law and became her boyfriend. In 2009, they met again as he frequented her office to follow up cases which paved the way for business opportunities. Escobido said was Rodel who persuaded her to help them sell their goods on a consignment basis. The business was doing well for months until Sps. Cafios introduced the jewelry business to Escobido where they proposed that they will give Escobido a "dealer's price," provided that anything she gets from them will be considered sold unless defective. At first, she was able to pay her debts until most of her customers started to miss their payments. Escobido told Rodel about her problem and he merely advised her to be careful next time and gave her an extended period within which to pay. Thus, despite her outstanding balance, Sps. Cafios continued to sell her jewelry. She decided to stop due to her increasing bad debts. She told them that she would just return whatever jewelry she could get back from her customers who had been remiss in their payments. Sps. Cafios refused because the jewelry was already considered sold and they feared that their quality might have already deteriorated. She tried to pay her debts, even borrowing from loan sharks until she could no longer pay.

ISSUE:

Escobido should be held administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

HELD:

The Court agrees with the OCA that Escobido should be held administratively liable for willful failure to pay just debts and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Executive Order No. (EO) 292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, provides that a public employee's failure to pay just debts is a ground for disciplinary action. Section 22, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292, as modified by Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), defines "just debts" as those: (a) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or (b) claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor.

The court agrees with the OCA that Escobido' s repeated acts of contracting loans and paying them with worthless checks reflect bad faith on her part. It must be noted that Escobido, as clerk of court, is not a mere public employee. She is both an employee of the Court and a member of the Bar. Thus, she is expected to meet a high standard of uprightness and propriety. By deliberately failing to meet her contractual obligations, she fell short of such standard. The court likewise agree that Escobido holds a position of trust : and confidence with concomitant duties and responsibilities that require from its holder competence, honesty, and integrity so essential for the proper and effective administration of justice. Her actuation, although arising from a private transaction, tarnished the image of the Judiciary.