![]() ![]() 22 violation when it recommended that she be merely suspended. It appears that the OCA failed to take into account respondent's having been adjudged guilty of several counts of B.P. The Court finds the OCA's recommendation not in accord with law and jurisprudence. Hence, the Court considers her to have waived her right to file the required manifestation and to have submitted the case for decision. To date, nothing has been heard from complainant. The copy of the Court's Resolution addressed to complainant was received on 12 September 2005 by one whose signature appeared on the space provided for the addressee's agent.īy her Manifestation 10 dated 30 August 2005, respondent informed the Court of her willingness to submit the case for resolution. In a Resolution 9 dated 6 July 2005, the Court directed the parties to manifest their willingness to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed. ![]() 22 as a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude. 8 The OCA however did not consider respondent's conviction for B.P. Accordingly, the OCA recommended that respondent be suspended for thirty (30) days for her willful failure to pay her just debts. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the Complaint-Affidavit and found it meritorious. 22 cannot be characterized as misconduct so gross in character as to render her morally unfit to hold her position since the same was not committed in her professional capacity. In addition, she asserted that her conviction for violation of B.P. Her monthly income as court personnel allegedly was not sufficient to cover the daily expenses of her family composed of her husband, four children, and an ailing mother who were all dependent on her. Purportedly, she was hard-pressed to make both ends meet. She pointed out that her take-home pay was P1,500.00 every pay day as her salary was saddled with deductions for loans that she had obtained to support her family. In her Comment 5 dated 26 October 2004, respondent asserted that her failure to pay her civil obligation was not prompted by bad faith or willful intention to evade a responsibility. 3Ĭomplainant thus prayed that respondent be dismissed from service and that all of her retirement, termination, and unused leave benefits in the amount sufficient to repay her debts plus interest be released to complainant. Notwithstanding, this respondent failed to comply. Consequently, the sheriff had made an arrangement with respondent for the latter to pay the amount of P500.00 monthly. 2Ĭomplainant further alleged that the writ of execution issued by the trial court could not be enforced as the sheriff could not levy upon any cash or property of respondent. ![]() In addition, respondent did not pay the fine and even opposed the release of the cash bond into complainant's custody as partial satisfaction of the adjudged civil liability. Despite the finality of the decision, according to complainant she had not been able to collect any amount from respondent, except the cash bail bond in the amount of P10,000.00. ![]() It appeared that in 1997, respondent had issued the following Banco Filipino checks payable to the order of complainant, all of which were dishonored for lack of sufficient funds or credits: Check No.Ī fine had also been imposed on respondent without any provision for subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 22 violation and adjudged civilly liable for the fifteen (15) checks subject of the charges. In a Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated 31 August 2004, complainant Virginia Hanrieder alleged that in a decision dated 27 November 2002 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City, Branch 40 in the criminal cases, respondent had been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of fourteen (14) counts of B.P. 22), entitled "People of the Philippines v. 043676 to 043690 for fifteen (15) counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. de Rivera, Interpreter of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 100, for Serious Misconduct, Willful Refusal to Pay Just Debt, and Conviction for an Offense Involving Moral Turpitude, relative to Criminal Cases Nos. This is an administrative complaint against Celia A. DE RIVERA, Court Interpreter, Regional Trial Court, Branch 100, Quezon City. Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2007 > August 2007 Decisions >Ī.M. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |