Facts:

The case involves Eduardo F. Bago as the complainant and Joel E. Feraren, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 67), as the respondent. The complaint was filed on July 22, 1999, alleging non-payment of a debt. On October 3, 1997, Feraren borrowed P4,500.00 from Bago, which was documented through a promissory note. The note stipulated that Feraren would repay the amount within ten days from the date of borrowing. However, by the time Bago filed the complaint, Feraren had not settled the debt. Bago contended that Feraren's failure to pay constituted a violation of Section 4 (A), (c) of R.A. No. 6713, known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. In his response dated February 9, 2000, Feraren acknowledged the debt but argued that his borrowing was unrelated to his official duties, thus claiming he could not be held liable under the cited provision. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reviewed the ...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

• Complainant Eduardo F. Bago filed an administrative complaint.
• Respondent Joel E. Feraren, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 67), is the subject of the complaint.

Chronology and Transaction Details

• On October 3, 1997, Feraren borrowed P4,500.00 from Bago, evidenced by a promissory note.
• The note stipulated that payment was due within ten days from the date of execution.
• Despite the repayment term, as of July 22, 1999, Feraren had not settled the debt.

Allegations and Legal Basis

• Bago alleged that the non-payment of the just debt constituted a violation of Section 4 (A), (c) of R.A. No. 6713, which sets the standards for public officials and employees regarding justness and sincerity in the discharge of official duties.
• The complaint was rooted in the premise that failure to pay a just debt reflects unethical conduct and is unbecoming of a public employee.

Respondent’s Defense and Admissions

• In his Comment dated February 9, 2000, Feraren admitted the existence of the debt amounting to P4,500.00.
• He asserted that his act of borrowing money was strictly a personal matter, not connected with his official functions as a sheriff.
• Feraren contended that Section 4 (A), (c) of R.A. No. 6713 should not apply as it targets the discharge of official duties, not personal financial obligations.

Findings and Recommendations by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

• The OCA, in its Report dated January 26, 2001, confirmed that Feraren’s indebtedness was just and his failure to pay was willful.
• It recommended that Feraren be reprimanded under the relevant provisions of E.O. No. 292 (the Revised Administrative Code of 1987).

Court Proceedings and Resolutions

• A Resolution dated March 12, 2001, docketed the case as a regular administrative matter, requesting the parties to indicate if they preferred a formal hearing based on their pleadings.
• Both parties failed to comply with the directive for a formal hearing.
• Consequently, on June 9, 2003, the Court declared that the parties had waived their right to a formal hearing, and the case was resolved based solely on the pleadings submitted.

Emphasis on Public Officer’s Ethical Obligations

• The Court emphasized that as a public officer, Feraren was morally and legally obliged to settle his just debt.
• His failure to do so not only breached a contractual obligation but also undermined the high ethical standards expected of court employees.

Issue:

Whether the act of borrowing money and failing to pay the debt constitutes an administrative offense under the ethical standards set forth in R.A. No. 6713.

• Whether the borrowing of money, though a personal transaction, impacts the ethical conduct expected in the discharge of official duties.

Whether Feraren’s willful failure to pay a just debt, despite confirming the indebtedness, constitutes a ground for disciplinary action under the administrative rules.

• Whether such failure, even if not directly related to official functions, undermines the integrity expected of a public employee.

• Whether the administrative resolution based on pleadings, without a formal hearing (due to the parties’ waiver), was procedurally proper and sufficient to impose the necessary disciplinary measure.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)