A.M. No. P-08-2555 - Santos vs. Raymundo

Complainant Maria Rosanna J. Santos filed a sworn letter-complaint dated March 24, 2008, charging respondents Emma J. Raymundo (Clerk III, Branch 69), George F. Lucero (Process Server, Branch 71), and Ronald P. Fajardo (Process Server, Office of the Clerk of Court) for conduct unbecoming of court employees.
The complaint centered on their failure to pay debts owed to Santos after borrowing money from her (P100,000.00 by Raymundo, P6,000.00 by Lucero, and P4,500.00 by Fajardo).

While Santos was collecting payments at the Pasig Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), the respondents allegedly uttered invectives and other hurtful words in front of their peers.
The disturbance and public nature of the altercation further underscored the respondents’ misconduct in connection with their financial obligations.

Ronald P. Fajardo denied the allegations of verbal harassment, asserting that it was Santos who humiliated him publicly and even claimed that his own criminal complaint for oral defamation and other charges was a reaction to her behavior.
George F. Lucero admitted to borrowing money and acknowledged partial payments, asserting that Santos had ceased collection efforts likely due to pending criminal actions.
Emma J. Raymundo also admitted to a loan of P100,000.00 but maintained that the payments she rendered were confused with those made on behalf of another borrower, thereby denying any direct confrontation and accusing Santos of fabricating a narrative as leverage against her criminal complaint.

The case was referred to Judge Marina Gaerlan-Mejorada after initial hearings, and several manifestations and affidavits were filed by the parties.
On April 21, 2009, a Compromise Agreement was submitted by Santos and Raymundo, wherein Raymundo acknowledged a debt of P225,000.00 and agreed to pay Santos P2,500.00 monthly.
Raymundo further undertook to secure several loans from the Supreme Court Savings and Loan Association (SCSLA) for the purpose of repaying the debt, executing a Special Power of Attorney in Santos’ favor.

Judge Mejorada’s investigation revealed that despite partial payments and various manifestations, the entire amount remained unsettled, and the respondents had repeatedly failed to comply with the court’s directives.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued its findings in a series of memoranda, initially noting Raymundo’s failure to remit full SCSLA proceeds (first offense) and later concluding that she exhibited willful non-compliance and bad faith (second offense).
The factual record demonstrated that Raymundo had repeatedly breached the Compromise Agreement and disregarded court directives—factors that compounded her administrative infractions.

Earlier sanctions against respondents Lucero and Fajardo included reprimands with stern warnings for conduct unbecoming of a court employee, which rendered their cases concluded.
In contrast, Raymundo’s conduct was characterized by a series of administrative offenses: a reprimand for the initial breach, a 30-day suspension for a subsequent failure, and eventually further disciplinary considerations due to her persistent insubordination.
Various letters and manifestations from both Santos and Raymundo, spanning from 2008 up to 2016, provided documentary proof of non-payment, breach of the Compromise Agreement, and lack of remedial action by Raymundo.

The investigation noted that Raymundo had a prior administrative case (dismissing a previous complaint in 2005), which added context to her repeated misconduct.
The patterns of behavior, including misuse of her court position to secure loans and defiance in complying with court orders, further spotlighted her disregard for the high ethical standards expected of court personnel.

Whether Emma J. Raymundo should be held administratively liable for her failure to comply with the Compromise Agreement and for insubordination.

Does her repeated failure to remit full loan proceeds, as agreed under the Compromise Agreement, constitute willful non-payment of a just debt?
Does her conduct—manifested by repeated disregard of court directives and misuse of authority in contracting loans—amount to insubordination warranting severe administrative sanctions?