B.M. 850 - Mandatory Continuing Legal Education

Complainant: Mary-Ann S. Tordilla, Court Stenographer III, RTC Naga City, Camarines Sur, Branch 27.
Respondent: Lorna H. Amilano, Court Stenographer III, RTC Naga City, Camarines Sur, Branch 61.
Nature of Complaint: Alleged dishonesty and willful failure to pay just debts.

Event: 4th National Convention and Seminar of the Court Stenographic Reporters Association of the Philippines (COSTRAPHIL) held in Iloilo City from April 13 to 15, 2005.
Authorized Arrangement: Attendance originally intended for 11 stenographers under OCA Circular No. 99-2004.
Attendance Discrepancy: Only five stenographers, including respondent, attended the seminar; complainant was excluded despite having solicited the necessary funds from the City Government of Naga.

Misappropriation: Cash advance intended for complainant was received by the respondent.
Discovery: On February 1, 2007, complainant received a demand letter from the Office of the Auditor of Naga City regarding an unliquidated cash advance amounting to ₱5,914.00.
Documentary Evidence: Complainant observed the respondent's signature on the Disbursement Voucher, confirming her receipt of the advance meant for complainant.

Admission: Upon confrontation by complainant, the respondent admitted to receiving the cash advance on complainant’s behalf.
Assurance: On March 5, 2008, respondent executed an affidavit promising to reimburse the travel expenses and refund the unliquidated cash advance on or before June 15, 2008.
Default: The respondent subsequently reneged on her promise to settle the account.

Further Demand: On July 8, 2009, complainant received another demand letter from the Office of the City Accountant, prompting another reminder to respondent about her obligation.
Respondent’s Defense:

Claimed that complainant withdrew from attending the seminar upon learning that the cash advance was inadequate to cover the expenses.
Asserted that she was authorized—by virtue of being the designated liaison officer of the RTC and with approval from the COSTRAPHIL Chapter President—to receive all cash advances.
Cited a Certification by the City Accountant dated July 28, 2011, claiming that complainant was already cleared of any liability.
Maintained that the account had been settled to demonstrate her honest intent.

Memorandum Issued: May 15, 2014, by the OCA recommended that the respondent be found guilty of simple misconduct.
Basis of Recommendation:

The OCA highlighted that it took respondent six years (until July 28, 2011) to liquidate the cash advance.
Although respondent could not be held administratively liable under the strict charge of willful refusal to pay just debts (as the claim was not adjudicated by a court), her actions were still deemed as misconduct, tainting the image and integrity of the Judiciary.

Recommended Penalty: Imposition of a fine of ₱1,000.00 along with a stern warning for any future repetition of the offense.

Whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for her actions.
The proper categorization of her offense: willful failure to pay just debts versus simple misconduct.

Whether the evidence supports imposing the lighter penalty of simple misconduct or whether it necessitates the more specific offense of willful failure to pay just debts.
Consideration of the administrative rules under Executive Order No. 292 and the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service regarding “just debts.”