Title
Supreme Court
Tordilla vs. Amilano
Case
A.M. No. P-14-3241
Decision Date
Feb 4, 2015
A court stenographer admitted receiving a cash advance intended for a colleague but failed to repay it for six years, leading to her reprimand for willful failure to pay just debts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-36052)

Facts of the Case

In April 2005, a group of eleven stenographers from the Regional Trial Court planned to attend the 4th National Convention and Seminar of the Court Stenographic Reporters Association of the Philippines (COSTRAPHIL) in Iloilo City. Financial support was solicited from the City Government of Naga to cover the expenses. However, before Tordilla could collect her cash advance, she was informed that only five of the stenographers, including Amilano, would attend. Despite Tordilla being excluded, Amilano received the cash advance intended for Tordilla. Subsequently, Tordilla received a demand for payment from the Office of the Auditor of Naga City, discovering that Amilano had signed the disbursement voucher on her behalf. Tordilla confronted Amilano, who admitted her actions and later executed an affidavit promising repayment, which she ultimately failed to fulfill, leading to Tordilla filing the complaint.

Respondent's Defense

Amilano denied the allegations, asserting that Tordilla had backed out of the seminar last minute due to insufficient funds and claimed that as the liaison officer for the RTC, she was authorized to receive cash advances on behalf of the attendees. Furthermore, Amilano stated that Tordilla had been cleared of liability concerning the unliquidated cash advance, as affirmed by a certification from the City Accountant.

OCA's Memorandum and Recommendations

The OCA issued a memorandum on May 15, 2014, recommending that Amilano be found guilty of simple misconduct and fined P1,000, cautioning that similar future offenses would lead to more severe consequences. The OCA determined that Amilano took six years to settle the cash advance issue, indicating a lack of integrity that affected the judiciary's image, yet noted that her failure could not constitute willful refusal to pay just debts, as the matter had not been adjudicated in a court.

Issue Before the Court

The critical issue to resolve is whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for her actions.

Court's Ruling

The Court agreed with the OCA's finding of administrative liability but contested the classification of the offense as simple misconduct rather than willful failure to pay just debts. According to Executive Order No. 292, the term "just debts" includes both claims adjudicated by a court and those whose existence and validity are acknowledged by the debto

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.