Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Office of the Court Administrator
Manila

ALBERT A. LEE
Plaintiff
Admin Case No. 1009

-versus- -for-

Hon. EDWIN GIPIT WILLFUL FAILURE TO

Defendant PAY A JUST DEBT

x--------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM
For the Defendant

COMES NOW THE DEFENDANT, through the undersigned

counsel, unto this Honorable Court most respectfully submits and present
this Memorandum in the above-titled case and aver that:

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Plaintiff filed this administrative case against the defendant for his
wilful failure to pay a just debt. Plaintiff’s cause of action arises when
despite repeated demands for payment of loan, the defendant wilfully failed
to pay his debt.

Defendant on the other hand maintains that the plaintiff has no valid
causes of action as his failure to pay his loan obligation is not willful since
the reason of his financial constrains was because of his wife’s medical
treatment. He further claimed that his loan transaction is not connected with
the performance of his duty as a judge and therefore is not proper in an
administrative case.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1
 On March 26, 2011, plaintiff filed an Administrative Complaint for
willful failure to pay a just debt against herein defendant.

On April 29, 2011, defendant received summons issued by the

Honorable Court to file an answer.

On May 10, 2011, defendant filed his answer against the plaintiff.

On May 17, 2012, preliminary conference was held in the presence of

the plaintiff, defendant, and their respective counsels.

Accordingly, after presentation of evidences, the Honorable Court

ordered the parties to submit their respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days
from notice, otherwise, the case is deemed submitted for decision.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On January 10, 2009, the defendant obtained a loan from the plaintiff
in the amount of One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) with 2% interest per
month, payable on or before February 10, 2011, as evidenced by the
acknowledgement receipt (Annex A).

During the one year term of the loan, the defendant was able to pay
only Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).

In January 16, 2010, the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant in
Brgy. 2, Batangas City and requested for payment in full plus interest as his
total payments only amounts to Php500, 000.00. However, the plaintiff was
told by the defendant that his wife is still undergoing medical treatment and
will be unable to pay the same. The plaintiff was allegedly insinuated by the
defendant that he is acting as a greedy businessman and forgetting their days
together as associates.

Months later, the plaintiff sent a demand letter to the defendant but his
reply was only asking for an extension. Plaintiff agreed with the defendant’s
request for extension and gave him a 6-month extension until February 10,
2011 with an upgrade to 3% in interest per month, in which as a result of
financial constraints, the defendant agreed (Annex B).

On March 2011, plaintiff went again to the defendant’s house to

collect payment but was told only by the defendant that he has no money by
which the former does not believe since the latter continuously draws salary
as a judge.
2
 On the other hand, defendant admitted that he was not able to pay in
full his loan but his refusal is not stubborn and that his failure to pay was just
brought about by the fact that he has no money at the time that the plaintiff
is collecting the full payment. He also averred that the salary he is receiving
as a judge is only sufficient for the medicines and subsistence of his family.

Defendant also maintained that he has not resorted to borrowing

money from other persons for him to be able to pay his loan obligation
although there are persons offering as these people might ask favor from him
regarding cases under his court. He even professed that he has experience
with the plaintiff who have attempted several times to accompany in his
home some associates who have pending cases before his sala which he did
not entertain and made them feel embarrassed.

Plaintiff admitted that he tried to introduce to the defendant some of

his associates but the former emphasized that it is not for asking any
favorable decision from the defendant as all of the plaintiff’s associates have
meritorious cases proven by the fact that all of them won in their cases heard
before the defendant Judge Gipit’s sala.

On March 26, 2011, plaintiff decided to file administrative case

against the defendant instead of a collection case since the latter will be
heard in the Hall of Justice where he sits and certainly he can influence the
decision of the court to whom the former’s charge will be raffled. He also
asserted that Judges should be beyond reproach not only in the performance
of his judicial duties but also his private life.

Moreover, defendant insisted that his loan is not connected with the
performance of his duty as a judge and therefore is not proper in an
administrative case. He contended that the plaintiff can even file a
collection of sum of money before the courts instead of harassing him before
the Supreme Court.

IV. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. Whether or not the plaintiff has cause of action to charge

administratively the defendant for willful failure against the
defendant.

2. Whether or not filing of administrative case against the

defendant is proper.

3
 3. Whether or not an act of obtaining loan transaction must be in
connection with the performance of duty to be properly charge
administratively.

V. ARGUMENTS

1. The plaintiff has no cause of action in commencing

administrative complaint against the defendant.

2. Plaintiff’s action in filing administrative case is not proper, as

no cause of action to charge administratively the defendant.

3. It is necessary to establish that the act of obtaining loan is in

connection with the performance of duty to be properly charge
administratively.

VI. DISCUSSION

1. It is necessary to emphasize that the defendant admitted that he

obtained a loan from the plaintiff.

The contention of plaintiff that there is willful failure to pay a just

debt by the defendant justifies the administrative case. In the case of Flores
vs. Tatad, 96 SCRA 676 (1980), the Supreme Court held that the failure to
pay a debt, to be considered a serious offense for discipline, requires that the
debt be just and the failure to pay is willful. The term “just debt” means
claims adjudicated by a court of law or claims the existence and justness of
which are admitted by the debtor. “Willful” means premeditated; malicious;
done with intent, or with bad motive or purpose, with indifference to the
natural consequences.

In the case of People vs. Salazar, 106 Phil. 221 (1959), “willfully” in
penal statutes means with evil intent, or with legal malice, or with bad
purposes.

The defendant’s argument in the action for administrative complaint

has no cause of action since the facts set forth by the plaintiff is not
sufficient to justify a right to bring action. Defendant does not deny that he
obtained a loan from the plaintiff in the amount of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00) and was able to pay only Five Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P500,000.00) during the one year term. However, the defendant’s failure to
pay the remaining debt and interest does not show that he is maliciously
neglecting to comply with his loan obligation. The defendant even requested
a 6-month extension for him to pay the remaining loan obligation as his wife
is still undergoing medical treatment. As proof of his willingness to pay, he

4
even agreed with the plaintiff’s demanded raise in interest after the grant of
extension due to his financial constraints.

2. The second argument is related to the first since the administrative

complaint filed by the plaintiff was based on the defendant’s
allegedly willful failure to pay a just debt.

Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court deals with serious

administrative charge which include:

(1) Bribery, direct or indirect;

(2) Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Law (R.A. No. 3019);
(3) Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct;
(4) Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as
determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding;
(5)Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(6) Willful failure to pay a just debt;
(7) Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a
case pending before the court;
8. Immorality;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
10. Partisan political activities; and
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits;

In the case of Gaspar de Julio vs. Vega, 188 SCRA 315, it was held
that a judge who refused to pay the amount of rental of the leased premises,
which amount was fixed by the court, and who delayed the ejectment case
filed against him for ten (10) years from the municipal trial court to the
Court of Appeals and who, after the judgment had become final, delayed
payment thereof for two more years, is guilty of the serious offense of
willful failure to pay a just debt.

The last demand of the plaintiff was on March 10, 2011 when he went
to the defendant’s house by which the latter does not deny that he was still
unable to pay despite the given extension of payment term but he
emphasized that his refusal was not stubborn. He reiterated his reasons for
failure to pay his loan obligation was due to his wife’s continued medication
and his family’s subsistence even he is receiving salary as a judge. He even
resorted to sell his property to settle his loan obligation however the plaintiff
refuse to give him another extension but instead berated and threatened him
that he will file administrative case against him.

There is no showing that the defendant willfully refused to pay his

debt from the plaintiff since he never avoided maliciously his obligation to
pay. The defendant showed good faith in his promise to pay by resorting to
5
way that is legal such as selling his property and not by accepting offers
from other persons that might as favor from him regarding cases under his
court.

The plaintiff’s contention that he filed administrative case against the

defendant instead of a collection case for the reason that the latter will be
heard in the Hall of Justice where the latter sits and certainly he can
influence the decision of the court to whom the former’s charge will be
raffled gives no credit to pursue an administrative complaint.

Hence, absence of the defendant’s willful failure to pay a just debt and
no other acts committed which constitute violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, administrative complaint is not proper.

3. Rule 5.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that “A judge

or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift,
bequest, favour or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by
law.” A judge who borrowed from a party to a case pending before
him, which he never intended to pay back and who refused to pay
the cost of installing an airconditioner in his wife’s automobile by
a shop owned by a party litigant is guilty of such serious offense.
(Ompac vs. Torres, 178 SCRA 14 (1989)).

Herein defendant obtained a loan from the plaintiff which is not

connected with the performance of his duty as a judge. The defendant and
plaintiff are business associates and there is no evidence that the granting of
loan was in exchange of favor regarding cases under the former’s court.
Even the defendant was granted a loan by the plaintiff until the time he
failed to pay his obligation, he does not permit the latter’s act of
accompanying in his house some associates who have pending cases in his
sala to avoid conception and suspicion that he is returning the favor to the
plaintiff. The defendant does not even use his position as a court officer to
obtain loan. The grant of his loan was given to him not by reason of his
office but because of regular loan transaction allowed by law.

VII. CONCLUSION

With the laws and jurisprudence presented, the defendant, through his
counsel believes that the plaintiff has no cause of action in filing the suit
based on willfull failure to pay a just debt; that the plaintiff’s action of filing
administrative case rather than civil case for collection of sum of money for
the reason of his assumption that the defendant can certainly influence the
decision of the court to whom his charge will be raffled bears no credit to
charge administratively the defendant; that the loan obtained by the
defendant from the plaintiff was not connected with the performance of his

6
duty as a judge but merely a simple and ordinary loan transaction allowed by
law.

VIII. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant respectfully prays to

the honourable court that judgment be rendered in his favor as follows:

1. An order be issued by this Honorable Court dismissing the

Administrative Complaint for lack of cause of action;

2. Judgment be rendered to fix the amount and terms of the loan

obligation;

3. Ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant the amount of Php100,

000.00 as moral damages, Php50, 000.00 as Attorney’s Fees and to
pay cost suit.

Some other relief and remedies as may be deemed just and equitable
under the premises are likewise prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Batangas City, Philippines, April 19, 2020

MERLYN A. ULIP-GUTIERREZ
Counsel of the Defendant
Roll No. 11111
IBP O.R. No. 123456
143 Heaven St., Brgy. Uno,
Batangas City

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. KIM CHI

Counsel of the Plaintiff
341 Forever St., Brgy. Poblacion, Batangas City