A.M. No. 2010-21-SC

Ruling

Accordingly, the complaint against Montalvo should be dismissed. 2. Re : Lopez As to Lopez, no witnesses appeared during the investigation to prove the allegations of the complaint. But the complaint should still be assessed on the basis of her several admissions in the course of the December 8, 2010 investigation to the effect that: ( a ) she had repeatedly [33] lent money to about 10 to 20 court employees; [34] ( b ) the borrowers had voluntarily paid about 10% interest on the money borrowed (i.e., P10 for every P100 borrowed); [35] ( c ) the money lent had ranged from P500.00 to P5,000.00; [36] (d) her regular borrowers had included the utility workers, [37] and the low-salaried court employees, [38] like court messengers; [39] ( e ) she had engaged in such activity for more than two years already; [40] (f) she had attended to the transactions around 3:30 oclock in the afternoon and at times during break time; [41] ( g ) she had taken hold of at least 10 but not more than 20 ATM cards of her borrowers as collateral; [42] ( h ) the money she had lent to the borrowers had been proceeds from her Coop or SCSLA personal loans; [43] and ( i ) she had also accommodated her office staff whenever they did not have money in going to and from the office. [44] In its evaluation of the anonymous complaint as to Lopez, the OAS observed and found thusly: From the foregoing, this Office has established that Ms. Lopez is guilty of lending money with interest which at most would reach up to 10% of the total amount borrowed. While she denied that the loan is somewhat like the famously known 5-6 loan, as she denied charging the employees with usurious interest because she is just accommodating them to lessen their financial burdens and it is the employees themselves who would insist on paying interest voluntarily, this Office nonetheless finds the act improper. Even if she was motivated solely by her earnest desire to help employees in dire need of money, the fact remains that she lends money for a consideration. It would have been different perhaps if she lends money without any voluntary interest as she claimed. In fact, she is not even obliged to lend money to them. It is beyond her duty to answer every financial difficulties of the employees. While there is no law or rules and regulations which prohibits charity or generosity among court employees, what is unacceptable is her act of lending money for a consideration and within the premises of the Court on official time. Worse, she is the Chief of the Checks Disbursement Division that handles the preparation and issuance of checks to court employees. It is beyond question that her official functions consist of, among others, the supervision of office staff. This gives us the impression that she took advantage of her position and abused the confidence reposed in her office, thus, placing at risk the integrity of the division and the whole Fiscal Management and Budget Office (FMBO). As an officer of the FMB