Republic of the Philippines

Department of the Interior and Local Government

National Police Commission
Philippine National Police
Police Regional Office XI
INVESTIGATION AND DETECTIVE MANAGEMENENT BRANCH
DAVAO CITY POLICE OFFICE
Camp Captain Domingo E Leonor

Philippine National Police Admin Case No. PRO XI AC NO. 15-020615

Complainant,
For Simple Misconduct
- Versus -

SPO1 Ronilo C Tirasol

Respondent.
X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION/RESOLUTION

This pertains to the Administrative Summary Proceedings against

SPO1 Ronilo C Tirasol for Simple Misconduct pursuant to Rule 21, Section 2,
Paragraph A (3), Subparagraph (e) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular
number 2007-001 which provides that Simple Misconduct shall include: fail
to recognize and satisfy any just debt.

In the Charge Sheet (Annex A) dated January 29, 2015, the Pre-
charge Investigation Section of the Investigation and Detective Management
Branch of Davao City Police Office charged respondent SPO1 Ronilo C Tirasol,
as follows:

That the respondent, while within the jurisdiction of this Disciplinary

Authority, having been assigned in Police Station 2 (San Pedro) of Davao City
Police Office, did then and there, contracted different loans with PRO 11
Multipurpose Cooperative on October 29, 2008 and then failed to settle or
satisfy the said debts or loans when they become due and demandable..

FACTS OF THE CASE

A. VERSION OF THE COMPLAINANT

Herein complainant averred that that SPO1 Ronilo C Tirasol filed an

application for a Regular Loan last October 29, 2008 in the amount of Thirty
Five Thousand Pesos (Php 35,000.00) and a Welfare Loan in the amount of
Twenty Eight Eight Hundred Fifty Nine Pesos and Nineteen Centavos (Php
28,859.19), all of which are approved by the said multipurpose cooperative.
While demanded with the payment when the said loans become due, the
respondent refused to acknowledge and satisfy the same. (Annex C and
D)
 B. VERSION OF THE RESPONDENT

In his Explanation, the respondent admitted that he failed to pay his

loan/debt as he contracted a loan at PSSLAI in which his ATM Card was given
as security. He likewise averred that he already filed an application for
optional retirement and that he promise to pay his loan/debt the moment he
receives his retirement benefits. (Annex 1)

ISSUE

Whether or not SPO1 Ronilo C Tirasol is guilty of Simple Misconduct for

Failure to recognize and satisfy a just debt.

DISCUSSION

When the respondent admitted expressly that he did have a loan with
the PRO 11 Multipurpose Cooperative and failing to settle them, the justness
of the said loan was already established. Such failure to satisfy his just debt
constitutes an offense of Simple Misconduct as provided Rule 21, Section 2,
Paragraph A (3), Subparagraph (e) of NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular
number 2007-001 which provides that Simple Misconduct shall include: fail
to recognize and satisfy any just debt.

For a debt to be considered just, it must be established that the

justness of the same is either adjudged by the court or is expressly admitted
by the respondent. In this case however, the respondent never denied and in
fact expressly admitted that he indeed contracted the loan or debt. He even
acknowledged his failure to settle the loan when the same becomes due. On
the other hand, he likewise averred that he is very much willing to settle or
satisfy the loan after he retired from the service and received his retirement
benefits.

Pre-hearing was moved from February 24, 2015 to March 3, 2015 due
to absence of parties and that the parties requested for time to settle the
dispute among themselves. On the day of the pre-hearing conference, the
respondent Ms Agustina S Ongachen, PRO 11 Multipurpose Cooperative
Manager, informed this Tribunal that SPO1 Ronilo C Tirasol already settled
his loan or debt with PRO 11 Multipurpose Cooperative and on April 10,
2015, a written certification was sent by Ms Ongachen as evidence of this
fact. (Exhibit 2)

It must be noted that the case arose from the non-payment of the
debt or loan which was due and demandable. Evidence presented by
respondent shows that there is already a substantial compliance with the
obligation to pay the debt. Such newly presented evidence negates therefore
the cause of the misconduct case filed against the respondent.

There being evidences presented by respondent which shows that the

debt ceases to be due and demandable or that there is already satisfaction
of such debt necessitates that the debt in question has its justness already
extinguished. As the charge of misconduct likewise demands that the debt
must be just for its non-recognition and non-payment be a subject of an
administrative action, the charge of misconduct therefore will not lie in the
instant case as the justness of the said debt was already dissolved by the
consensual acts of the parties. This supervening event in the instant case
supports the conclusion the respondent be completely absolved from the
case charge against him.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the undersigned

Summary Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent, SPO1 RONILO C
TIRASOL be EXONERATED of the offense charged for lack of cause of
action.

Done this 14th day of April 2015, Camp Capt. Domingo E Leonor, San
Pedro Street, Davao City.

ALFREDO D BALORAN
Police Superintendent
Summary Hearing Officer