Edukasyon Online Your Online Education Portal

 

Concuring:

GAERLAN, J.:

 

 

 

 

The Court adopts the findings of the JIB with modification in view of the Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court issued on February 22, 2022.

"In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." To stress, "the burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding falls on the complainant, who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence."

In the case, the Court finds that complainant was able to show, through the photographs she submitted, that respondent has an illicit relationship with Mary Ann. As ruled by the JIB, these photographs of respondent and Mary Ann undeniably displayed their romantic, passionate, and amorous relationship.

The Court does not subscribe to respondent's defense that his relationship with Mary Ann was purely professional. In fact, a closer scrutiny of the photographs submitted by complainant contradicted respondent's claims as these photographs showed a very personal and intimate relationship between respondent and Mary Ann.

Further, as correctly found by the JIB, respondent did not present any evidence to prove his alleged membership in Unlimited Network of Opportunities, Inc. Thus, as a rule, mere denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.

Respondent claims that the Complaint should be dismissed outright for violation of his constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence, which made complainant's evidence inadmissible in any proceeding.

The Court is not persuaded. As the JIB ruled, administrative proceedings do not adhere to the technical rules on evidence as usually observed in judicial proceedings, thus:

x x x It is basic that technical rules of procedure and evidence are relaxed in administrative proceedings in order to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy[,] and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses. By relaxing technical rules, administrative agencies are, therefore, given leeway in coming up with an appropriate decision. x x x.

All things considered, the JIB is correct in finding respondent guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct on the ground that it is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate relations with a person other than his or her spouse.

Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct has been defined as "act which violates the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the society," It is such conduct that is willful, flagrant, or shameless, which shows moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community, and that is indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness.

Further, the immoral acts may be committed in a scandalous or discreet manner, within or outside the workplace. As in the case, respondent's immoral acts were committed outside the confines of his work as an employee of the Judiciary, but this fact does not exempt him from administrative liability.

The JIB in its Report and Recommendation ratiocinated as follows:

x x x It is a settled rule that the conduct of all court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety not only with respect to their duties in the Judiciary but also as to their behavior outside the court as private individuals. In the Judiciary, moral integrity is more than a virtue, it is a necessity. The image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. Court employees have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of courts of justice. The Court has consistently disciplined and penalized court personnel who have been found wanting of such standards.

Applying Section 50(B)(3), Rule 10 of the 2017 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the JIB held that Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, which is a grave offense, is punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense.

However, the Court, in A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC,^[38] amended the Rules of Court and included the personnel of the lower courts—such as herein respondent—within the coverage of Rule 140. Under Section 14(i) of the same rule, as further amended by A.M No. 21-08-09-SC, Gross Immorality is classified as a serious charge.

For an immoral conduct to warrant disciplinary action, it must be grossly immoral, i.e., "so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree." The Court, in Dela Cueva v. Omaga, defined immorality to include not only sexual matters but also "conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare."

From the foregoing, the Court finds respondent guilty of the serious charge of Gross Immorality in having an illicit relationship with a person other than his spouse.

Anent the proper penalty to be imposed, paragraph 1 of Section 17, Rule 140, as further amended by AM.No. 21-08-09-SC, provides:

SECTION 17. Sanctions. –

(1) If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:

(a) Dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;

(b) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than six (6) months but not exceeding one year; or

(c) A fine of more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P200,000.00.

x x x x

To emphasize, the Court has ruled in a plethora of cases that it is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain an intimate or amorous relationship with another person other than his or her spouse. "The actions of [respondent] do not only violate the moral standards expected of employees of the judiciary, but also desecrate the sanctity of the institution of marriage which this Court abhors and punishes."

All told, the Court finds it proper to suspend respondent from office without salary and other benefits for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day for the serious charge of Gross Immorality.