SECOND DIVISION
AMADO N. UBONGEN,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-04-1780
February 18, 2004
-versus-
VIRGINIA S. UBONGEN,
COURT STENOGRAPHER
III,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,BRANCH 219, QUEZON
CITY,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
CALLEJO
SR., J.:cralaw:red
The instant Administrative
Case is one for disgraceful and immoral conduct filed against Virginia
S. Ubongen, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 219. The
charges
were contained in a Verified Complaint[1]
dated June 28, 2002 filed by Amado N. Ubongen.cralaw:red
According to the complainant,
the respondent was legally married to Dionisio F. Dela Cruz. She,
thereafter,
contracted a subsequent marriage with one Benjamin N. Ubongen on August
18, 1993 knowing that the latter was married to Ruth Notada Ubongen
with
seven children. The complainant added that the entire community where
she
resides was aware that she lived with Dionisio F. Dela Cruz in a single
abode prior to the celebration of her second marriage. The complainant
prayed that the respondent be preventively suspended and thereafter
dismissed
from the service “with prejudice,” and attached the respective marriage
contracts alluded to.cralaw:red
In her Comment, the
respondent vehemently denied the allegations against her and dismissed
the same as mere opinions and conclusions based on insufficient
knowledge
of facts. She alleged that before she contracted her subsequent
marriage
with Benjamin Ubongen, she secured a judicial declaration of
presumptive
death of her first husband Dionisio F. Dela Cruz before the RTC of
Manila,
Branch 47, docketed as Sp. Proc. No. 92-63779.[2]
The respondent, likewise, stated that in order to satisfy herself about
the alleged marriage of her present spouse and Ruth S. Notada on
September
2, 1972, she secured certifications from the Office of the Civil
Registrar
of Dipaculao[3]
and the National Statistics Office[4]
which indicated that no such marriage took place. She, however,
admitted
that Benjamin Ubongen indeed begot children with Ruth Notada, but
averred
that the children were born out of wedlock.chanrobles virtual law library
In his Reply[5]
dated October 1, 2002, the complainant averred that Benjamin N. Ubongen
was his father, and that his parents were indeed married on September
2,
1972 and that the same was solemnized by Rev. Fr. William G. Mahoney in
the presence of witnesses Arturo Parilla and Lourdes Molina. He
averred,
however, that all of the parties are now deceased.[6]
The complainant expounded
further, thus:
6. That out
of this marriage, children were born, namely, Benjamin Jr., Amado,
Ronnie,
Melanie, Joel, Ruben and Romeo all surnamed Ubongen; copy of my birth
certificate
including that of my other brothers and sisters are hereto attached and
made a part hereof showing therein that our parents are Spouses
Benjamin
N. Ubongen and Ruth S. Notada;chanrobles virtual law library
7. That respondent
knew
and was aware of all these facts she being a resident also of
Dipaculao,
Quezon (now Aurora) and working at that time at the MCTC of the town of
Dipaculao, Quezon (now Aurora) before she was transferred to Manila
then
to Quezon City, yet, she entered into a contract of marriage with my
father
Benjamin N. Ubongen, thus, showing her bad faith and is, therefore,
liable
criminally or even administratively;
8. The claim of
the
respondent that she first secured information from the National
Statistics
Office in Manila and the Local Civil Register in Dipaculao, Aurora
before
she entered into a contract of marriage with my father Benjamin N.
Ubongen
in 1993 holds no water for reasons above-mentioned; and that public and
open cohabitation as husband and wife of my parents after their
marriage
and a statement of such marriage in certain or subsequent documents
such
as our birth certificates and the Personal Data Sheet of my father
hereto
attached are competent evidence to prove the fact of their marriage;chanrobles virtual law library
9. That the mere
fact
of no record of their marriage in the NSO and the LCR in Dipaculao,
Aurora
or rather in the Registry of Marriage does not invalidate said marriage
as long as in the celebration thereof all the requisites for its
validity
were present;
10. That lastly,
the
Honorable Supreme Court in one of its decisio[s held that the
forwarding
of a copy of the marriage certificate to the registry is not one of the
requisites provided in the Civil
Code of the Philippines in order for a marriage to be valid.[7]
Pursuant to the Court
Administrator’s
Report and Recommendation[8]
dated November 14, 2002, the Court referred the instant administrative
complaint to Executive Judge Monina A. Zeñarosa, Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City, Branch 76, for investigation, report and
recommendation.[9]
However, a new executive judge assumed office, Judge Jose C. Mendoza,
who
later issued an Order[10]
dated April 25, 2003, inhibiting himself from the case, considering
that
the respondent was a member of his staff. He then designated First
Deputy
Executive Judge Natividad Giron-Dizon to handle the investigation.
In her Report and Recommendation
dated December 29, 2003, the Executive Judge found that the respondent
was, indeed guilty of disgraceful conduct, to wit:
The
evidence
clearly shows that Benjamin Ubongen was legally married to Ruth Notada
and such marriage was still subsisting when the second marriage between
respondent and Benjamin Ubongen was contracted. The non-registration of
the first marriage with the Local Civil Registry’s Office in Dipaculao,
Aurora, does not make such marriage null and void or inexistence (sic).
The second marriage between respondent and Benjamin Ubongen, her
present
husband, suffered from legal infirmity under the law.
The marriage
between
respondent and Benjamin Ubongen was officiated under Article 34 of the Family
Code,
that is, by living together as husband and wife for at least five (5)
years
prior and without any legal impediment to the marriage. The evidence is
also clear that prior to the declaration of presumptive death of her
first
husband Dionisio Dela Cruz, she was already cohabiting with Benjamin
Ubongen.
The petition to declare her husband presumptively dead was issued on
April
19, 1993. Hence, it is easy to deduce that prior to her second marriage
she and her present spouse have been cohabiting since 1988 or even
earlier.
Hence, the evidence is quite clear that the second marriage of
respondent
to Benjamin Ubongen was not made in good faith and such act constitutes
disgraceful and immoral conduct.[11]chanrobles virtual law library
The Executive Judge,
however,
recommended that a lighter penalty be imposed upon the respondent,
considering
that the reason why the complainant instituted the present complaint
was
that his father refused to execute in his favor a Deed of Donation to a
particular property.[12]
We agree that the respondent
is guilty of immoral and disgraceful conduct.cralaw:red
A careful perusal of
the record shows that Ruth Notada and Benjamin Ubongen were married on
September 2, 1972, as evidenced by the Marriage Contract[13]
and the Certificate of Marriage[14]
issued by Father William G. Mahoney of the Church of Saint Therese in
Dipaculao,
Aurora, Quezon. The apparent reason why the birth certificates of their
offspring showed that they were married on September 15, 1960[15]
was that the couple wanted to make it appear that their seven children
were legitimate. This was confirmed by the Affidavit of Marriage
Between
Man and Woman Who Have Lived Together as Husband and Wife for At Least
Five Years[16]
executed by Benjamin Ubongen and Ruth Notada. The Certification[17]
issued by Father Leonilo B. Glema explaining why the marriage contract
was not forwarded to the Office of the Civil Registrar, in turn,
clarifies
why there was no record of the said marriage in the Office of the Civil
Registrar of Dipaculao, Aurora, Quezon, as well as the National
Statistics
Office. Furthermore, according to the Exective Judge:
To buttress the conclusion
that Benjamin Ubongen and Ruth Notada were indeed legally married is
the
fact that the former made the latter – “Ruth S. Notada-Ubongen” – as
one
of his dependents and he put in his relationship (sic) as his “wife” in
the INP Personnel Data Sheet duly accomplished by him on May 15, 1980
(Exhibit
“17”). Such piece of evidence is a mute witness, which is more credible
and more telling than the self-serving Supplemental Affidavit of Denial
executed by Benjamin Ubongen on September 24, 2003 (Exhibit “20”).[18]chanrobles virtual law library
On the other hand, the
complainant’s claim of good faith, that before she entered into her
subsequent
marriage she made sure that she and her “future husband” had no legal
impediment
to marry each other, is belied by her own evidence. Her marriage with
Benjamin
Ubongen was solemnized on August 18, 1993, as evidenced by their
marriage
contract.[19]
However, she only “verified” the alleged first marriage of her husband
on August 16, 1996[20]
with the National Statistics Office and on August 28, 1996,[21]
with the Office of the Civil Registrar of Dipaculao, Aurora. The
respondent
did this only three years after her marriage.cralaw:red
The Court, however,
does not agree that the respondent must be meted a lighter penalty.
Under
the Civil Service Rules,[22]
immoral conduct is punishable by suspension from six months and one day
to one year. Indeed, the respondent has displayed a contemptuous
behavior
that falls short of the moral standard required of everyone in the
judiciary.
This was compounded by the fact that she repeatedly denied that she was
living with a married man. Disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave
offense
that cannot be countenanced.[23]
Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity,
uprightness
and honesty. It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of
justice
is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the personnel who
work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel.[24]chanrobles virtual law library
As we held in the recent
case of Edwin A. Acebedo vs. Eddie P. Arquero:[25]
Although
every
office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts
a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness from an
individual
than in the judiciary. That is why this Court has firmly laid down
exacting
standards of morality and decency expected of those in the service of
the
judiciary. Their conduct, not to mention their behavior, is
circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility, characterized by, among other
things, propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public’s
respect
and confidence in the judicial service. It must be free from any whiff
of impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial
branch
but also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals.
There
is no dichotomy of morality; court employees are also judged by their
private
morals.[26]chanrobles virtual law library
In this case, the
respondent,
a married woman, cohabited with another man who fathered a child with
her.
She was adjudged guilty of immorality and suspended for six months and
one day without pay.
WHEREFORE, respondent
VIRGINIA S. UBONGEN is hereby found GUILTY of immoral and disgraceful
conduct
and is SUSPENDED for one (1) year. She is STERNLY WARNED that any
repetition
of the same act in the future will be dealt with more severely. Let a
copy
of this decision be entered in the respondent’s personal record.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
Exhibit “L,” Rollo, p. 19.
[3]
Exhibit “K,” Id. at 17.
[4]
Exhibit “J,” Id. at 18.
[5]
Exhibit “I,” Id. at 21-22.
[6]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Id. at 34-36.
[9]
Id. at 37.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Id. at 43.
[11]
Report and Recommendation, p. 8.
[12]
Id. at 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Exhibit “C,” Rollo, p. 7.
[14]
Exhibit “D,” Rollo, p. 8.
[15]
Rollo, pp. 28-33.
[16]
Exhibit “E,” Rollo, p. 9.
[17]
Exhibit “F,” Rollo, p. 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Report and Recommendation, p. 8.
[19]
Exhibit “G,” Rollo, p. 5.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Exhibit “J,” Id. at 18.
[21]
Exhibit “K,” Id. at 17.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
Civil Service Commission Circular No. 19-99, September 14, 1999, Rule
IV,
Section 52(A) 15. Disgraceful and immoral conduct
1st Offense – Suspension for 6 mos. 1 day to 1 year
2nd Offense - Dismissalchanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Marites B. Kee vs. Juliet H. Kalingin, A.M. No. P-02-1663, July 29,
2003.
[24]
Floria v. Sunga, 368 SCRA 551 (2001).chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
A.M. No. P-94-1054, March 11, 2003.
[26]
Id. at 8.
chan
robles virtual law library |