THIRD DIVISION
EDWIN A. ACEBEDO,
Petitioner,
A M.
No.
P-94-1054
March 11, 2003
-versus-
EDDIE P. ARQUERO,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
By letter-complaint[1]
dated June 1, 1994, Edwin A. Acebedo charged Eddie P. Arquero, Process
Server of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brooke's Point, Palawan
for
immorality.
Complainant alleged
that his wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo, a former stenographer of the MTC
Brooke's
Point, and respondent unlawfully and scandalously cohabited as husband
and wife at Bancudo Pulot, Brooke's Point, Palawan as a result of which
a girl, Desiree May Irader Arquero, was born to the two on May 21,
1989.
Attached to the letter-complaint was the girl's Baptismal Certificate[2]
reflecting the names of respondent and Dedje Irader as her
parents.
Also attached to the letter-complainant was a copy of a marriage
contract[3]
showing that complainant and Dedje Irader contracted marriage on July
10,
1979.cralaw:red
By Resolution of September
7, 1994, this Court required respondent to file an answer to the
complaint.[4]
By his Answer[5]
of October 6, 1994, respondent vehemently denied the charge of
immorality,
claiming that it is "just a (sic) mere harassment and a product of
complainant's
hatred and extreme jealousy to (sic) his wife."[6]
Attached to the answer were the September 27, 1987 affidavit of
desistance[7]
executed by complainant in favor of his wife with respect to an
administrative
complaint he had much earlier filed against her, and complainant's
sworn
statement[8]
dated September 13, 1994 acknowledging paternity of a child born out of
wedlock, which documents, respondent claims, support his contention
that
the complaint filed against him is but a malicious scheme concocted by
complainant to harass him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Additionally, respondent
claimed that sometime in 1991, complainant likewise instituted a
criminal
complaint against him for "adultery" which was, however, dismissed
after
preliminary investigation.cralaw:red
Finally, respondent
claimed that complainant himself had been cohabiting with another woman.cralaw:red
By Resolution of February
6, 1995, this Court referred the case to then Executive Judge Filomeno
A. Vergara of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa, Palawan for
investigation, report and recommendation.[9]
Judge Vergara having retired during the pendency of the investigation,
the case was referred to Executive Judge Nelia Y. Fernandez who was, by
Resolution of August 16, 2000, directed by this Court to (1) verify the
authenticity of the marriage certificate and baptismal certificate
submitted
by complainant; (2) conduct an investigation as to the information
contained
in the said baptismal certificate and the circumstances under which it
was issued, and such other verifiable matters relevant to the charge;
and
(3) submit her report and recommendation thereon.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her Investigation
Report of February 12, 2001, Judge Fernandez recommends that the
complaint
be dismissed for failure to adduce adequate evidence to show that
respondent
is guilty of the charge.[11]
The report focuses on the non-appearance of complainant and Dedje
Irader
Acebedo, thusly:
x x x
Having appeared that
the complainant Edwin Acebedo and Dedjie Irader who per reliable
information
cannot be notified for reason that subject persons are no longer
residing
in their given address and their whereabouts is unknown as shown by the
return of the subpoena dated November 7, 2000, and the inadmissibility
of the baptismal certificate alleging therein that the father of
Desiree
Arquero is the respondent herein, and for the reason that the same had
not been testified to by Dedje Irader who is the informant of the
entries
contained therein, this Court had not received adequate proof or
relevant
evidence to support a conclusion that respondent herein could be held
liable
of the charge imputed against him, hence, he should be absolved from
any
liability.
x x x[12]
(Quoted verbatim).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By Resolution of April
25, 2001, this Court referred the case to the Office of the Court
Administrator
(OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation.cralaw:red
By Memorandum of December
12, 2001, the OCA, disagreeing with the recommendation of the
Investigating
Judge that the case should be dismissed, recommends that respondent be
held guilty of immorality and that he be suspended from office for a
period
of one (1) year without pay.[13]
Thus the OCA ratiocinates:
[R]espondent admitted
the fact that for eight (8) to nine (9) months, he a single man
maintained
relations with Dedje Irader Acebedo, wife of herein complainant,
attended
with "sexual union" (TSN dated 23 November 2000, pp. 14-15).
Based
on his testimony, we observed that respondent justified his having a
relationship
with Dedje I. Acebedo solely on the written document purportedly a
"Kasunduan"
or agreement entered into by complainant and his wife, consenting to
and
giving freedom to either of them to seek any partner and to live with
him
or her. Being a court employee respondent should have known that
said agreement was void despite it having been notarized. Even
granting
that Dedjie I. Acebedo was separated from her husband during their
short
lived relation, to hold on to said scandalous agreement and enter an
immoral
relationship with a very much married woman and a co-court-employee at
that is highly improper. It is contrary to the Code of Conduct
and
Ethical Standards of Public Officials and Employees which provides that
public employees of which respondent is one, xxx " shall at times (sic)
respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts
contrary
to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public
safety and public interest. Moreover, respondent cannot seek
refuge
and "sling mud" at complainant for having executed an Affidavit dated
September
13, 1994, acknowledging that he bore a woman other than his wife, a
child.
It would seem that respondent would want to apply the principle of in
pari
delicto in the instant case. Respondent would have it appear that
a married man with an extra-marital relation and an illegitimate child
is precluded from complaining if his wife enters into a relationship
with
another man.cralaw:red
Second, the records
show that an Affidavit of Desistance was executed by herein
complainant.
However, a cursory reading of said document reveals that it favors only
Dedje Irader Acebedo and not herein respondent. Interestingly,
the
date of said affidavit is 2 September 1987. Respondent had the
temerity
to claim it as evidence in his favor when the instant complaint was
only
filed sometime in 1994.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, when respondent
was asked by the investigating judge if he attended the baptism of the
daughter of Dedje Irader Acebedo, his former co-employee and
ex-intimate
friend, he answered, "I did not. I'm not sure the child is
mine".
From his answer, we could infer that respondent did not categorically
rule
out the possibility that said child might be her (sic) daughter, only
that
he is doubtful of her paternity.cralaw:red
x x x[14]
( mphasis supplied; underscoring in the original).cralaw:red
While complainant appears
to have lost interest in the prosecution of the present case, the same
does not ipso facto warrant its dismissal. Once administrative
charges
have been filed, this Court may not be divested of its jurisdiction to
investigate and ascertain the truth thereof.[15]
For it has an interest in the conduct of those in the service of the
Judiciary
and in improving the delivery of justice to the people, and its efforts
in that direction may not be derailed by the complainant's desistance
from
prosecuting the case he initiated.[16]
On the merits of the
case, the entry of respondent's name as father in the baptismal
certificate
of Desiree May I. Arquero cannot be used to prove her filiation and,
therefore,
cannot be availed of to imply that respondent maintained illicit
relations
with Dedje Irader Acebedo. A canonical certificate is conclusive
proof only of the baptism administered, in conformity with the rites of
the Catholic Church by the priest who baptized the child, but it
does not prove the veracity of the declarations and statements
contained
therein which concern the relationship of the person baptized.[17]
It merely attests to the fact which gave rise to its issue, and the
date
thereof, to wit, the fact of the administration of the sacrament on the
date stated, but not the truth of the statements therein as to the
parentage
of the child baptized.[18]
By respondent's own
admission, however, he had an illicit relationship with complainant's
wife:
Q: During
the formal offer of the possible nature of your testimony before the
Court
by your counsel, did the Court get it correct that there has been a
short
lived relation between you and Dedgie Irader, am I correct in my
impression?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A:
During that time that I have heard she and her husband have parted ways
already, I jokingly informed her that she is now being separated, she
is
now single and is free to have some commitment. So, I courted her
and she accepted me, so we have a short lived relation and after that
we
parted ways.cralaw:red
Q: For how
long was this short lived relation you made mention a while ago?
A:
May be (sic) about eight (8) to nine (9) months.cralaw:red
Q: When
you said you have (sic) a short lived relationship from 8 to 9 months,
you mean to tell the Court that you have (sic) a sexual union with this
woman?
A:
Yes ma'am.[19]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied).cralaw:red
Respondent justified
his pursuing a relationship with complainant's wife with the spouses
having
priorly entered into a settlement with respect to their marriage which
was embodied in a "Kasunduan", the pertinent portions of which are
reproduced
hereunder:
Kami, EDWIN AGUINALDO
ACEBEDO at DEDJE IRADER ACEBEDO, may sapat na taong gulang, mag-asawa,
Pilipino, at kasalukuyang nakatira sa Poblacion, Broke's (sic) Point,
Palawan,
ay malayang nagkasundo ng mga sumusunod:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. Na, yayamang hindi
kami magkasundo bilang mag-asawa, at magiging miserable lamang ang
aming
mga buhay kung aming ipagpapatuloy pa ang aming pagsasama bilang
mag-asawa,
kami ay malayang nagkasundo ngayon na maghiwalay na bilang mag-asawa,
at
ang bawat isa sa amin ay may kalayaan na humanap na ng kaniyang
makakasama
sa buhay bilang asawa at hindi kami maghahabol sa isat isa sa alin pa
mang
hukuman;
x x x[20] (Italics supplied).cralaw:red
Respondent's justification
fails. Being an employee of the judiciary, respondent ought to
have
known that the Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect on the
validity
of the marriage between complainant and his wife. Article 1 of
the
Family Code provides that marriage is "an inviolable social institution
whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not
subject
to stipulation." It is an institution of public order or policy,
governed
by rules established by law which cannot be made inoperative by the
stipulation
of the parties.[21]
Republic Act 6713, otherwise
known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials
and Employees, enunciates the State's policy of promoting a high
standard
of ethics and utmost responsibility in the public service.[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.[23]
That is why this Court has firmly laid down exacting standards of
morality
and decency expected of those in the service of the judiciary.[24]
Their conduct, not to mention behavior, is circumscribed with the heavy
burden of responsibility,[25]
characterized by, among other things, propriety and decorum so as to
earn
and keep the public's respect and confidence in the judicial service.[26]
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.[27]
There is no dichotomy of morality; court employees are also judged by
their
private morals.[28]
Respondent's act of
having illicit relations with complainant's wife is, within the purview
of Section 46 (5) of Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order No.
292, otherwise known as the Administrative Code of 1987, a disgraceful
and immoral conduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Rule IV, Section
52A (15) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil
Service, an immoral conduct is classified as a grave offense which
calls
for a penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one
(1)
year for the first offense, and dismissal is imposed for the second
offense.cralaw:red
Since the present charge
of immorality against respondent constitutes his first offense, his
suspension
for six (6) months and one (1) day is in order.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, this Court
finds respondent Eddie P. Arquero, Process Server of the Municipal
Trial
Court of Brooke's Point, Palawan, GUILTY of immorality, for which he is
hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay with a
STERN WARNING that commission of the same or similar acts shall be
dealt
with severely.cralaw:red
Let a copy of this decision
be filed in the personal record of respondent.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez and Corona, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 1.
[2]
Id. at 3
[3]
Id. at 2.
[4]
Id. at 4.
[5]
Id. at 5.
[6]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 9.
[8]
Id. at 10.
[9]
Id. at 15.
[10]
Id. at 69.
[11]
Report and Recommendation at 3.
[12]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Memorandum at 6.
[14]
Id. at 4-5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Imbing v. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690, 702 (1994).
[16]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 73, 84-85 (1980).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Fortus v. Novero, 23 SCRA 1330, 1340 (1968).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
TSN, November 23, 2000 at 14-15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Rollo at 106.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the
Philippines,
Vol. 1, 1990 ed., at 222-223.
[22]
Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. OCA-01-5, August 1, 2002
(citation omitted).
[23]
Legaspi v. Garrete, 242 SCRA 679, 701 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Merilo-Bedural, 342 SCRA 593, 599 (2000).
[25]
Merilo-Bedural v. Edroso, 342 SCRA 598.
[26]
Policarpio v. Fortus, 248 SCRA 272, 276 (1995) (citation omitted).
[27]
Burgos v. Aquino, 249 SCRA 504, 509 (1995) (citation omitted).
[28]
Id. |