ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 123951 January 10, 2000 - ROMEO RANOLA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1360 January 18, 2000 - ELISEO SOREÑO v. RHODERICK MAXINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114683 January 18, 2000 - JESUS C. OCAMPO v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118441-42 January 18, 2000 - ARMANDO JOSE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119594 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENZON ONG

  • G.R. No. 125994 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ANDALES

  • G.R. No. 127135 January 18, 2000 - EASTERN ASSURANCE AND SURETY CORP. (EASCO) v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129846 January 18, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130944 January 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE ALIB, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131675 January 18, 2000 - PEDRO C. LAMEYRA v. GEORGE S. PANGILINAN

  • G.R. No. 132378 January 18, 2000 - ROGELIO JUAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132767 January 18, 2000 - PHIL. VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134854 January 18, 2000 - FELIZARDO S. OBANDO, ET AL. v. EDUARDO F. FIGUERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139465 January 18, 2000 - SECRETARY OF JUSTICE v. RALPH C. LANTION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245 January 19, 2000 - ANTONIO YU-ASENSI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-97-1129 January 19, 2000 - FLAVIANO B. CORTES v. FELINO BANGALAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513 January 19, 2000 - ALFREDO B. ENOJAS v. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT

  • G.R. No. 107320 January 19, 2000 - A’ PRIME SECURITY SERVICES v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 113666-68 January 19, 2000 - GOLDEN DONUTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114761 January 19, 2000 - ALEMAR’S SIBAL & SONS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119217 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MIGUEL S. LUCBAN

  • G.R. No. 122104 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO ORBITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122297-98 January 19, 2000 - CRESCENTE Y. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122739 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE M. PANTORILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123655 January 19, 2000 - ANGEL BAUTISTA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123183 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN SISON

  • G.R. No. 126516 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHIRLEY ALAO

  • G.R. No. 127572 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR VILLAR

  • G.R. No. 129072 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO ABUBU

  • G.R. No. 130957 January 19, 2000 - VH MANUFACTURING v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132152 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ADRALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132248 January 19, 2000 - ERLINDA C. PEFIANCO v. MARIA LUISA C. MORAL

  • G.R. No. 132657 January 19, 2000 - WILLIAM DIU, ET AL. v. DOMINADOR IBAJAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 132779-82 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONATO BERNALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 134003 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERT NAGUM

  • G.R. No. 134329 January 19, 2000 - VERONA PADA-KILARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134535 January 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MAGNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137560 January 19, 2000 - MARIA G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4749 January 20, 2000 - SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. v. FRANCISCO R. LLAMAS

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-00-1241 January 20, 2000 - NAPOLEON S. VALENZUELA v. REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1242 January 20, 2000 - DANIEL DUMO, ET AL. v. ROMEO V. PEREZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000 - ROMULO SJ TOLENTINO v. POLICARPIO S. CAMANO

  • G.R. No. 76371 January 20, 2000 - MARIANO TURQUESA, ET AL. v. ROSARIO VALERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87134 January 20, 2000 - PHIL. REGISTERED ELECTRICAL PRACTITIONERS, ET AL. v. JULIO FRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100718-19 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106282 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINCIANO RENDOQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108067 January 20, 2000 - CYANAMID PHIL., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109376 January 20, 2000 - PANFILO O. DOMINGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110807 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALD T. NARVASA

  • G.R. No. 110929 January 20, 2000 - ABELARDO LOPEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119652 & A.M. No. P-00-1358 January 20, 2000 - VENTURA O. DUCAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123860 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN NAAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125451 January 20, 2000 - MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126151 January 20, 2000 - MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. SERGIO D. MABUNAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128887 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. EDGARDO AQUINO

  • G.R. No. 130713 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GABRIEL FLORES

  • G.R. No. 130986 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR PAILANCO

  • G.R. No. 131512 January 20, 2000 - LAND TRANSPORTATION OFFICE [LTO] v. CITY OF BUTUAN

  • G.R. No. 132368 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PACITO GARCES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 133775 January 20, 2000 - FIDEL DABUCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131894-98 January 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. JESUS DOCENA

  • G.R. No. 134167 January 20, 2000 - NASSER IMMAM v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125965 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO GOZANO

  • G.R. No. 133477 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAFALES

  • G.R. No. 135904 January 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN TAN

  • G.R. Nos. 89591-96 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 100518 January 24, 2000 - ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS (ATU), ET AL. v. OSCAR N. ABELLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101932 January 24, 2000 - FRANCISCO H. ESCAÑO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111285 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE VALLA

  • G.R. No. 116066 January 24, 2000 - NUEVA ECIJA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124715 January 24, 2000 - RUFINA LUY LIM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125031 January 24, 2000 - PERMEX INC., ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129693 January 24, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY CORTES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1525 January 25, 2000 - MARTIN D. PANTALEON v. TEOFILO L. GUADIZ, JR.

  • G.R. No. 80129 January 25, 2000 - GERARDO RUPA, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 102706 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON LUMILAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107427 January 25, 2000 - JAMES R. BRACEWELL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113518 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESTEBAN ARLEE

  • G.R. No. 113684 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO GALLARDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116332 January 25, 2000 - BAYNE ADJUSTERS AND SURVEYORS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119595 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO BARONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120267 January 25, 2000 - CLARA ESPIRITU BORLONGAN, ET AL. v. CONSUELO MADRIDEO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121439 January 25, 2000 - AKLAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED (AKELCO) v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129246 January 25, 2000 - GREENFIELD REALTY CORP., ET AL. v. LORETO CARDAMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 131633-34 January 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA

  • G.R. No. 133132 January 25, 2000 - ALEXIS C. CANONIZADO, ET AL. v. ALEXANDER P. AGUIRRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135874 January 25, 2000 - SECURITY BANK CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-12-192-MTC January 26, 2000 - HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ISSUED BY ACTING JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524 January 26, 2000 - LUCIA F. LAYOLA v. BASILIO R. GABO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 107395 January 26, 2000 - TOURIST DUTY FREE SHOPS v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126115 January 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BALGOS

  • G.R. No. 131374 January 26, 2000 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES PHIL. v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES EMPLOYEES UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133842 January 26, 2000 - FEDERICO S. SANDOVAL v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133969 January 26, 2000 - NEMESIO GARCIA v. NICOLAS JOMOUAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 102961-62, 107625 & 108759 January 27, 2000 - JESUS P. LIAO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117040 January 27, 2000 - RUBEN SERRANO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130843 January 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOILO BORROMEO

  • Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 - CRISTINO G. CALUB v. ABRAHAM SULLER

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1246 January 28, 2000 - HEIRS OF JUAN and NATIVIDAD GERMINANDA v. RICARDO SALVANERA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211 January 28, 2000 - ZENAIDA S. BESO v. JUAN DAGUMAN

  • A.M. No. P-93-985 January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112177 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TITO ZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112329 January 28, 2000 - VIRGINIA A. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115824 January 28, 2000 - RAFAEL M. ALUNAN III, ET AL. v. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125279 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS TANAIL

  • G.R. No. 124129 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BRIGILDO

  • G.R. Nos. 124384-86 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMENCIANO "OMENG" RICAFRANCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125671 January 28, 2000 - CONDO SUITE CLUB TRAVEL v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125865 January 28, 2000 - JEFFREY LIANG (HUEFENG) v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 126802 January 28, 2000 - ROBERTO G. ALARCON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127568 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO BACULE

  • G.R. Nos. 129756-58 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN DEEN ESCAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131520 January 28, 2000 - ESTELITA AGUIRRE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131778 January 28, 2000 - HERMAN TIU LAUREL v. PRESIDING JUDGE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132138 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ROMEO LLAMO

  • G.R. No. 133486 January 28, 2000 - ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 133987 January 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY BARTOLOME

  • G.R. No. 136805 January 28, 2000 - DIESEL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC. v. JOLLIBEE FOODS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 137537 January 28, 2000 - SMI DEVT. CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 137718 January 28, 2000 - REYNALDO O. MALONZO, ET AL. v. RONALDO B. ZAMORA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139545 January 28, 2000 - MAIMONA H. N. M. S. DIANGKA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1226 January 31, 2000 - GLORIA LUCAS v. AMELIA A. FABROS

  • G.R. Nos. 88521-22 & 89366-67 January 31, 2000 - HEIRS OF EULALIO RAGUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105827 January 31, 2000 - J.L. BERNARDO CONSTRUCTION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112139 January 31, 2000 - LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL DEVT. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115045 January 31, 2000 - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116729 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARLON LERIO

  • G.R. No. 120706 January 31, 2000 - RODRIGO CONCEPCION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123094 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO PAGLINAWAN

  • G.R. No. 125440 January 31, 2000 - GENERAL BANK AND TRUST CO., ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127797 January 31, 2000 - ALEJANDRO MILLENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128536 January 31, 2000 - ROQUE G. GALANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128607 January 31, 2000 - ALFREDO MALLARI SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129071 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MILLIAM, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129505 & 133359 January 31, 2000 - OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II v. PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS

  • G.R. No. 130104 January 31, 2000 - ELIZABETH SUBLAY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130666 January 31, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO JOSE

  • G.R. No. 134437 January 31, 2000 - NATIONAL STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139758 January 31, 2000 - LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGHIA v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. P-93-985   January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. P-93-985. January 28, 2000.]

    MARTA BUCATCAT, Complainant, v. EDGAR BUCATCAT and GENE JARO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    In her letter-complaint, dated 1 July 1993, Marta T. Bucatcat (complainant) charged her husband, Edgar Y. Bucatcat, and Gene S. Jaro (respondents), Court Interpreter and Clerk of Court, respectively, of the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Gandara, Samar, with immorality.chanrobles.com.ph:red

    Complainant avers that she is the legal wife of respondent Bucatcat but that they had been separated for several years now. They have two (2) daughters who are being raised by complainant without allegedly any support from her husband. She claims that respondents are having an illicit relationship with each other. Moreover, respondents allegedly have two (2) children together and that respondent Jaro, at the time of the filing of the letter-complaint, was pregnant with their third child.

    By way of comment, respondents filed their respective counter-affidavits. In his counter-affidavit, dated 6 September 1993, respondent Bucatcat denied that he’s maintaining an illicit affair with respondent Jaro and that he fathered two of her children. He likewise denied being the father of the child then being carried by respondent Jaro in her womb. According to respondent Bucatcat, he got married to complainant on 19 December 1979 when he was barely twenty-four (24) years old while she was thirty-six (36) years old. They lived with complainant’s relatives. Respondent Bucatcat agreed to this arrangement thinking that it was only temporary. Unable to stand the "domineering" ways of his wife’s relatives and after it appeared to him that his wife had no intention of moving away from them, respondent Bucatcat left her and lived with his parents. Despite being separated from them, he continued to give his family financial support. Respondent Bucatcat contended that the instant complaint was filed by complainant merely to preempt the immorality charge that he was going to file against the latter for having an adulterous relationship with one Cpl. Antonio Zaen.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Respondent Jaro likewise denied having an affair with respondent Bucatcat. She asserted that she is legally married to Jaime R. Jaro and that they have five children, namely:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Name Birth date

    1. Jaime S. Jaro February 13, 1975

    2. Jenny S. Jaro July 8, 1976

    3. Jake S. Jaro June 14, 1978

    4. Ged S. Jaro July 25, 1988

    5. Jude S. Jaro November 30, 1991

    At the time of execution of her counter-affidavit on 6 September 1993, she was pregnant with their sixth child. Her husband allegedly spent most of his time in Manila where their two older children were studying. Since complainant did not name which among respondent Jaro’s children are allegedly sired by respondent Bucatcat, respondent Jaro surmised that she (complainant) was referring to her last two children, Ged and Jude. To refute complainant’s charge, respondent Jaro attached to her counter affidavit the certificates of live births of these two children showing that their father is Jaime Jaro. Respondent Jaro opined that complainant’s charges against her are malicious and merely fabricated.

    In its Resolution, dated 6 June 1994, the court referred the case to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31 of Calbayog, Samar, for investigation, report and recommendation. In compliance therewith, Judge Filemon T. Saborrido conducted hearings where the parties were given the opportunity to present their witnesses. Renato Jimenez and Miguel Fenellere, both residents of Gandara, Samar, corroborated complainant’s allegations. They claimed that respondents were living together. Eva Llacer Glore, a midwife, testified that she attended to the delivery of the last two children of respondent Jaro in 1991 and 1994 and that during these instances, her husband was not present. It was discovered in the course of Glore’s testimony that respondent Jaro failed to register the birth of her youngest (sixth) child who was born on 8 January 1994.chanrobles.com.ph:red

    In her testimony, complainant maintained that the last three children of respondent Jaro, namely, Ged, Judge and the youngest baby girl, born in 1988, 1991 and 1994, respectively, were fathered by respondent Bucatcat. Complainant explained that these children could not have been fathered by her (respondent Jaro’s) husband because he already left respondent Jaro in 1978 and subsequently her claim showed that "Jaime Ramirez Jose" died in Parañaque on 19 October 1989. He was 41 years old.

    For the respondents, Wenceslao Ocong, Arsenio Reposar and Benedicta Aleria testified that they had not seen respondents in each other’s house and that they were not living together. Antonio Peczon supported respondent Bucatcat’s claim that he had been giving financial support to his children with complainant.

    For their part, respondents substantially reiterated the allegations in their respective counter-affidavits. Respondent Jaro insisted that her husband is the father of all her children as shown by their respective certificates of live birth. She contended that the "Jaime R. Jose" in the death certificate is not her husband because the spouse named in said document is one Jabina Jaro. Further, she averred that respondent Bucatcat could not be her lover because she even filed a criminal case against him after he slapped and boxed her.

    After termination of the investigation, the investigating judge submitted his report containing the following observations and comments:chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

    "a. The testimony of Renato Jimenez that he saw sometime in 1987 respondents doing sexual act in the house of one Ricardo Conde is not credible. As he alleged that it happened at about 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon in a house which is situated at the side of a street across the public market of Gandara, and that he was with other friends (barkadas) peeping through the hole of the walling of the house, is far from the truth. Respondents being matured and intelligent persons will not carelessly do such alleged illicit and scandalous act at such time and in a place where they can be easily detected by other persons.

    b. It is admitted that respondent Edgar Y. Bucatcat and Marta T. Bucatcat are now living separately, but the allegation that Edgar and Gene Jaro are living together is not supported by reliable witnesses. Witnesses Renato Jimenez and Miguel Fenellere are not close neighbors of either Edgar’s parents or Gene Jaro. Renato Jimenez was observed by the Investigator to be a prejudiced witness. The testimony also of Miguel Fenellere that he saw respondent Edgar Bucatcat in the house of Gene Jaro and carrying in his arm a child of the latter is not sufficient to establish illicit relation of the respondents. Respondents are employees in the same court and it is not surprising that one may be seen in the house of the other.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    c. The certificates of live birth of Ged and Jude, children of respondent Gene Jaro, were offered in evidence by complainant (Exhibits E and F, Rollo, pp. 12 and 13). Both documents, however, show that the father of the named children is Jaime Jaro, the husband of Gene. There can be no better evidence than the document itself.

    d. Certificates of death of an alleged "Jaime R. Jaro" were offered also in evidence (Exhibits G and H). The Investigator entertains doubt as to the identity of "Jaime R. Jaro" named in said certificates of death as the same Jaime Jaro who is the husband of respondent Gene Jaro, because said certificates show that the surviving spouse of "Jaime R. Jaro" named therein is one Javina Jaro and not Gene S. Jaro. Evidence shows that Jaime Jaro and Gene S. Jaro were legally married and if it is the latter’s husband who is the subject of said death certificates, then the name of respondent Gene S. Jaro would appear therein as his surviving spouse. It is not impossible that two persons may bear the same name and with the same middle initial.chanrobles.com : red

    e. An alleged letter of one "Gene addressed to "Edgar" (Exhibit I) was submitted also in evidence by complainant, which she alleged to be a letter of respondent Gene Jaro for Edgar Bucatcat, and which came into her possession after it was surrendered to her by her husband during that period of their reconciliation after a fire razed Gandara. Said letter (Exhibit I) was, however, denied by respondent Edgar Bucatcat. As its authenticity was not proved or that it was written by respondent Gene Jaro, the Investigator counts such evidence not reliable.

    f. Three (3) torn pages of a diary (Exhibits J, J-3, and J-5) were submitted in evidence, which were admitted by respondent Edgar Bucatcat as pages torn off from his diary. Complainant presumed that the boy named "Andro" in Exhibit J-5 is the child "Ged" in Exhibit E, who is a son of respondent Gene Jaro. It was explained by respondent Edgar Bucatcat that the boy "Andro" mentioned in his diary is his child born in 1977 as a consequence of his relation with a certain Generose Panogaling when he was still employed in the Philippine Village Hotel. He alleged that the name "Gene" in the diary (Exhibit J-5) is the short name for Generose Panogaling.

    g. There appears no satisfactory explanation of the fact why the live birth of respondent Gene Jaro’s baby girl, who was born on January 9, 1994, has not been registered with the Local Civil Registry of Gandara, Samar and until the present, the child is still unnamed. The entries in her Delivery Record Book (Exhibit M) could not be completed, as alleged by midwife Eva Llacer Glore, for failure of Gene Jaro to give her the necessary data. Said respondent’s flimsy pretext is that she has not yet found a name for the child. As a court employee, respondent Gene Jaro need not be apprised of her responsibility enjoined upon her by law as a mother of a newly born baby.

    h. Testimonial evidence shows an undeniable fact that in the deliveries by respondent Gene Jaro of her three children (Ged, Jude and the baby girl), her husband, Jaime Jaro, was not present in any of such deliveries, as he did not return anymore to Gandara, Samar after he left that town in 1978. He has neither appeared or executed an affidavit in connection with this case to defend his wife, Gene Jaro, or at least give her moral support especially now that the latter’s fidelity to him is being challenged. This fact simply explains that the marriage of Jaime Jaro and respondent Gene S. Jaro has been disturbed, and the latter was not telling the exact truth when she alleged that they are "living together happily."cralaw virtua1aw library

    i. It has been revealed in the course of the investigation that a case (Criminal Case No. 4747) was filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Gandara, Samar by Gene Jaro against Edgar Y. Bucatcat for allegedly slapping and boxing her and that she suffered bruises as a consequence (t.s.n., pp. 155-157). Without necessarily digging into the merits of the case, it should be borne in mine by respondents that they are both court employees and as such they should avoid acts and incidents that would undermine a court of justice, for it is their sworn and moral duty to maintain the respect due to the court and to uphold the high esteem and dignity of the judicial office." 1

    The investigating judge then recommended the following actions:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The undersigned Investigator respectfully recommends, subject to the better judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court, the following disciplinary actions against the respondents, to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. EDGAR Y. BUCATCAT, should be removed from the service or, if retained, he should be assigned or transferred to another court or station, if possible, for the good of the service, on the following grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    a) For his abandonment of his wife and children without sufficient and valid reasons, which act makes him unworthy as an employee in a court of justice;

    b) For maltreating Gene S. Jaro, his superior co-employee in the same court, which conduct is prejudicial to the best interest of the service; and

    c) For having an affair with a woman (Generose Panogaling), with whom he had a son, which is a disgraceful and immoral conduct committed prior to entering the service, punishable under civil service rules.

    2. GENE S. JARO, should be administratively disciplined with a penalty of one (1) month suspension without pay, on the following ground:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    a) For failure to register with the Local Civil Registry of Gandara, Samar her last child born on January 9, 1994, despite a considerable length of time that passed since her delivery." 2

    In its memorandum, dated 25 April 1995, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis, disagreed with the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the investigating judge in that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. The records only show that complainant and her respondent husband are living separately. No proof was adduced by the former that they were abandoned, much less, that they were abandoned without reason. We feel that as respondent- husband is residing within the same municipality and was not shown to be aversed to having his family living with him, complainant, being the wife, has the burden of justifying why she and her children are not living with him.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

    2. The absence of respondent Jaro’s husband from Gandara town since 1978 and at crucial times, (birth of three of their children and during the investigation of the instant matter) is disturbing and a (sic) suspect. The Investigating Judge should have probed deeper as it was not adequately explained by Respondent.

    Considering that the whereabouts and paternity of Jaime were raised and in support of which death certificates were adduced in evidence, the burden is now shifted to respondent Jaro to prove he is alive and that he is in fact the father of the three children. To this end, uncorroborated denial is not sufficient for being self-serving.

    We feel that the Investigating Judge should have given the death certificates more credit. A close scrutiny of the records would show that it is highly probable that the certificates are of respondent Jaro’s husbands. We noted that the "Jaime Ramirez Jaro, 41 years old of Parañaque, Metro Manila," as appearing in the death certificate and the "Zjaime R. Jaro" as found in the marriage contract refers to one and the same person for the following reasons: (a) the place of issue of the former is a part of Metro Manila where respondent claim her husband is residing and carrying on his business; (b) the middle initial "R" stands for "Ramirez" as can be deduced from his mother’s maiden name in the marriage contract; and (c) his age at the time of death (i.e., 41 in 1989) agrees with is age at the time of marriage (i.e., 26 in 1974). These similarities should have outweighed the difference in the name of spouse found therein. At any rate, respondent Jaro’s own disclosure that she heard rumors of her husband’s death should have alerted the Investigating Judge that there were too many coincidences. It was so notwithstanding her claim that her children wrote her with the Information that their father still visits them as the alleged letter was not produced in court.

    Indeed, the absence of Jaime is baffling. His existence and whereabouts are unaccounted for since he left Gandara in 1978; no witnesses (family members, relatives or friends) were presented or letters produced in court to refute his alleged demise.

    We are, therefore, of the belief that the Jaime R. Jaro who died in 1989 is none other than respondent’s absent husband.

    3. The entries in the birth certificates should not be given full credit, particularly respecting the naming of Jaime as the father of the children considering that the registrations were caused by respondent and at the time he is believed to have already passed away, and, therefore, not able to impugn the filiation of the children. As respondent is the sole informant of the entries, the same may be said to be self-serving for purposes of establishing the paternity of a deceased father.

    4. We note that the name of respondent’s children, with the exception of the youngest child and of Ged, begins with the letter "J." To our mind, the name "Ged" is taken from the first two letters of respondent Jaro’s and Bucatcat’s name. (i.e., Gene and Edgar)

    5. We are not convinced that the relationship between respondents is purely official. They did not deny they go to each other’s house. Respondent Bucatcat was even seen carrying respondent Jaro’s child.

    The criminal case on the alleged slapping and boxing incident between respondents further attest to their relationship on personal level even if it was not sufficiently proven that they are living together.chanrobles.com.ph : red

    In sum, it is the position of the undersigned that respondent Bucatcat and Jaro may be held as charged for immorality. 3

    The OCA then recommended that respondents be suspended for a period of one (1) year with a warning that a repetition of a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely. 4

    After a careful review of the records of the case, we find that the charge of immorality against respondents had been sufficiently established. They failed to convincingly refute the positive, categorical and clear testimonies of Jimenez and Fenellere that respondents were having an illicit relationship with each other. In his attempt to discredit Jimenez, respondent Bucatcat claimed that Jimenez testified against him only because Jimenez’ father had an axe to grind against the father of respondent Bucatcat. This argument is utterly devoid of logic. In any case, there is still the testimony of Fenellere corroborating complainant’s allegations and respondents failed to show any ill motive on his part to testify against them.

    In addition, there is the letter 5 , dated 7 July 1987, written by respondent Jaro to respondent Bucatcat. She lovingly greeted him in said letter "Everdearest Edgar" and ended the same with "i love you." Respondent Bucatcat naturally denied having received this letter. We have no reason, however, to doubt the authenticity and genuineness of this document and respondent Jaro did not deny having written the same. It unquestionably proves the existence of an intimate relationship between respondents. Moreover, as testified to by respondent Jaro, she was once slapped and boxed by respondent Bucatcat. As correctly observed by the COA, this fact attests to their having a relationship on a very personal level.

    Upon the other hand, we find respondent’s testimonies, particularly that of respondent Jaro, incredulous. Respondent Jaro insists that she is happily married to her husband. The records, however, reveal otherwise. It has been established that her husband left Gandara, Samar for Manila in 1978. He never came back to visit his family since then. He was conspicuously absent when respondent Jaro gave birth to her last three children. Respondent Jaro testified that she heard rumors that her husband was already dead. It is not shown, however, if she cared enough to verify this otherwise distressful news. To our mind, these are not telltale signs of a happily married couple as respondent Jaro would like this Court to believe.

    We do not deem it necessary, at this time, to pass upon the issues relating to the purported death of respondent Jaro’s husband and the legitimacy or illegitimacy of her last three children. These are matters of utmost significance and may not be collaterally raised in this case. Specifically, the legitimacy of the children should be impugned in the proper proceedings.chanrobles virtuallawlibrary:red

    In sum, we agree with the findings of the OCA that there is sufficient evidence to hold respondents liable for immorality for maintaining an illicit relationship with each other. Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the court’s good name and standing. 6 It cannot be overstressed that 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. 7 Respondents have fallen far short of these standards.

    WHEREFORE, respondents Edgar Y. Bucatcat and Gene S. Jaro are hereby DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including any government-owned and controlled corporations. Let a copy of this Decision be appended to respondents’ 201 files.

    SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 101-103.

    2. Id., at 103.

    3. Id., Memorandum, pp. 4-6.

    4. Id., at 6.

    5. Exhibit "I" .

    6. Estreller v. Manatad, Jr., 268 SCRA 608, 618 (1997); Paredes v. Padua, 222 SCRA 881 (1993).

    7. Dicdican v. Fernan, Jr., 268 SCRA 69, 72 (1997).

    A.M. No. P-93-985   January 28, 2000 - MARTA BUCATCAT v. EDGAR BUCATCAT, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED