February 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. P-07-2301 : February 07, 2011]
MARIA G. RAMOS-TRAVIÑO V. RAUL M. TRAVIÑO, CLERK, MTCC, BRANCH 1, MALOLOS CITY
A.M. No. P-07-2301 (Maria G. Ramos-Travi�o v. Raul M. Travi�o, Clerk, MTCC, Branch I, Malolos City)
This administrative matter arose from a Letter-Complaint dated November 3, 2005[1] of Maria G. Ramos-Travi�o, charging respondent Raul M. Travi�o, Clerk in Branch 1 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Malolos City, with immorality.
In the Letter-Complaint, complainant, who is the legal wife of respondent, alleged that the latter fathered an illegitimate child, Reeze Andrei Nave, with a certain Evert C. Nave during their marriage.[2] Attached to the said letter-complaint is a certified copy of the Certificate of Live Birth[3] of Reeze Andrei Nave where respondent affixed his signature at the dorsal side thereof acknowledging paternity. Complainant also claimed that, aside from being an irresponsible husband, respondent has also made it known to his co-employees in the MTCC in Malolos City that he was cohabiting with the mother of his illegitimate child.[4]
In compliance with the directive of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), respondent submitted his Comment dated December 12, 2005.[5] Attached therewith is an affidavit of desistance executed complainant manifesting her intention to withdraw the instant administrative case she filed against her husband.
In his comment, respondent admitted that he has an illegitimate child. However, he contended that this was with the consent of his wife, the complainant, as they have been childless despite their long years of being husband and wife. He professed that it was their intention to adopt the illegitimate child he would sire. Respondent further claimed that he had been discreet in maintaining his relationship with the mother of his child, who was aware of his marital status and who did not expect more from him other than being the father of her child. He maintained that he has been faithful to his wife and that his having a child by another woman should not be considered as an act of infidelity since he and his wife agreed to this. Finally, he asserted that he only consented to the said arrangement in the hope that a child in the family will strengthen the marital bond between him and his wife.[6]
On March 5, 2008, the Court resolved to refer the administrative matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Malolos City for investigation, report and recommendation.[7]
Following an investigation, Executive Judge Herminia V. Pasamba (Judge Pasamba) submitted her Report dated March 23, 2009, in which she noted that her court cannot come to terms with the idea that the parties agreed to have another woman bear the child of respondent, considering that they had been married for only over three (3) years when Reeze Andrei Nave was born following the alleged agreement. She determined that, at most, the scenario was crafted to extricate respondent from any legal repercussions arising from his illicit affair with the mother of the child, Evert Nave.[8]
Judge Pasamba also observed that the letter-complaint clearly stressed that respondent is a public servant who, for having a concubine and making known the same to his co-employees, lives an immoral life.[9] She further noted that complainant affirmed the truth of the contents of her letter-complaint during the investigation.
Concerning complainant's affidavit of desistance, the investigating judge noticed that nowhere did it say that the immoral act was the result of her agreement with respondent. Instead, it stated that the complaint was filed and/or initiated because of anger. As further observed, said feeling is more identified with the sentiment of a woman betrayed by her husband who was maintaining an illicit dalliance with another woman.[10]
In view of the foregoing, Judge Pasamba recommended that respondent be meted the penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year, this being his first offense.[11]
On July 29, 2009, the Court referred the report of Judge Pasamba to the OCA for further evaluation, report, and recommendation. On October 20, 2009, then Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, now a member of this Court, submitted a Memorandum in which he affirmed and adopted the factual findings of the investigating judge. He recommended the sanction of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day.
The recommendation of the Court Administrator and the premises holding it together are well taken.
Time and again, this Court has held that public office is a public trust. Thus, all government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the people; serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice; and lead modest lives.[12] This constitutional mandate is not meant to be a mere slogan; rather, it should serve as a course of conduct to all public servants during their entire service in the government, which includes observance of a degree of morality while holding office. As held in Licardo v. Licardo
x x x The good of the service and the degree of morality which every official and employee in the public service must observe, if respect and confidence are to be maintained by the Government in the enforcement of the law, demand that no untoward conduct on his part, affecting morality, integrity and efficiency while holding office should be left without proper and commensurate sanction, all attendant circumstances taken into account.[13]
On several occasions, this Court has held that "an illicit relation is considered disgraceful and immoral conduct which is subject to disciplinary action."[14] In the instant case, not only did respondent cohabit with another woman, he also sired a child with her.
Under Rule XIV, Section 23 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws, disgraceful and immoral conduct is classified as a grave offense for which the penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year shall be imposed for the first offense, while the penalty of dismissal shall be imposed for the second offense.[15]
Indeed, to find a civil service employee guilty of a grave offense, competent and reliable evidence must be adduced. As this Court held in The Law Firm of Chavez Miranda Aseoche v. Dicdican:
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. In fact, if the complainant upon whom rests the burden of proving his cause of action fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim, the respondent is under no obligation to prove his exception or defense. Even in administrative cases, if a court employee or magistrate is to be disciplined for a grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail.[16] (Emphasis supplied.)
In the instant case, respondent himself admitted, both in his comment and during the investigation, that he had a relationship with another woman with whom he fathered a child. Aside from such admission, this is further evidenced by respondent's signature at the dorsal side of the Certificate of Live Birth of Reeze Andrei Nave where he acknowledged paternity. All these were done by respondent during his marriage with the complainant. This leads to no other conclusion than that respondent is guilty of committing disgraceful and immoral conduct for which he should be held liable.
The Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant does not in any way absolve respondent from administrative sanctions. Notably, said affidavit does not attest that the charges stated in the letter-complaint were untrue. Moreover, despite the execution of the affidavit of desistance, complainant still affirmed the truth of the contents of her letter-complaint during the investigation. In this regard, it bears stressing that administrative cases are imbued with public interest,[17] and the Court may not be divested of its right under Sec. 6, Article VIII of the Constitution[18] to investigate and discipline erring court officials. In Re: Complaint filed by Atty. Francis Allan A. Rubio, this Court held:
The need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government, its agencies and instrumentalities requires that proceedings in administrative cases should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of complainants. This Court cannot be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter which may involve its disciplinary power; otherwise that power may be put to naught, thereby undermining the trust character of a public office and impairing the integrity and dignity of this Court as a disciplining authority over all employees of the judiciary.
x x x x
Actions in administrative cases are independent of the will of the complainant. While Atty. Rubio may consider this case closed insofar as Mr. Moncayo is concerned, this Court cannot close its eyes to the anomaly which was brought to its attention. Withdrawal of the complaint will not free respondent from his administrative liability particularly because administrative proceedings against public employees are imbued with public interest, public office being a public trust.[19] (Emphasis supplied.)
All told, this Court is in accord with the recommendation of the Court Administrator that respondent be suspended for six (6) months and one (1) day, this being his first offense.
WHEREFORE, Raul M. Travi�o, Clerk in Branch 1 of the MTCC in Malolos City, Bulacan, is found GUILTY of Immorality. He is meted the penalty of SUSPENSION of six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with the stern warning that a repetition of similar or analogous infractions in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED. PEREZ, J., took no part; ABAD, J., additional member per raffle dated 21 July 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4.[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Id. at 4.
[4] Id. at 2.
[5] Id. at 6-7.
[6] Id. at 6.
[7] Id. at 12.
[8] Id. at 51.
[9] Id. at 52.
[10] ld.
[11] Id..
[12] CONSTITUTION, Art. XI, Sec. 1.
[13] A.M. No. P-06-2238, September 27, 2007, 534 SCRA 181, 192.
[14] Dela Torre-Yadao v. Cabanatan, A.M. Nos. P-05-1953 & P-05-1954, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 332, 338; citing Maguad v. De Guzman, A.M. No. P-94-1015, March 29, 1999, 305 SCRA 469, 476.
[15] Licardo v. Licardo, supra note 13, at 194.
[16] A.M. No. CA-09-48-J, March 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 18, 22.
[17] Jamin v. De Castro, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1616, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 359, 369.
[18] Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 6 states:
Section 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
[19] A.M. No. 2004-17-SC, September 27, 2004, 439 SCRA 118, 125-127.
