THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-14-3227. July 9, 2014.]
LEHLAND A. ALMOITE, complainant, vs. CHERRY E. CORTEZ, COURT STENOGRAPHER II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION, respondent.
DECISION
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 9, 2014, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-14-3227 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3482-P] (Lehland A. Almoite vs. Cherry E. Cortez, Court Stenographer II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, San Fernando City, La Union). — The Court resolves to:
(1) RE-DOCKET this matter as a regular administrative matter against respondent Cherry E. Cortez, Court Stenographer II, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, San Fernando City, La Union; and
(2) NOTE the Memorandum dated February 26, 2014 of the Office of the Court Administrator.
For resolution is the Affidavit-Complaint 1 dated September 1, 2010 filed by Lehland A. Almoite (hereinafter "complainant") against respondent Cherry E. Cortez, Court Stenographer II of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 2, charging the latter with immorality for maintaining an illicit relationship and for bearing a child with a married man.
In her Affidavit-Complaint, complainant claimed that on March 15, 2010, she caught her husband, PO3 Romando Almoite ("Almoite"), hiding a cellphone which had several intimate text messages such as "I Love You", indicating that Almoite was in a relationship with the sender. Upon confronting her husband, complainant learned that the sender was Almoite's mistress, whom Almoite identified to be respondent. Almoite further admitted that he has a child with respondent.
On March 17, 2010, complainant allegedly went to respondent's house where she saw Almoite and respondent arrive together on his motorcycle. She also saw Almoite enter the house and kiss an infant who was brought to him by respondent's mother. Complainant then approached respondent's mother and, introducing herself to be his wife, asked to see Almoite.
Aside from these incidents, complainant also enumerated several instances where Almoite was found to have been living with respondent. Complainant submitted photographs of Almoite and respondent at a gathering at respondent's house, as well as a photograph of Almoite's motorcycle parked therein.
Complainant further claimed that respondent's neighbors and co-workers knew that Almoite and respondent were living together as husband and wife. However, no one was willing to execute an affidavit attesting to such for fear of Almoite who is a policeman.
On April 19, 2010, complainant met with respondent at the "Halo-halo de Iloko" restaurant in San Fernando City. During the meeting, respondent allegedly admitted her relationship with Almoite, which had been ongoing for some time already, and that she knew that Almoite was married but that the marriage was shaky. Respondent also allegedly admitted that the infant complainant saw at respondent's house is the former's child with Almoite. Complainant further claimed that respondent promised to stay away from Almoite and that she will no longer allow him to visit her at her office.
However, complainant learned sometime in June 2010 that Almoite still slept in respondent's house and that respondent's family seemed to have accepted him despite knowing that he was already married. She also personally saw respondent and Almoite together, along with their child, at the wake of Almoite's sister on August 7, 2010.
Prompted by these developments, complainant accordingly filed her Affidavit-Complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on September 1, 2010. cTACIa
In her Comment dated October 22, 2010, 2 respondent claimed that the complaint against her is baseless. She insists that the allegations made in the complaint are based on hearsay and had no real proof, and even the actions raised therein "cannot be considered acts of immorality."
Considering the opposing claims of the parties in the Affidavit-Complaint and the Comment, the OCA referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Fernando City, La Union, for investigation, report, and recommendation, in its Resolution dated February 9, 2011.
Accordingly, Executive Judge Imelda P. Cosalan of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Fernando City, La Union, conducted a full blown trial on the matter. The parties filed the judicial affidavits of their witnesses, who were then cross examined based on such affidavits.
After both parties presented their witnesses and formally offered their evidence, Executive Judge Cosalan submitted to the OCA her Report on Investigation dated January 11, 2012. 3 In her report, Executive Judge Cosalan found respondent to have committed an act of immorality and recommended her to be suspended for six months without pay, with a stern warning that in case of subsequent violation, dismissal from service shall be imposed.
Upon evaluation of the case, the OCA agreed with Executive Judge Cosalan's conclusion that the circumstances surrounding respondent and Almoite's relationship were inconsistent with respondent's claim that she had no knowledge of Almoite's marriage until she was confronted by complainant in March 2010. The OCA found respondent's failure to demand marriage from Almoite — despite being courted in 2006, having a serious relationship since 2007, and bearing their child in 2009 — to be incomprehensible.
More importantly, the OCA gave more weight in Executive Judge Cosalan's findings that respondent "showed indifference to the moral norms of society and the opinion of good and respectable members of the community" when it was discovered during the investigation that respondent herself was still married in 2006, the time when Almoite admittedly began courting her, and for simply entering a serious relationship with Almoite despite her husband's recent death in 2007.
Finally, the OCA found that respondent's claim that she severed her illicit relationship with Almoite after being confronted by complainant in March 2010 was belied by the testimonies of witnesses who attested seeing respondent and Almoite on various occasions after that period.
In support of its conclusion, the OCA ratiocinated as follows:
Indeed, respondent's act of maintaining an illicit relationship with Almoite, who was still married to complainant at the time, constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct. The sanctity of marriage is constitutionally recognized and likewise affirmed by our statutes as a special contract of permanent union. Accordingly, judicial employees have been sanctioned for their dalliances with married persons or for their betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. 4
Accordingly, on the basis of the findings and recommendation of Executive Judge Cosalan, the OCA, in its Memorandum dated February 26, 2014, recommended that the instant administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. Furthermore, while concurring with Executive Judge Cosalan's findings, the OCA recommended a modified penalty of suspension from service without pay and other benefits for six months and one day, in accordance with Paragraph A (15) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishing disgraceful and immoral conduct for the first offense.
The only issue for resolution in this case is whether or not respondent is administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
We resolve to adopt the findings of the OCA, with slight modification.
Time and time again, this Court has emphasized that "the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the women and men who work in the judiciary, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel." 5 Court employees, being officers and representatives of the Court, are entrusted with the responsibility of upholding the high moral standards of the Court "to preserve the good name and integrity of justice." 6 Thus, court employees such as respondent in the present case are expected to act accordingly.
In the case at bar, respondent was accused of disgraceful and immoral conduct by none other than the scorned wife of Almoite, respondent's lover and father of her child. Complainant claimed that upon her discovery of the illicit affair, she immediately confronted respondent, who allegedly promised to sever her relationship with Almoite. Despite this promise, respondent was still seen by several witnesses spending time with Almoite even after the confrontation occurred. cEHSTC
In her defense, respondent claimed that she had no knowledge of Almoite's marriage to complainant before she was confronted by the latter in March 2010. Respondent further claimed that the instances where she was seen together with Almoite after the confrontation were not immoral since the only relationship she continued to have with Almoite is that of being co-parents of their child. However, respondent herself admitted that Almoite resumed courting her when Almoite's marriage with complainant was declared null and void ab initio on November 30, 2010 by Presiding Judge Clifton U. Ganay of the Regional Trial Court of Agoo, La Union, Branch 31. 7
Both the Executive Judge and the OCA found respondent's actions to be contrary to her claim of innocence and good faith. They gave credence to the testimonies of witnesses that respondent continued with her relationship with Almoite despite already knowing about his marital status. Added to such testimonies is the Executive Judge's discovery during the investigation that the courtship began while respondent was still married and eventually blossomed into a relationship soon after respondent's husband passed away.
Aside from the above circumstances, the Executive Judge and the OCA appear to have overlooked another crucial fact. A review of the records of this case shows that complainant had filed not only the present administrative case against respondent, but also a separate criminal case for concubinage and violation of Republic Act No. 9262 against respondent and Almoite, docketed as I.S. Nos. I-12-INV-10K-00651 to 00652, entitled Lehland Almoite y Agustin v. Romando Almoite and Cherry Cortez.
In complainant's Position Paper dated July 18, 2011, complainant attached a copy of respondent's Affidavit dated December 28, 2010, which was filed with the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Fernando City, La Union in the criminal case. In such affidavit, respondent's statements clearly contradicted her admissions in the present administrative case. Not only did respondent deny the criminal charges made against her, but she also denied knowing Almoite aside from allegedly being her sister's comrade who would occasionally visit their house as her sister's visitor. Respondent even went to the extreme of saying that the child she was carrying in the photos submitted by complainant was her nephew and son of her sister.
In a long line of cases, this Court has defined immorality as a "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." 8 This includes engaging in sexual relations with a married man, which is "not only a violation of the moral standards expected of employees of the judiciary, but is also a desecration of the sanctity of the institution of marriage which this Court abhors and is, thus, punishable." 9
While respondent claims innocence as to Almoite's marital status at the time their relationship commenced and their lovechild was conceived, she cannot raise such defense after she was confronted by herein complainant. Yet, she was still continually seen by witnesses spending time with Almoite even after such confrontation. This clear disregard of societal norms against extramarital affairs, plus complainant's flagrant denial in the affidavit she submitted in the criminal case against her, establishes respondent's moral indifference.
As aptly stated by the OCA, disgraceful and immoral conduct is punishable with suspension from six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Cherry E. Cortez is found GUILTY of disgraceful and immoral conduct. Accordingly, she is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months and one (1) day. Respondent is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. (Villarama, Jr., J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May 22, 2014.) DTCAES
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-10.
2. Id. at 12-18.
3. Id. at 387-395.
4. Id. at 406.
5. Acebido v. Halasam, A.M. No. P-10-2803, March 30, 2011, 646 SCRA 593, 596.
6. Id.
7. Rollo, pp. 44-76.
8. Adlawan v. Capilitan, A.M. No. P-12-3080, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 184, 188-189; Jallorina v. Taneo-Regner, A.M. No. P-11-2948, April 23, 2012, 670 SCRA 301, 308.
9. Jallorina v. Taneo-Regner, supra note 8.