FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 16-4626-P. March 18, 2019.]
JEFFREY A. DE GUZMAN, complainant, vs.ROSALIA R. DE GUZMAN, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, BRANCH 28, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 18, 2019which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 16-4626-P — (Jeffrey A. De Guzman v. Rosalia R. De Guzman, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28)
Before this Court is a Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated September 14, 2016, filed by Jeffrey A. De Guzman (complainant) charging his wife, Rosalia R. De Guzman (respondent), Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28, with immorality.
Complainant, a seafarer, is respondent's husband. In 2015, when he went back to the Philippines, his uncle informed him that he discovered that complainant's wife was having an illicit relationship with another man as early as 2014. Complainant's mother confirmed this and the latter even asked respondent to end her illicit relationship to no avail. 2
Complainant alleged that the paramour of his wife was Rudy Ryan Cabasa (Rudy), a jail guard at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP). Complainant also learned that respondent had an abortion sometime in April 2015. He confirmed seeing respondent talking to Rudy outside her office when he visited her. He noticed, too, that respondent had new passwords for her social media accounts, which she did not want to disclose to him. 3
On June 6, 2015, respondent confessed to complainant about having an illicit relationship with another man. She asked to live separately from him in order to "find herself." Complainant, thus, rented an apartment for respondent and their son and visited them from time to time. After returning to work in July 2015, he learned that Rudy always stayed in respondent's apartment. His cousin even saw Rudy and respondent in an uncompromising position. He also learned that Rudy's mother-in-law confronted respondent and accused her of being the "kabit" (mistress) of Rudy. 4
Complainant returned to the country in April 2016 to discuss with respondent the custody of their son. Respondent, however, refused to talk to him and he never saw his son again. He later learned at the Laguna Doctor's Hospital that his wife was pregnant and due to give birth in October or November 2017. He realized that he could not be the father of the child she was carrying because he only came back to the Philippines in April 2016. 5 CAIHTE
On September 19, 2016, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed respondent to comment on the complaint 6 but she failed to do so. On June 7, 2017, the OCA reiterated its September 19, 2016 directive for respondent to comment but she again failed to do so. 7
Subsequently, respondent filed a Compliance 8 dated June 25, 2018. She averred that complainant, in addition to the complaint he filed before this Court, also filed a case for adultery against her; that during one of their meetings, complainant and respondent had ironed things out and were able to settle amicably; that complainant even filed a "Salaysay ng Pag-uurong ng Sakdal" (Affidavit of Desistance) and by virtue of the said affidavit, the case for adultery against respondent was dismissed; and that complainant admitted that he had no witnesses to prove his allegations against complainant in the adultery case. Respondent stressed that the adultery case and the case filed before this Court arose from the alleged same incident, therefore, the case against her should likewise be dismissed. 9
Report and Recommendation
In its Memorandum, 10 dated November 5, 2018, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondent for insufficiency of evidence. It concluded that there was no substantial evidence to hold respondent administratively liable, particularly in view of the affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant wherein he stated, among others, that he had no witnesses who could testify on his behalf. However, the OCA recommended that complainant be admonished for her inappropriate behavior.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings of the OCA with modification.
Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual matters but also conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is 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. 11 There is no doubt that engaging in sexual relations with a married man 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. 12
In the instant case, respondent claims that the case against her for immorality must be dismissed for failure of the complainant to prove his allegations. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for finding of guilt is substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 13 It must be stressed that the burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding falls on the complainant, who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. 14 Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. 15
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA that complainant failed to justify his allegations against respondent. Complainant even admitted in his affidavit of desistance that he has no witnesses to testify on his behalf. There being no substantial evidence to prove his allegations against respondent, the complaint against the latter must be dismissed.
Nevertheless, the OCA recommended that respondent be admonished because of her inappropriate behavior which does not comply with the standards set by this Court for individuals connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice.
The Court does not agree.
As aforementioned, complainant was not able to prove that respondent was having an illicit relationship with another man. The pictures showing respondent with another man, which is attached in his complaint, cannot be considered by the Court as evidence sufficient to prove respondent's immorality. Moreover, complainant was unable to present any witness to corroborate his allegations. As such, there is no basis for admonishing respondent for her alleged inappropriate behavior.
Admonition is a warning or reminder, counseling on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning. 16 Notably, the OCA failed to specify or expound the alleged inappropriate behavior exhibited by respondent considering that there was no credible proof of immorality on her part. Yet, the OCA decided to admonish the respondent.
WHEREFORE, the complaint dated September 14, 2016, against Rosalia R. De Guzman, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28 is DISMISSED. DETACa
SO ORDERED."Bersamin, C.J., on official business; Del Castillo, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2645 dated March 15, 2019.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-5.
2.Id. at 1.
3.Id. at 1-2.
4.Id. at 2-3.
5.Id. at 3-4.
6.Id. at 32.
7.Id. at 33.
8.Id. at 41.
9.Id. at 45.
10.Id. at 50-52.
11.Dela Cueva v. Omaga, 637 Phil. 14, 23 (2010).
12.Id.
13.Re: Letter of Rafael Dimaano, A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA & IPI No. 17-258-CA-J, July 11, 2017, 830 SCRA 538, 546 (2017).
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr., et al., 590 Phil. 8, 38 (2008).