THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3978. February 5, 2020.]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant,vs. COURT STENOGRAPHER III ELGIEN SARDOVIA LEYSON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 2, BUTUAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE, respondent.
ANONYMOUS, complainant,vs. COURT STENOGRAPHER III ELGIEN SARDOVIA LEYSON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 2, BUTUAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 5, 2020, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3978 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Court Stenographer III Elgien Sardovia Leyson, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte) [Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4804-P] (Anonymous vs. Court Stenographer III Elgien Sardovia Leyson, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Butuan City, Agusan del Norte). — Before this Court is a Complaint 1 sent through electronic mail by an anonymous person against Elgien Sardovia Leyson (respondent), Court Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Agusan Del Norte, Branch 2, for disgraceful and immoral conduct. HTcADC
The Antecedents
In the Complaint, the anonymous person, who identified himself as "Ben," alleged that respondent had been married to Banjo Bryan Leyson (Banjo) since January 23, 1999. Respondent, however, began cohabiting with Thomas Balinton (Balinton), who was married to Rosenita Plaza Balinton. Respondent became pregnant with Balinton's child and gave birth to Vhenz Anthony Sardovia Balinton (Vhenz Anthony) on April 12, 2016. 2
In compliance with the 1st Indorsement 3 dated August 8, 2017 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Executive Judge Emmanuel E. Escatron (Judge Escatron) conducted an investigation on the factual matters stated in the anonymous Complaint. In a Report 4 dated November 3, 2017, Judge Escatron found that respondent had, in fact, been separated from Banjo for almost seven (7) years. On September 16, 2015, respondent filed before the RTC of Butuan City, Branch 1, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage against Banjo. In the Personal Data Sheet submitted by respondent to the RTC Personnel Division of the OCA on July 10, 2017, respondent indicated that she bore a son on April 12, 2016. 5
In her Comment, 6 respondent admitted being married to Banjo. Their marriage, however, turned sour when it became apparent to her that Banjo was an irresponsible and abusive spouse and father to their children. When Banjo became largely dependent on drug substances, respondent decided to leave him, taking their children with her. On June 15, 2010, respondent instituted an action for support against Banjo. The trial court granted her petition but Banjo barely complied with the financial support ordered by the court. On November 20, 2014, respondent filed a criminal case against Banjo for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004. 7
When respondent met Balinton in 2014, she easily fell in love with him, considering the ordeal she experienced with Banjo. Respondent admitted her relationship with Balinton, who was separated de facto from his wife, but denied that she cohabited with him. Respondent also admitted that Balinton sired Vhenz Anthony, but asked for compassion from this Court as she acknowledged her fault of having a relationship with a married man and for never attempting to hide their child. She asked that the penalty meted out against her be mitigated given her twenty-three (23) years of service in the judiciary and since she is a first time offender without any derogatory record. 8
Report and Recommendation
In its March 25, 2019 Memorandum, 9 the OCA recommended that respondent be found guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and be meted the penalty of suspension for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day without pay and other benefits. The OCA also recommended that respondent be sternly warned of the possibility of dismissal from the service should her relationship with Balinton persist.
The OCA opined that the abuses suffered by respondent from Banjo did not justify her illicit relationship with a married person. Court employees, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel, should exemplify the image of a court of justice through their conduct, official or otherwise. The OCA did not apply any mitigating circumstance in favor of respondent since there was no indication that she had ended her affair with Balinton, making her scandalous affair subsisting to the present.
The Court's Ruling
This Court adopts the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
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. 10 It is an act which is considered "disgraceful and immoral conduct," because such manifests a deliberate disregard by the actor of the marital vows protected by the Constitution and our laws. The perversion is specially egregious if committed by judicial personnel, persons specifically tasked with the administration of justice and the laws of the land. 11
Section 1, Memorandum Circular No. 1530 of the Civil Service Commission defines disgraceful and immoral conduct as a willful act that violates basic decency or morality of society thus:
Section 1. Definition of Disgraceful and Immoral conduct. — Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct refers to an act which violates the basic norm or decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the society. It refers to conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the community.
In this case, respondent admitted that she was still married when she began her illicit relationship with Balinton. She also admitted giving birth to Balinton's child, which confirmed that she engaged in sexual relations with a man who is not her husband. In fact, respondent did not even deny, thus confirming, that her relationship with Balinton is still subsisting to the present, or that she has any intention of ending such relationship.
Time and again, this Court has had little qualms with penalizing judicial employees for their dalliances with married persons or for their own betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. 12 This emanates from the greater necessity for moral righteousness and uprightness from an individual that is part of the Judiciary. 13 Court employees are 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 the courts of justice. The conduct of court personnel 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. There is no dichotomy of morality; a court employee is also judged by his or her private morals. 14
Since this is respondent's first offense, the minimum penalty of suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day shall be imposed, in accordance with Section 46 (B.3), 15 Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. aScITE
WHEREFORE, respondent Court Stenographer III Elgien Sardovia Leyson of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Butuan City, Agusan Del Norte, is found GUILTY of disgraceful and immoral conduct, and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day without pay and other benefits, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 6.
2.Id.; id. at 172, certified true copy of the Birth Certificate of Vhenz Anthony S. Balinton.
3.Id. at 9.
4.Id. at 11.
5.Id. at 11.
6.Id. at 29-47.
7.Id. at 32-36.
8.Id. at 36-40.
9.Id. at 185-189.
10.Dela Cueva v. Omaga, 637 Phil. 14, 23 (2010).
11. See Castillo-Casiquin v. Cansino, 549 Phil. 491, 493 (2007).
12.Concerned Employee v. Mayor, 486 Phil. 51, 63 (2004).
13. See Castillo-Macapuso v. Castillejos, Jr., A.M. Nos. P-19-3985 & P-19-3986, July 10, 2019.
14.Id., citing Court Employees of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court v. Sy, 512 Phil. 523, 535-536 (2005).
15. Rule 10. SCHEDULE OF PENALTIES
Section 46. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
B. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense:
xxx xxx xxx
3. Disgraceful and immoral conduct [.]