Acebedo vs. Arquero

A court employee who maintains an illicit relationship with a married person is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct, notwithstanding the married person's prior separation agreement with their spouse, as marriage is an inviolable institution not subject to stipulation.

Edwin A. Acebedo filed a letter-complaint against Eddie P. Arquero, Process Server of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brooke's Point, Palawan, for immorality. Acebedo alleged that Arquero unlawfully and scandalously cohabited with Acebedo's wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo, a former stenographer at the same MTC, which resulted in the birth of a daughter.

• Complaint: Complainant Edwin A. Acebedo charged respondent Eddie P. Arquero with immorality for unlawfully cohabiting with complainant's wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo, a former MTC stenographer. A daughter, Desiree May Irader Arquero, was born to them on May 21, 1989. Complainant attached the child's baptismal certificate listing respondent and Dedje as parents, alongside complainant's marriage contract with Dedje.
• Answer: Respondent denied the charge, claiming it was a product of complainant's hatred and jealousy. He attached an affidavit of desistance executed by complainant in favor of his wife regarding a prior administrative complaint, and complainant's sworn statement acknowledging paternity of a child with another woman. Respondent also noted that a prior criminal complaint for adultery against him was dismissed.
• Investigating Judge's Findings: The investigating judge recommended dismissal due to the non-appearance of complainant and his wife, and the inadmissibility of the baptismal certificate to prove paternity absent testimony from the mother who supplied the information.
• OCA Findings: The OCA disagreed with the dismissal, noting respondent's admission of an 8-to-9-month relationship with Dedje. The OCA rejected respondent's reliance on a "Kasunduan" (agreement) between the spouses allowing them to seek other partners, as such an agreement is void and entering a relationship with a married co-employee is highly improper.
• Judicial Admission: During the investigation, respondent admitted courting Dedje after hearing she had separated from her husband, having an 8-to-9-month relationship, and engaging in sexual union with her.

• Immorality: Complainant maintained that respondent unlawfully and scandalously cohabited with complainant's wife, resulting in the birth of a child, which constitutes immorality unbecoming of a court employee.

• Harassment and Jealousy: Respondent argued that the complaint was merely a product of complainant's hatred and extreme jealousy toward his wife.
• In Pari Delicto: Respondent maintained that complainant himself had been cohabiting with another woman and bore an illegitimate child, precluding him from complaining about his wife's extra-marital relationship.
• Consent and Desistance: Respondent argued that complainant and his wife entered into a "Kasunduan" allowing them to separate and seek other partners. Furthermore, complainant executed an affidavit of desistance in favor of his wife in 1987.
• Prior Dismissal: Respondent claimed that a prior criminal complaint for adultery filed against him was dismissed after preliminary investigation.

• Immorality: Whether respondent is guilty of immorality for maintaining an illicit relationship with a married woman despite the spouses' prior separation agreement.
• Evidentiary Value of Baptismal Certificate: Whether a baptismal certificate can be used to prove filiation and illicit relations.
• Effect of Desistance: Whether the complainant's loss of interest or desistance divests the Court of jurisdiction to investigate administrative charges.

• Immorality: Respondent was found guilty of immorality. The "Kasunduan" justifying the relationship was void, as Article 1 of the Family Code provides that marriage is an inviolable institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are not subject to stipulation. Judiciary employees are held to exacting standards of morality, and there is no dichotomy of morality between their public and private lives. Having illicit relations with a married woman constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct under the Administrative Code.
• Evidentiary Value of Baptismal Certificate: A baptismal certificate is not admissible to prove filiation or illicit relations. It is conclusive proof only of the baptism administered and the date thereof, not the truth of the statements regarding the parentage of the child baptized. However, respondent's judicial admission of a sexual relationship with a married woman sufficed to establish the charge.
• Effect of Desistance: The Court retains jurisdiction to investigate administrative charges despite the complainant's desistance or loss of interest, as the Court has an interest in the conduct of those in the judiciary and improving the delivery of justice.

• Inviolability of Marriage — Marriage is an institution of public order governed by law and not subject to stipulation; spouses cannot agree to separate and seek other partners to validate extra-marital affairs.
• Dichotomy of Morality for Judiciary Employees — There is no dichotomy of morality; court employees are judged by their private morals as well as their public conduct, which must be free from any whiff of impropriety both in their official duties and outside the court as private individuals.
• Evidentiary Value of Baptismal Certificates — A canonical certificate is conclusive proof only of the baptism administered, not the veracity of the declarations and statements contained therein concerning the relationship or parentage of the person baptized.
• Court Jurisdiction over Administrative Cases — The Supreme Court is not divested of jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth of administrative charges merely because the complainant desists from prosecuting the case.

• "There is no dichotomy of morality; court employees are also judged by their private morals."
• "A canonical certificate is conclusive proof only of the baptism administered, in conformity with the rites of the Catholic Church by the priest who baptized the child, but it does not prove the veracity of the declarations and statements contained therein which concern the relationship of the person baptized."
• "Once administrative charges have been filed, this Court may not be divested of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth thereof."

• Imbing v. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690 (1994) — Followed. The Court retains jurisdiction over administrative cases despite the complainant's desistance, as the Court has an interest in the conduct of judiciary personnel.
• Macadangdang v. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 73 (1980) — Followed. A baptismal certificate does not prove the veracity of declarations concerning the relationship of the person baptized.
• Fortus v. Novero, 23 SCRA 1330 (1968) — Followed. A canonical certificate merely attests to the fact of the administration of the sacrament, not the truth of the statements therein regarding parentage.
• Burgos v. Aquino, 249 SCRA 504 (1995) — Followed. The conduct of court employees must be free from any whiff of impropriety, both in their duties and behavior outside the court.

• Article 1, Family Code — Defines marriage as an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. Applied to invalidate the spouses' "Kasunduan" allowing them to seek other partners.
• Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — Enunciates the policy of promoting a high standard of ethics in public service; public employees must refrain from acts contrary to law, good morals, and public policy. Applied to emphasize the standard expected of respondent as a court employee.
• Section 46(5), Subtitle A, Title I, Book V, Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) — Classifies respondent's act of having illicit relations with a married woman as disgraceful and immoral conduct.
• Rule IV, Section 52A(15), Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Classifies immoral conduct as a grave offense penalized by suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense. Applied to determine the penalty of suspension for six months and one day.

Puno, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona