Anonymous Complaint vs. Camay, Jr.

A court employee found guilty of multiple administrative offenses may be dismissed from the service even when the most serious charge individually warrants only suspension, where the combined offenses demonstrate total unfitness to continue serving in the Judiciary.

Emeliano C. Camay, Jr. served as Utility Worker I at Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court in Bogo City, Cebu. He was married to Mary Joy Y. Santiago, though he claimed to be separated in fact from her. The administrative case originated from an anonymous letter-complaint dated February 18, 2003, charging him with immorality, bail fixing, non-disclosure of assets in his SALNs, trafficking in women, and living a lavish lifestyle. Investigation was conducted by Executive Judge Teresita Abarquez-Galandia of the RTC in Mandaue City, who interviewed several informants, most of whom opted to remain anonymous; only Bogo City Prosecutor Ivy Tejano-Moralde executed an affidavit.

Emeliano C. Camay, Jr. was a Utility Worker I at Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court in Bogo City, Cebu. He was married to Mary Joy Y. Santiago, though his Personal Data Sheet, BIR Form No. 2305, and SALN for 2003 carried the notation "married/but separated in fact," and he left blank the space for his spouse's name in the 2002 forms. By letter dated February 18, 2003, an anonymous complainant charged Camay with immorality for cohabiting with a woman not his wife and siring a child named Junmar; bail fixing through a "10+1" scheme with a surety company; failing to truthfully disclose assets in his SALNs; trafficking in women; and living a lavish lifestyle beyond his means.

Camay denied the allegations in his comment dated December 10, 2013. He attached an NSO certificate showing he had no son named Junmar Camay, a certificate from the Bogo City Assessor's Office attesting that he owned no real property in Bogo City, and payslips showing SCSLA loan deductions used to pay for his motorcycle. The complaint was first referred to Executive Judge Teresita Abarquez-Galandia for discreet investigation, and she confirmed most of the allegations based on verbal statements from two anonymous witnesses. On November 9, 2015, the Court referred the complaint for a more thorough investigation, during which Judge Galanida interviewed two private lawyers, three public prosecutors, and three female employees of another government agency. Of the eight informants, only Bogo City Prosecutor Ivy Tejano-Moralde executed an affidavit; the rest opted to remain incognito to avoid reprisal.

During the investigation, Camay admitted having been separated in fact from his wife and living with a woman named Maria Fe G. Guevarra, with whom he had a child named Jumar Guevarra Camay. He denied having an illegitimate child on the ground that the name in the complaint was "Junmar," not "Jumar." His records in the OCA confirmed that his PDS and SALN for various periods from 2005 to 2011 listed Jumar Camay as one of his children below 18 years of age. Regarding bail fixing, three informants stated they had personally heard Camay discuss the "10+1" scheme, and an unnamed agent of Plaridel Surety and Insurance Company confirmed that Camay was their contact person in the RTC. Prosecutor Moralde testified that in drug cases where recommended bail was ₱200,000.00, Camay usually assisted the accused in obtaining reductions to half in exchange for 30% of the surety bail bond premiums. None of the informants, however, witnessed any solicitation of money on behalf of Judge Marigomen.

As to Camay's lifestyle, Judge Galanida observed his house in Taytayan to be of concrete construction with a steel perimeter fence; the land had been donated to Camay's father by a certain Climaco, and Camay had spent for construction and renovation using funds from loans and remittances from his son working as a seafarer. Tax declarations for the property were issued in the name of Camay and his live-in partner. His SALNs showed that he declared a house worth between ₱40,000.00 and ₱60,000.00 in Taytayan Hills in 2001, 2003, and 2004, but without indicating the date of acquisition; he declared a house and lot worth ₱350,000.00 in 2009 and the same property at ₱500,000.00 in 2011; he did not declare any real property in 2002, 2007, 2008, and 2010. His monthly salary was his only source of income, as his SALNs reflected no business interests or financial connections. Regarding the trafficking charge, informants confirmed that Camay had shown them pictures of nude girls stored in his phone, and Prosecutor Moralde testified that Camay claimed the girls would sell themselves anyway and that he was just helping them fetch a higher price, but no actual or overt acts of trafficking were established in the record.

• Denial of Illegitimate Child: Respondent denied having an illegitimate child, arguing that the name indicated in the complaint was "Junmar," whereas his child's actual name was "Jumar Guevarra Camay."
• Denial of Real Property Ownership: Respondent submitted a certificate from the Bogo City Assessor's Office attesting that he did not own or possess any real property in Bogo City.
• Explanation for Motorcycle Acquisition: Respondent presented payslips showing SCSLA loan deductions, asserting that the loan proceeds had been used to pay for his motorcycle.
• Explanation for Lifestyle: Respondent explained that his house was built on land donated to his father, that construction and renovation were funded by loans and remittances from his seafarer son, and that his iPhone was purchased for him by his legitimate son.

• Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct: Whether respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for cohabiting with a woman not his wife and siring a child with her despite his subsisting marriage.
• Bail Bond Fixing: Whether respondent violated Administrative Circular No. 5 (series of 1988) by facilitating and securing surety bail bonds for parties with cases before the RTC.
• Child Abuse/Trafficking: Whether respondent is administratively liable for child abuse or trafficking based on his possession of nude photographs and claimed pimping activities.
• SALN Violations: Whether respondent violated Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713 by failing to consistently and properly declare his real property in his SALNs.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether dismissal from the service is the proper penalty given the respondent's conviction on multiple charges.

• Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct: Yes. Respondent admitted cohabiting with a woman not his wife and siring a child with her despite his marriage not having been legally severed, constituting disgraceful and immoral conduct under Section 46, Rule 10 of the RRACCS.
• Bail Bond Fixing: Yes. Respondent's assistance in facilitating the processing of bail requirements for parties with cases in the RTC, including negotiating reductions of recommended bail amounts, constituted substantial evidence of financial gain in violation of Administrative Circular No. 5 (series of 1988).
• Child Abuse/Trafficking: No. The charge was dismissed for lack of substantial evidence, as the records did not show any actual or overt acts that could serve as basis for holding respondent administratively liable.
• SALN Violations: Yes. Respondent's intermittent and incomplete declarations of his real property across multiple SALN years violated Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, which requires full disclosure of real property including acquisition costs, assessed value, and current fair market value.
• Appropriate Penalty: Dismissal from the service. Although the most serious charge individually carries a penalty of suspension, the combined offenses demonstrated total unfitness to continue in the Judiciary, warranting the maximum penalty.

• Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct: The offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct consists of having extramarital relations with a person other than one's spouse. Respondent admitted during the investigation that he had been separated in fact from his wife and had been living with Maria Fe G. Guevarra, with whom he had a child named Jumar Guevarra Camay. His marriage had not been legally severed. Citing Anonymous vs. Radam, the Court declared that where the father of a child born out of wedlock is himself married to a woman other than the mother, there is cause for administrative sanction, and the disgraceful and immoral conduct consists of having extramarital relations with a married person. Under the RRACCS, disgraceful and immoral conduct is classified as a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense.

• Bail Bond Fixing: Prosecutor Moralde attested that it was public knowledge in the RTC that Camay was the person to approach for posting surety bail, as he could facilitate reductions of recommended bail amounts. Camay transacted on behalf of Plaridel Surety and Insurance Company, the only surety company authorized to transact in Branch 61 of the RTC. Although no direct evidence proved financial gain from the bond transactions, the fact that he assisted and facilitated the processing of bail requirements constituted substantial evidence of such gain. Substantial evidence is defined as that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to justify a conclusion, pursuant to Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court. The penalty of a fine of ₱5,000.00 was imposed, following the precedent in Concerned Citizen vs. Bautista, where the respondent was held guilty of violating Administrative Circular No. 5 (series of 1988).

• Child Abuse/Trafficking: While Prosecutor Moralde attested that Camay had collected pictures of naked girls in his phone and claimed to others that he was pimping the girls to help them financially, the records did not show any actual or overt acts on his part that could serve as basis for holding him administratively liable for child abuse or trafficking. Without substantial evidence of concrete acts constituting the offense, the charge could not be sustained.

• SALN Violations: Respondent declared his house and lot in Taytayan Hills in his SALNs for 2001, 2003, and 2004, but did not indicate the date of acquisition. He again declared the property in 2009 and 2011, but omitted it entirely in 2002, 2007, 2008, and 2010. These omissions violated the letter and spirit of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 6713, which requires all public officials and employees to accomplish and submit a declaration of assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business interests, including information on real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value, and current fair market value. Section 11 of the same law provides that a violation is penalized by a fine not exceeding the equivalent of the public official's salary for six months.

• Appropriate Penalty: Under Section 50, Rule 10 of the RRACCS, where a respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, the penalty to be imposed should correspond to the most serious charge, with the other charges considered as aggravating circumstances. Although the most serious charge—disgraceful and immoral conduct, a grave offense—would ordinarily carry a penalty of suspension, dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits was deemed warranted. The respondent's combined offenses firmly demonstrated his total unfitness to continue serving in the Judiciary, and his continued presence would erode the institution's prestige in the community he served. The Court characterized his offenses as a "cancerous tumor" that had consumed the healthy tissues of the Judiciary and destroyed its good name and reputation.

• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Cases — Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Applied here to sustain the finding of bail bond fixing despite the absence of direct evidence of financial gain, as the respondent's facilitation of bail processing itself constituted substantial evidence.

• Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct — Where a married person cohabits with another who is not his or her spouse and sires a child in that relationship, the conduct constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct warranting administrative sanction, classified as a grave offense under the RRACCS punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense.

• Penalty for Multiple Offenses (Section 50, Rule 10, RRACCS) — Where a respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, the penalty corresponding to the most serious charge shall be imposed, and the other charges shall be considered aggravating circumstances. The Court may, however, impose the maximum penalty of dismissal where the combined offenses demonstrate total unfitness to continue in government service.

• SALN Disclosure Requirements (Section 8, RA 6713) — All public officials and employees must accomplish and submit a declaration of assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business interests, including information on real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value, and current fair market value. Intermittent or incomplete declarations across multiple years constitute a violation.

• "if the father of the child born out of wedlock is himself married to a woman other than the mother, there is a cause for administrative sanction against either the father or the mother. In such a case, the 'disgraceful and immoral conduct' consists of having extramarital relations with a married person." — This passage, quoted from Anonymous vs. Radam, defines the elements of disgraceful and immoral conduct in the context of extramarital relations and is the controlling formulation applied to sustain the finding against the respondent.

• "Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable man may accept as adequate to justify a conclusion." — This is the canonical definition of the standard of proof in administrative proceedings, applied to uphold the bail bond fixing charge despite the absence of direct evidence of financial gain.

• "His being guilty of such offenses has been like a cancerous tumor that slowly consumed the healthy tissues of the Judiciary, and even destroyed its good name and reputation in the area where he served." — This passage articulates the Court's rationale for imposing dismissal rather than the penalty of suspension corresponding to the most serious charge, emphasizing the institutional damage caused by the respondent's combined offenses.

• Anonymous vs. Radam, A.M. No. P-07-2333, December 19, 2007, 541 SCRA 12 — Controlling authority for the proposition that a married person who cohabits with another and sires a child out of wedlock commits disgraceful and immoral conduct consisting of extramarital relations. Followed directly to sustain the immorality charge.

• Concerned Citizen vs. Bautista, A.M. No. P-04-1876, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 234 — Precedent for the penalty of a fine of ₱5,000.00 for violation of Administrative Circular No. 5 (series of 1988) prohibiting court personnel from working as insurance agents or facilitating bail bonds. Followed to fix the penalty for the bail bond fixing charge.

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Juan, A.M. No. P-03-1726, July 22, 2004, 434 SCRA 654 — Cited for the reminder that all court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, and should be models of uprightness, fairness, and honesty to maintain public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

• Section 46, Rule 10, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) — Classifies disgraceful and immoral conduct as a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense. Applied to characterize the respondent's cohabitation with a woman not his wife as a grave administrative offense.

• Section 50, Rule 10, RRACCS — Provides that where a respondent is found guilty of two or more charges, the penalty corresponding to the most serious charge shall be imposed, with the other charges considered as aggravating circumstances. Applied to determine the appropriate penalty given the respondent's conviction on multiple charges.

• Section 8, Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — Requires all public officials and employees to accomplish and submit a declaration of assets, liabilities, net worth, and financial and business interests, including information on real property, its improvements, acquisition costs, assessed value, and current fair market value. Applied to find the respondent liable for inconsistent and incomplete declarations of his real property across multiple SALN years.

• Section 11, Republic Act No. 6713 — Provides that a violation of the SALN disclosure requirement is penalized by a fine not exceeding the equivalent of the public official or employee's salary for six months. Applied as the statutory penalty for the SALN violation.

• Administrative Circular No. 5, series of 1988 — Prohibits court personnel from working as insurance agents or facilitating surety bail bonds. Applied to hold the respondent liable for facilitating bail bond transactions on behalf of a surety company.

• Section 5, Rule 133, Rules of Court — Defines substantial evidence as that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Applied as the evidentiary standard for administrative liability.

Carpio (Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018), Velasco Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concurred. Sereno, C.J., was on indefinite leave. Leonen, J., was on official leave.