Regir vs. Regir

A married court employee who cohabits with a woman other than his legal wife commits disgraceful and immoral conduct, established by substantial evidence and punishable for a first offense by suspension of six months and one day to one year. Bare denial cannot overcome positive and forthright testimony of the complainant and corroborating witnesses, and the exacting ethical standards for judiciary personnel apply to private conduct outside official duties.

Lolita S. Regir and Joel T. Regir were married on August 28, 1995 and established residence at Barangay Don Luis, Calubian, Leyte. Joel T. Regir was appointed Process Server of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran, stationed at Naval, Biliran. As a member of the judiciary's personnel and a civil servant, his conduct was governed by the exacting standards of ethics and morality for court employees and by the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Lolita S. Regir and Joel T. Regir were married on August 28, 1995, as shown by a certified true copy of their Certificate of Marriage. During the marriage they begot three children: Joely Santuele Regir, born November 25, 1991; Joel, Jr. Santuele Regir, born July 3, 1993; and Jude Santuele Regir, born December 15, 2000. The family resided at Barangay Don Luis, Calubian, Leyte. Sometime in 1998, Joel was appointed Process Server of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran, stationed at Naval, Biliran. Because Calubian was far from Naval, he stayed in Naval on working days by renting a house or room and returned home only on weekends.

In 1999, when Lolita visited her husband in Naval, she found Vilma Sabinay Agujar in his room in the boarding house of a certain Divina. When accosted, Vilma admitted a relation with Bebet, referring to Joel. On another occasion, Lolita again found Joel and Vilma living together in the boarding house of Amado Dangel in Naval, leading to a noisy quarrel between the two women. Thereafter, the two were seen living together in other places, including the boarding house of one Mona at Vicentillo Extension, Naval, and later at Barangay Larrazabal, Naval. Modesto P. Pascubillo, Jr., Court Sheriff of the same court and a resident of Barangay Larrazabal, testified that during morning jogging he regularly passed the house in that barangay where Joel and Vilma lived, although Vilma temporarily left after the administrative case was set for investigation.

On November 7, 2004, a baby girl was delivered at the Biliran Provincial Hospital by a patient registered as Sabinay, Bb Girl, with a question mark for the father's name and only Gina for the mother's name. A related admission and discharge record bore the name Sabinay, Gina F., likewise with a question mark for the spouse. According to complainant and her witnesses, the woman was Vilma Sabinay, identified by Bernardo Belciña, Isabella Belciña, and Lolita inside the private hospital room posted under the name Gina Sabinay; hospital staff referred to her as Gina Sabinay, while the PhilHealth card she submitted bore the name Lolita Agujar, explained as Vilma's real name with Agujar as the surname of her deceased husband. During visits after November 7, 2004, Lolita and Isabella also saw Joel in the hospital, but he immediately ran away when seen, as relayed to Bernardo Belciña waiting below. In a separate incident, while Joel and Bernardo Belciña, Court Interpreter, attended a PACE seminar for court employees in Mandaue City, Joel told Belciña that his girlfriend Vilma was waiting at St. Joseph Church and that he would lodge at her boarding house; on the return trip, Vilma boarded M/V Cagayan Princess with them and was introduced as Joel's girlfriend. The couple's successive stays in Naval were traced from Divina's house at Inocentes Street, to Dr. Niza Lumbab at Vicentillo Street, to Josep's place along Garcia Street, to Dangel's boarding house at Trece Street, to Mona's place at Vicentillo Extension, and finally to Barangay Larrazabal.

Respondent, for his part, denied everything, claiming he did not even know a woman named Vilma Sabinay and that from his employment to the present he had stayed only in the house of William Lima at Sitio Tagumpay, Barangay Sto. Niño, Naval, Biliran. He likewise denied knowledge of the November 7, 2004 childbirth. His own son and witness, Joely Regir, however, mentioned the name Vilma as the woman heard during his parents' quarrel and identified as the woman his father lived with in Naval; Joely added that since 2001 his father stopped giving his salary and benefits and provided only rice, sugar and milk for the youngest child, plus money for the older children's high school studies, while the children resided in their grandparents' house at Calubian, Leyte. The investigation yielded findings that respondent's defense did not go beyond complete and bare denial, that the adverse witnesses were not shown to have improper motives, and that the cohabitation and surrounding circumstances established the charge.

• Illicit Relationship and Cohabitation: Petitioner argued that while lawfully married to her, respondent carried on an illicit relationship with Vilma Sabinay, with whom he begot a child, and lived openly with her in Barangay Larrazabal, Naval, Biliran after successive stays in several boarding houses.
• Nonsupport: Petitioner maintained that respondent stopped giving her and their children financial support, consistent with maintenance of a separate household with another woman.

• Unfounded Jealousy and Mere Friendship: Respondent argued that the allegations were purely the result of his wife's unfounded jealousy, that he rented in Sto. Niño, Naval because Calubian was far from his station, went home on weekends, remitted his salary to his wife, and that Vilma Sabinay was only a friend with whom he sired no child.
• Retaliation and Denial of Identity: Respondent maintained that the supporting Affidavit of co-employees Modesto Pascubillo, Jr. and Bernardo Belciña was retaliation due to a misunderstanding, and later denied even knowing Vilma Sabinay, asserting continuous residence in the house of William Lima.

• Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct: Whether respondent, a married court employee, is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for cohabiting with a woman other than his legal wife.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the recommended two-month suspension should be sustained or modified to the penalty prescribed by civil service rules for a first offense.

• Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct: Yes. Guilt was established by substantial evidence, respondent's bare denial being unable to prevail over positive testimony of cohabitation and corroborating circumstances.
• Proper Penalty: Modified. The two-month suspension was below the legal requirement; for a first offense, suspension for six months without pay with stern warning was imposed pursuant to civil service rules.

• Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct: Cohabitation with a woman other than the legal wife, with strong likelihood that respondent fathered a child with her, was deemed morally reprehensible and within immorality, which is not confined to sexual intercourse but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, corruption, indecency, depravity, dissoluteness, or willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference. Substantial evidence — relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate — was satisfied through complainant's eyewitness accounts, corroboration by Pascubillo and the Belciñas regarding residences, hospital identification, and the Mandaue seminar admission, against which unsubstantiated denial deserved no weight. That the acts occurred outside official duties was immaterial, since court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety both in official duties and as private individuals to preserve faith in the courts.
• Proper Penalty: Leniency based on newness in service, unfamiliarity with norms, and first offense was rejected because exacting ethical standards for court employees require strict application of the law. Under Section 52 A(15) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second; the minimum period was therefore applied.

• Bare Denial vs. Positive Testimony — Bare, unsubstantiated denial is self-serving and deserves no weight in law against positive and forthright declarations of witnesses, which are worthier of credence. Applied here to reject respondent's complete denial of knowing Vilma Sabinay and of cohabitation in light of direct eyewitness and corroborative testimony.
• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Cases — Administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule, defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe the person indicted was responsible for the wrongdoing. Applied to sustain guilt based on testimony on cohabitation, hospital records and identification, and admissions during the seminar trip.
• Immorality as Disgraceful Conduct — It is morally reprehensible for a married person to maintain intimate relations with one other than his or her spouse; immorality is not confined to illicit sexual intercourse but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness, or willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to community opinion and to good order and public welfare. Applied to respondent's sustained cohabitation and probable fathering of a child with another woman.
• Continuing Ethical Standard for Court Personnel — The conduct of all court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety not only as to judicial duties but also as private individuals, to maintain public faith in courts whose image is mirrored in their actuations. Applied to hold respondent accountable despite the private, off-duty character of the acts and to deny leniency for newness in service.
• Penalty for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct — Under Section 52 A(15) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave offense punishable by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Applied to modify the investigator's two-month recommendation to six months suspension without pay as the minimum for this first offense.

• "Well-settled is the rule that bare denials cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the witnesses." — States the evidentiary rule used to reject respondent's sole defense of denial in favor of complainant's and corroborating witnesses' accounts.
• "Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." — Defines the controlling standard of proof for administrative proceedings applied to find guilt.
• "It is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate relations with a person other than his or her spouse." — Articulates the core moral-legal basis for the finding of disgraceful and immoral conduct.
• "The conduct of all court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also as to their behavior outside the court as private individuals." — States the extended ethical accountability of judiciary employees justifying sanction for off-duty conduct.

• Sealana-Abbu vs. Laurenciana-Huraño, A.M. No. P-05-2091, August 28, 2007 — Cited as authority that intimate relations by a married person with another is morally reprehensible and that court personnel must avoid impropriety outside official duties.
• Court Employees of the MCTC, Ramon Magsaysay, Zamboanga del Sur vs. Sy, A.M. No. P-93-808, November 25, 2005 — Cited for the broad definition of immorality beyond sexual matters to include conduct inconsistent with rectitude and shameless disregard of community morals.
• Valdez vs. Dabon, A.M. No. CA-07-21-P, June 22, 2007 — Cited for the exacting ethical standards imposed on court employees to preserve public faith in courts as dispensers of justice.
• People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 172467, July 30, 2007; People vs. Tuazon, G.R. No. 175783, September 3, 2007; People vs. Aguilar, G.R. No. 177749, December 17, 2007 — Cited as a group for the rule that bare denials cannot prevail over positive testimony.
• Dadulo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 175451, April 13, 2007; Portuguez vs. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings Bank), G.R. No. 169570, March 2, 2007; Bautista vs. Sula, A.M. No. P-04-1920, August 17, 2007 — Cited as authority for governance of administrative cases by substantial evidence and its definition.

• Section 52 A(15), Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Classifies disgraceful and immoral conduct as a grave offense with suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense and dismissal for the second; applied to impose the minimum six-month suspension since this was respondent's first offense.

Puno, C.J. (Chairperson), Carpio, Corona, and Bersamin, JJ., concur.