|
LOLITA S. REGIR,
Petitioner, -versus- JOEL T. REGIR,
Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-06-2282 Present: pUNO, C.J., Chairperson, CARPIO, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BERSAMIN, JJ. Promulgated: August 4, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an administrative complaint
filed by Lolita S. Regir against Joel T. Regir, Process Server, Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran, charging the latter with immorality.
This case was commenced by a Complaint[1]
dated
In his Comment[2]
dated
The Resolution[4]
dated December 7, 2005 of this Court’s Third Division referred the instant
administrative complaint to Judge Pepe P. Domael, RTC, Branch 37, Caibiran,
Biliran for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days
from receipt of the case records.
Pursuant to the above Resolution, an
investigation was conducted by Judge Domael.
Thereafter, an Investigation Report[5]
dated February 28, 2006 was submitted by the said Investigating Judge to the
OCA.
According to the Report, the evidence
adduced during the investigation yielded the following set of facts:
“The
complainant Lolita Regir is the lawful wife of the respondent Joel T. Regir. Their marriage was solemnized on August 28,
1995 per certified true xerox copy of a Certificate of Marriage. During this marriage, they begot three (3)
children, namely: Joely Santuele Regir, born on November 25, 1991; Joel, Jr.
Santuele Regir, born
Sometime
in 1998, Joel T. Regir was appointed Process Server, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran stationed at Naval, Biliran. Considering that his residence at Calubian,
Leyte is quite far from his place of work at Naval, Biliran, he stays in the
latter’s place during working days by renting a house or a room and goes home
only on weekends.
In
1999, when Lolita Regir went to Naval, Biliran to visit her husband Joel T.
Regir, she saw Vilma Sabinay Agujar in the room of the boarding house of her
husband. When accosted, Vilma admitted
that she had a relation with Bebet (Joel T. Regir). This is in the boarding house of a certain
Divina.
In
another occasion, in the boarding house of Amado Dangel, also in Naval, where
her husband Joel boarded, Lolita Regir saw again the two – Joel T. Regir and
Vilma Sabinay Agujar, living together. Lolita
and Vilma quarreled noisily.
Not
only in these named boarding houses did Lolita find and see the two living
together. The two also lived together in
another boarding house owned by one Mona located at Vicentillo Extension,
Naval, Biliran. Presently, they are now living at Brby. Larrazabal, Naval,
Biliran.
Modesto
P. Pascubillo, Jr., a Court Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37,
Caibiran, Biliran, testified that he also is a resident of Brgy. Larrazabal.
During his jogging exercises in the morning, he used to pass by the house where
Joel T. Regir and Vilma Sabinay are living also located in the same barangay. This only confirms the statement of Lolita
Regir that her husband Joel and Vilma are now living in the said barangay where
this Court is also located. However,
when the case records of this administrative matter was received and the same
was scheduled for investigation, Vilma Sabinay left temporarily this place.
On
A
record of admission and discharge with the patient’s name SABINAY, GINA F.
is also presented. Although, the first
name appears to be Gina but she is the same woman seen and identified by
Bernardo Belciña, Isabella Belciña and Lolita Regir inside the private room in
that hospital to be Vilma Sabinay delivering a baby. As noted the space for the spouse’ name is
also a question mark.
Sometime
after
Likewise,
during one of the visits of Lolita Regir and Isabella Belciña, after
In
one of the PACE seminar of court employees held in
In
Naval, Joel and Vilma stayed in different places or boarding houses. First, they stayed in the boarding house of
Divina at Inocentes St., then to Dr. Niza Lumbab at
Respondent
Joel T. Regir when asked to refute the allegations of complainant-wife Lolita
Regir and her witnesses denied all. In
fact, he doesn’t even know who is this woman named Vilma Sabinay. From the time he stayed in Naval, Biliran
occasioned by his employment as Process Server of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 37, he only stayed up to the present in the house of William Lima
located at Sitio Tagumpay, Brgy. Sto. Niño, Naval, Biliran.
As
to the allegation of the complainant and her witnesses that Vilma Sabinay
delivered a baby girl at the
Respondent’s
son and witness Joely Regir even mentioned the name of Vilma albeit without her
surname as the name of the woman she heard when his father and mother had a
quarrel. She is the woman whom he said
his father is living with in Naval.
As
further stated by this witness Joely Regir, while his father usually gives
money consisting of his salaries and other benefits received as a court
employee, however, since the year 2001, he stopped giving money but only gives
rice, sugar and milk for the youngest child. His father also gives them (Joely and Joel,
Jr.) money for their studies in high school. They are residing in their grandparent’s house
at Calubian, Leyte. [citations omitted][6]
In the same Report, Judge Domael
indicated his observation that the issue of immorality has not been refuted by
the respondent since his defense does not go beyond a mere complete and bare
denial of the charge hurled against him.
The Investigating Judge also came to the conclusion that the witnesses
against respondent were not shown to have been motivated by improper
motives. Thus, he made the following
recommendation:
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that a two (2) months suspension without pay be
imposed upon the respondent Joel T. Regir.[7]
We agree with the Investigating
Judge’s finding of guilt. However, the
recommended penalty is lower than what the law requires and, therefore, should be
modified.
A careful perusal of the evidence,
consisting of the affidavits of witnesses,[8]
the Investigation Report,[9]
and the transcripts of hearings,[10]
reveals that, for his defense, respondent merely denied the allegations of
immoral conduct against him. Without any
other evidence, respondent’s bare denial necessary fails in light of the
positive testimony of complainant and her witnesses.
Well-settled is the rule that bare
denials cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the witnesses.[11] Positive and forthright declarations of
witnesses are often held to be worthier of credence than the self-serving
denial of an accused.[12] Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and
convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in
law.[13]
The evidence presented is enough to
hold respondent guilty of the charge of immorality or disgraceful and immoral
conduct. It is elementary that
administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule.[14] Substantial evidence is such amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.[15] The standard of substantial evidence is
satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that the person indicted
was responsible for the alleged wrongdoing or misconduct.[16]
The acts imputed against respondent, a married man,
consist of his cohabitation with a woman other than his legal wife and there is
a strong likelihood that respondent fathered a child with the said woman. It is morally reprehensible for a married man
or woman to maintain intimate relations with a person other than his or her
spouse.[17] Moreover, immorality is not based alone on
illicit sexual intercourse. It is not
confined to sexual matters, but includes conducts 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.[18]
It is of no moment that respondent’s
immoral acts were committed outside the confines of his work as an employee of
the judiciary. This Court has previously
ruled that 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.[19] The Court likewise finds unpersuasive Judge
Domael’s opinion that since respondent is new in the civil service and
unfamiliar with the norms of conduct for public servants, and taking into
account that this is the first time he is charged with immorality, a lighter
penalty may be imposed upon him with a stern warning for a heavier penalty
should he commit the same or similar offense.[20]
The exacting standards of ethics and
morality upon court employees are required to maintain the people’s faith in
the courts as dispensers of justice, and whose image is mirrored by their
actuations.[21] Thus, this Court has no other recourse but to
follow the strict letter of the law in disciplining errant court
personnel. Under civil service rules,
disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave offense for which a penalty of
suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year shall be imposed
for the 1st offense while the penalty of dismissal is imposed for
the 2nd offense.[22] Since this is respondent’s first offense, the
proper penalty is suspension in its minimum period.
WHEREFORE, Joel T. Regir, Process Server, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran, is hereby found GUILTY of disgraceful and immoral conduct. He is SUSPENDED for six (6) months without
pay. He is also STERNLY WARNED of the
possibility of dismissal from the service should he persist in continuing with
his illegitimate and immoral relationship.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 15-21.
[2] Id. at 23-27.
[3] Id. at 2-3.
[4] Id. at 29.
[5] Id. at 35-38.
[6] Id. at 35-37.
[7] Id. at 38.
[8] Id. at 2-4.
[9] Supra note 5.
[10] Rollo, pp. 61-224.
[11] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 172467,
July 30, 2007, 528 SCRA 594, 601; People v. Tuazon, G.R. No. 175783,
September 3, 2007, 532 SCRA 152, 166; People v. Aguilar, G.R. No.
177749, December 17, 2007, 540 SCRA 509, 526.
[12] Anilao v. People, G.R. No. 149681,
[13] Navarrete v. People, G.R. No. 147913, January 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 509, 523-524; People v. Padua, G.R. No. 169075, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 590, 606; People v. Gregorio, Jr., G.R. No. 174474, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 216, 230.
[14] Dadulo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
175451,
[15] Portuguez v. GSIS Family Bank (Comsavings
Bank), G.R. No. 169570, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 309, 323; Bautista v.
Sula, A.M. No. P-04-1920,
[16] Alfonso v. Office of the President, G.R.
No. 150091,
[17] Sealana-Abbu v. Laurenciana-Huraño, A.M.
No. P-05-2091,
[18] Court Employees of the MCTC, Ramon
Magsaysay, Zamboanga del Sur v. Sy, A.M. No. P-93-808,
[19] Supra note 17 at p. 296.
[20] Rollo, p. 38.
[21] Valdez v. Dabon, A.M. No. CA-07-21-P,
[22] Section 52 A(15), Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.