Republic of the
Supreme Court
MARY JANE ABANAG, A.M. No. P-11-2922
Complainant, (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1778-P)
Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J.,
Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
- versus - VILLARAMA,
JR., and
SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated:
NICOLAS B. MABUTE, Court April
4, 2011
Stenographer
I, Municipal Circuit
Trial
Court (MCTC), Paranas,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E CI S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the administrative case against
Nicolas B. Mabute (respondent), Court
Stenographer I in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Paranas,
In her verified letter-complaint
dated
In his comment on the complaint
submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator, the respondent vehemently
denied the complainant’s allegations and claimed that the charges against him were
baseless, false and fabricated, and were intended to harass him and destroy his
reputation. He further averred that Norma Tordesillas, the complainant’s
co-employee, was using the complaint to harass him. Tordesillas resented him because
he had chastised her for her arrogant behavior and undesirable work attitude.
He believes that the complainant’s letter-complaint, which was written in the
vernacular, was prepared by Tordesillas who is from
The complainant filed a Reply,
insisting that she herself wrote the letter-complaint. She belied the
respondent’s claim that she was being used by Tordesillas who wanted to get
even with him.
In a Resolution dated
The respondent sought Judge Cuares’
inhibition from the case, alleging that the Judge was partial and had bias in
favor of the complainant; the complainant herself had bragged that she
personally knew Judge Cuares. The Court designated Judge Esteban V. dela Peña, who
succeeded Judge Cuares as Acting Executive Judge, to continue with the investigation
of the case.[1] Eventually, Judge Agerico
A.
In his Report/Recommendation dated
June 7, 2010,[2] Executive Judge Avila
reported on the developments in the hearing of the case. The complainant testified that she met the respondent
while she was a member of the Singles for Christ. They became acquainted and they
started dating. The relationship blossomed until they lived together in a
rented room near the respondent’s office.
The respondent, for his part,
confirmed that he met the complainant when he joined the Singles for Christ. He
described their liaison as a dating relationship. He admitted that the complainant
would join him at his rented room three to four times a week; when the complainant
became pregnant, he asked her to stay and live with him. He vehemently denied
having brought the complainant to a local “manghihilot”
and that he had tried to force her to abort her baby. He surmised that the complainant’s
miscarriage could be related to her epileptic attacks during her pregnancy. The
respondent further testified that the complainant’s mother did not approve of
him, but the complainant defied her mother and lived with him. He proposed
marriage to the complainant, but her mother did not like him as a son-in-law and
ordered the complainant to return home. The complainant obeyed her mother. They
have separated ways since then, but he pledged his undying love for the complainant.
The
Investigating Judge recommends the dismissal of the complaint against the respondent,
reporting that:
Normally the personal affair of a court employee who is a bachelor and has maintained an amorous relation with a woman equally unmarried has nothing to do with his public employment. The sexual liaison is between two consenting adults and the consequent pregnancy is but a natural effect of the physical intimacy. Mary Jane was not forced to live with Nicolas nor was she impelled by some devious means or machination. The fact was, she freely acceded to cohabit with him. The situation may-not-be-so-ideal but it does not give cause for administrative sanction. There appears no law which penalizes or prescribes the sexual activity of two unmarried persons. So, the accusation of Mary Jane that Nicolas initiated the abortion was calculated to bring the act within the ambit of an immoral, disgraceful and gross misconduct. Except however as to the self-serving assertion that Mary Jane was brought to a local midwife and forced to take the abortifacient, there was no other evidence to support that it was in fact so. All pointed to a harmonious relation that turned sour. In no small way Mary Jane was also responsible of what befell upon her.[3]
The Court defined immoral conduct as
conduct that is willful, flagrant or shameless, and that shows a moral indifference
to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.[4] To
justify suspension or disbarment, the act complained of must not only be
immoral, but grossly immoral.[5] A
grossly immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a
criminal act or an act so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to
a high degree.[6]
Based on the allegations of the
complaint, the respondent’s comment, and the findings of the Investigating
Judge, we find that the acts complained of cannot be considered as disgraceful
or grossly immoral conduct.
We find it evident that the sexual
relations between the complainant and the respondent were consensual. They met
at the Singles for Christ, started dating and subsequently became sweethearts. The
respondent frequently visited the complainant at her boarding house and also at
her parents’ residence. The complainant voluntarily yielded to the respondent
and they eventually lived together as husband and wife in a rented room near
the respondent’s office. They continued their relationship even after the
complainant had suffered a miscarriage.
Mere sexual relations between two
unmmaried and consenting adults are not enough to warrant administrative
sanction for illicit behavior.[7] The
Court has repeatedly held that voluntary intimacy between a man and a woman who
are not married, where both are not under any impediment to marry and where no
deceit exists, is neither a criminal nor an unprincipled act that would warrant
disbarment or disciplinary action.[8]
While the Court has the power to
regulate official conduct and, to a certain extent, private conduct, it is not
within our authority to decide on matters touching on employees’ personal
lives, especially those that will affect their and their family’s future. We
cannot intrude into the question of whether
they should or should not marry.[9]
However, we take this occasion to remind judiciary employees to be more
circumspect in their adherence to their obligations under the Code of
Professional Responsibility. The conduct of court personnel must be free from
any taint of impropriety or scandal, not only with respect to their official duties
but also in their behavior outside the Court as private individuals. This is
the best way to preserve and protect the integrity and the good name of our courts.[10]
WHEREFORE, the
Court resolves to DISMISS the
present administrative complaint against Nicolas B. Mabute, Stenographer 1 of
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Paranas,
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN MARTIN
S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
[1] Per Resolution dated
[2] Rollo, pp. 163-174.
[3]
[4]
[5] Ibid.; Reyes v. Wong, Adm. Case No. 547,
[6] Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., SBC Case No. 519,
[7] Concerned Employee v. Mayor, A.M. No.
P-02-1564,
[8] Figueroa v. Barranco, Jr., supra note 6.
[9] Salazar v. Limeta, A.M. No. P-04-1908,
[10]