Republic of the
Supreme Court
Present:
- versus
- VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
PERALTA,
ABAD,
RICHELLE
TANEO-REGNER, PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
Data Entry Machine Operator II,
Regional Trial Court, Office
of the Promulgated:
Respondent. April 23, 2012
Before this Court is an Administrative Complaint[1]
filed by Evelyn V. Jallorina, against Richelle Taneo-Regner, Data Entry Machine
Operator II, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Office of the Clerk of Court,
Complainant Jallorina claimed that she is the wife of Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor La Verne A. Jallorina, who is presently assigned at the
Pasig City Hall of Justice. She has four (4) children with Prosecutor
Jallorina, namely: Caselyn, Juris,
Complainant Jallorina asserted that the illicit affair between her
husband and respondent Taneo-Regner was well-known in the entire court as well
as in the Halls of Justice of Pasig City. She further averred that her
brother-in-law, a policeman who usually visits Pasig City Hall of Justice for
inquest purposes, personally witnessed Prosecutor Jallorina's blatant display
of indiscretion. She was told that Prosecutor Jallorina even displayed the
photo of his mistress, respondent, beside his photo and their son's on his
office table. She added that the illicit affair between her husband and
respondent had roused gossips in the towns of
Complainant Jallorina further alleged that her children, Caselyn and
In an Affidavit[2]
dated
In another Affidavit[3]
dated
Complainant further narrated that she had caught her husband and
respondent in a very compromising situation. In one incident, while her husband
was still holding office at the San Mateo Hall of Justice, she caught
respondent performing fellatio on her husband, in his own table near a
refrigerator. She asserted that her husband then was half-naked, with a towel
wrapped around his waist, and that respondent's hair was in shambles.
At the time of the filing of the complaint, complainant asserted that the
illicit affair can be proven by the fact that respondent, who is unmarried, is
four (4) to five (5) months pregnant. The pregnancy is evident by respondent's
bulging tummy, and her husband's effort to fetch respondent from her office.
Thus, complainant prayed that respondent Taneo-Regner: (1) be dismissed from
the service, considering the shame and damage that she had caused to the
integrity of the Court; and (2) damages in the amount of P600,000.00 be
awarded to her.
In her Comment[4]
dated
Respondent likewise maintained that she has never been in the house of
Prosecutor Jallorina; thus, she was not the woman whom their son saw having intercourse
with Prosecutor Jallorina. She also pointed out that in the affidavit of
As to the alleged engagement ring, respondent argued that complainant's
daughter, Caselyn, did not state in her affidavit that the engraved name is
Richelle T. Regner. Caselyn's affidavit
only stated that her father has a mistress named Richelle which I saw
through an engagement ring. Respondent emphasized that Richelle is not
synonymous with Richelle T. Regner.
Anent the alleged intercourse with Prosecutor Jallorina inside a public
building, respondent argued that the same was purely a lie as complainant did
not report the same to the security guard or proper authorities. She did not
even state in the complaint the specific date when such incident happened.
Respondent further added that granting without admitting that she was
pregnant, it does not necessarily mean that complainant's husband is the father
of her unborn child.
Finally, respondent claimed that considering that complainant's
accusation is unsupported by evidence, she prayed that the instant complaint
against her be dismissed.
In her Reply[5] dated
Complainant added that while it is true that in the Affidavit of her son,
respondent was not categorically named as the woman having intercourse with her
husband, the same affidavit was testified to in court under oath by
Complainant averred that no other woman would be referred to as
Richelle in the engagement ring of Prosecutor Jallorina other than respondent
Richelle T. Regner because Caselyn, her daughter, has personal knowledge of her
father's paramour, who was seen several times in the house of Prosecutor
Jallorina.
In her Comment to the Reply[6]
dated
In view of the conflicting versions of both parties, the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the instant complaint be referred to
the Executive Judge for investigation, report and recommendation.
In a Resolution[7]
dated
After investigation and hearings, in her Investigation Report dated
Thereafter, in a Memorandum dated May 13, 2011, the OCA, finding merit on
the facts and conclusions, as well as the findings by the Executive Judge,
recommended that: (1) the instant administrative case be redocketed as a
regular administrative complaint; and (2) respondent Richelle Taneo-Regner be
meted the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay for having been
found guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the OCA and the Investigating
Judge.
In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.[8]
As observed by the Investigating Judge, while there is no concrete proof that respondent indeed had an illicit affair with complainant's husband, the testimonies of complainant and her son show otherwise.[9]
Even on cross-examination, counsel of respondent could not intimidate the minor son of complainant and
stood pat on his version of what he witnessed.[11]
Likewise, we also note that there was no allegation of ill
motive on the part of witness
The presumption is that witnesses are not actuated by any
improper motive absent any proof to the contrary and that their testimonies
must accordingly be met with considerable, if not conclusive, favor under the
rules of evidence because it is not expected that said witnesses would
prevaricate and cause the damnation of one who brought them no harm or injury.[12]
We also note that while respondent has consistently argued that the
allegations against her are without basis, other than bare denials, she herself
failed to refute the charges against her. Indeed, denial is inherently a weak
defense as it is negative and self-serving, and the weakest of all defenses,
for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove.
Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual
matters but also "conduct 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."[13]
There
is no doubt that engaging in sexual relations with a married man is not only a
violation of the moral standards expected of employees of the judiciary, but is
also a desecration of the sanctity of the institution of marriage which this
Court abhors and is, thus, punishable.[14]
Under
the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
disgraceful and immoral conduct is punishable by suspension of six months and
one day to one year for the first offense. Considering that this is
respondent's first offense, we deem it proper to impose the penalty of
suspension in its minimum period to respondent.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent RICHELLE
TANEO-REGNER GUILTY of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. She is hereby SUSPENDED
from service for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, and WARNED that
a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a
more severe penalty.
SO
ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE
CATRAL
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-8.
[2] Annex A, id. at 17.
[3] Annex B, id. at 18.
[4] Rollo, pp. 21-24.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Evelyn
C. Banaag v. Olivia C. Espeleta,
Interpreter III, Branch 82, RTC, Quezon
City, A.M. No. P-11-3011,
[9] TSN,
[10]
[11]
[12] Naval v.
Panday, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1283,
[13] Regir v. Regir, A.M. No. P-06-2282,
[14] Dela Cueva v. Omaga, A.M.
No. P-08-2590,