EDWIN A. ACEBEDO, PETITIONER, VS. EDDIE P. ARQUERO, RESPONDENT.

Acebedo versus Arquero

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Edwin Acebedo charged Eddie Arquero, a process server of the Municipal Trial Court of Brooke's Point, Palawan, with immorality. Acebedo alleged that Arquero scandalously cohabited with Acebedo's own wife, a former stenographer of the same court, and that a daughter was born of that union. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's own statement of the exacting moral standard it demands of everyone in the judicial service, and because it fixes the penalty for a first offense of immorality under the civil service rules.

Procedural History

The complaint began as a letter-complaint addressed to the Supreme Court. The Court required Arquero to answer, and he filed one. The Court then referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa, Palawan for investigation, report, and recommendation. That judge retired during the investigation, so the case was reassigned to another Executive Judge, who was directed to verify the authenticity of the marriage certificate and the baptismal certificate, to investigate the circumstances under which the baptismal certificate was issued, and to submit her report.

The investigating judge recommended dismissal, for want of adequate evidence, since the complainant and his wife did not appear and could not be located. The Court then referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator, which disagreed and recommended a finding of guilt and suspension for one year without pay. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court itself, in the exercise of its administrative supervision over court personnel.

Facts

Edwin Acebedo and Dedje Irader were married in July 1979. Dedje later worked as a stenographer of the Municipal Trial Court of Brooke's Point, Palawan, where Eddie Arquero served as process server. In 1994, Acebedo wrote to the Supreme Court charging Arquero with immorality, alleging that Arquero and Dedje had unlawfully and scandalously lived together as husband and wife, and that a girl, Desiree May, was born to them in May 1989. He attached the child's baptismal certificate, which named Arquero and Dedje as her parents.

Arquero denied the charge and called it harassment born of the complainant's jealousy. He attached an old affidavit of desistance that Acebedo had executed in favor of his wife, and a sworn statement in which Acebedo acknowledged fathering a child outside his marriage. Arquero also claimed that an adultery complaint Acebedo had earlier filed against him had been dismissed, and that Acebedo himself was living with another woman.

Before the investigating judge, however, Arquero admitted the core of the charge. He testified that he courted Dedje, that she accepted him, and that they had a short-lived relation lasting about eight to nine months, which he conceded involved sexual union. He sought to justify himself by a written agreement, a Kasunduan, which the spouses had signed, allowing each of them the freedom to seek another partner. The investigating judge recommended dismissal, but the Court Administrator found him guilty and recommended suspension.

Issues

• Whether or not the baptismal certificate naming the respondent as the father of the child proves his illicit relations with the complainant's wife.
• Whether or not the respondent's admitted relationship with a married woman constitutes immorality, despite the Kasunduan between the spouses.
• Whether or not the complainant's desistance from prosecuting the case warrants its dismissal.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension for six months and one day is proper for a first offense of immorality.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1 of the Family Code provides:

Marriage is an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation.

This defeats the respondent's reliance on the Kasunduan, since the spouses could not by private agreement dissolve or loosen the bonds of their marriage.

Section 46, paragraph 5, of Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order Number 292, the Administrative Code of 1987, provides:

Disgraceful and immoral conduct.

This is the ground on which the respondent's act is classified as an administrative offense.

Rule IV, Section 52A, paragraph 15, of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Immoral conduct is classified as a grave offense which calls for a penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and dismissal is imposed for the second offense.

This fixes the range of the penalty and confirms that dismissal is reserved for the second offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the baptismal certificate cannot be used to prove filiation. A canonical certificate is conclusive proof only of the baptism administered, in conformity with the rites of the Catholic Church by the priest who baptized the child. It does not prove the truth of the declarations contained in it concerning the relationship of the person baptized. It attests to the fact of the sacrament and its date, not to the parentage of the child.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent's justification fails. He admitted an illicit relationship with the complainant's wife, lasting eight to nine months and involving sexual union. As an employee of the judiciary, he ought to have known that the Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect on the validity of the marriage, for marriage is an inviolable social institution governed by law and not subject to stipulation. It is an institution of public order, and the rules governing it cannot be made inoperative by the agreement of the parties.

On the third issue, the Court held that the complainant's desistance does not warrant dismissal. Once administrative charges are filed, the Court may not be divested of its jurisdiction to investigate and ascertain the truth. It has an interest in the conduct of those in the service of the judiciary, and that interest cannot be derailed by the complainant's loss of interest.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the respondent's act is disgraceful and immoral conduct under the Administrative Code, and that immorality is a grave offense. Since this was his first offense, suspension for six months and one day was in order.

Doctrine

First, a baptismal certificate proves only the fact of baptism, not the parentage of the child baptized; it cannot establish filiation or, by itself, an illicit relation.

Second, marriage is an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. A private agreement between spouses purporting to give each the freedom to take another partner is void and justifies nothing.

Third, court employees are held to exacting standards of morality and decency. Their conduct must be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only in the performance of their duties but also in their behavior outside the court as private individuals. There is no dichotomy of morality; court employees are judged by their private morals as well.

Fourth, immorality is a grave offense under the civil service rules, punishable for a first offense by suspension of six months and one day to one year, and by dismissal for a second offense.

Disposition

The Court found Eddie Arquero guilty of immorality and suspended him for six months and one day without pay, with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar acts would be dealt with severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that there is no dichotomy of morality, because court employees are judged by their private morals as well. Examiners use this case on the void Kasunduan between spouses, on the limited probative value of a baptismal certificate, and on the penalty for a first offense of immorality.