THELMA T. BABANTE-CAPLES, COMPLAINANT, VS. PHILBERT B. CAPLES, UTILITY WORKER II, HALL OF JUSTICE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LA PAZ, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

Babante-Caples versus Caples

The Case

This is an administrative case for immorality filed by Thelma Babante-Caples against her husband, Philbert Caples, a Utility Worker II of the Hall of Justice of the Municipal Trial Court of La Paz, Leyte. The complainant is a public school teacher and the respondent is a court employee, so the case is heard not by an ordinary court but by the Supreme Court itself in the exercise of its administrative supervision over judicial personnel. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the definition of immoral conduct as a ground for disciplinary action. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it holds that a public servant's resignation does not moot the administrative complaint against him and does not free him from liability.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her sworn complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator in March 2009. The respondent answered, denying the charges as untrue, baseless, malicious, and exaggerated. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the complaint be referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Abuyog, Leyte for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Supreme Court adopted that recommendation and referred the case to Judge Buenaventura Pajaron, the Executive Judge, who conducted lengthy hearings, received the testimonies of the complainant and her two witnesses, and noted that the respondent waived his right to present evidence. Judge Pajaron found the charges substantiated and recommended dismissal from the service. The case then returned to the Supreme Court, which rendered its decision on the administrative complaint.

Facts

The complainant, thirty nine years old, married, and a public school teacher, testified that she is the legal wife of the respondent and that they have two legitimate children. Their happy marriage was shattered, she said, by the respondent's infidelity. He carried on an illicit relationship with a woman named Rennalyn Cordovez, and the affair became public knowledge in their community, causing pain to her and to their children.

On February 6, 2008, the complainant pleaded with her husband, who was then having a drinking session with his paramour in a nearby videoke house, to stop his immoral conduct. Instead of heeding her plea, he slapped her face several times. On March 18, 2008, he left the conjugal dwelling to join his mistress in Dulag, Leyte. On April 14, 2008, the complainant sought the help of the Municipal Trial Court Judge of La Paz, Leyte, where her husband worked. In the meeting arranged by that judge, the respondent asked for forgiveness, but soon resumed his immoral conduct and deprived his family of moral and financial support. The mistress has since given birth to a child, and the two are living together in Tolosa, Leyte.

Two witnesses corroborated the complainant. Pedro Caducoy, Junior, a barangay tanod whose house stands ten meters from the conjugal home, testified that in December 2007 he saw the respondent enter the compound of Rennalyn Cordovez on board a motorcycle at eleven o'clock in the evening, with the woman waiting outside the gate holding a cellphone, and that this happened several times. Francisco Cadion Dado, Junior, testified that when he visited his aunt in Tolosa, Leyte, he saw the house where the respondent and his paramour lived together behind the marketplace, and that he saw them there twice. For his part, the respondent chose not to testify and waived his right to present evidence, manifesting that he had already submitted his resignation letter to the Office of the Court Administrator.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of immorality constituting disgraceful and immoral conduct, on the basis of the evidence presented.
• Whether or not the respondent's resignation from the judiciary rendered the administrative case moot and academic and freed him from administrative liability.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the investigating judge may still be imposed despite the resignation.

Applicable Provisions

Section 46, paragraph b, subparagraph 5 of Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides:

Disgraceful and immoral conduct is a ground for disciplinary action, and the disciplinary authority may impose the penalty of removal from the service, demotion in rank, suspension for not more than one year without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding his salary for six months, or reprimand.

This is the provision that classifies the respondent's illicit relationship and fixes the range of penalties the Court may impose.

The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service Commission, adopted in Resolution Number 991936 dated August 31, 1999, provides:

Disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave offense which merits a penalty of suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and the penalty of dismissal for the second offense.

This is the rule that supplies the specific penalty for a first offense of immorality, which the Court calibrates in light of the respondent's resignation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the investigating judge's findings were in order, being the result of a meticulous and dispassionate analysis of the testimonies. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required, meaning that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court defined immoral conduct as conduct which is willful, flagrant, or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community. Abandonment of one's wife and children, and cohabitation with a woman not his wife, constitutes immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action. The respondent's illicit relationship therefore falls within disgraceful and immoral conduct under the Administrative Code.

On the second issue, the Court held that the resignation did not render the case moot. The complainant filed the case before the respondent resigned, and cessation from office because of resignation does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint filed while he was still in the service. The resignation of a public servant does not preclude a finding of administrative liability to which he or she shall still be answerable.

On the third issue, the Court held that the penalty of dismissal recommended by the investigating judge could no longer be imposed since the respondent had resigned. The Court noted its earlier rulings suspending a court employee for one year for illicit relations with another woman with whom he begot a child, and suspending a process server for six months and one day for maintaining an illicit relationship. Under the circumstances, the Court deemed it reasonable to impose a fine of thirty thousand pesos, to be deducted from his accrued leave credits if sufficient, and if not, to be paid directly.

Doctrine

First, immoral conduct is 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. Abandonment of one's wife and children, and cohabitation with a woman not his wife, constitute immoral conduct subject to disciplinary action. Second, in administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required, that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Third, the resignation of a public servant does not render an administrative case moot and academic, and does not free him from administrative liability, where the complaint was filed while he was still in the service. Fourth, where resignation supervenes, the penalty of dismissal may no longer be imposed, and the Court may instead impose a fine, calibrated to the circumstances and to the penalties imposed in comparable cases.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of immorality and ordered him to pay a fine of thirty thousand pesos, to be deducted from his accrued leave credits if sufficient, otherwise to be paid directly to the Court, with a copy of the decision filed in his personal record.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that resignation does not moot an administrative case filed while the employee was still in the service, and does not free him from liability. Examiners like to use this case to test the substantial evidence standard in administrative proceedings and the rule that cessation from office by resignation does not bar a finding of administrative liability.