JULIETA P. DALISAY, COMPLAINANT, VS. EUCLIDES DALISAY, RESPONDENT.

In a verified letter-complaint filed with this Court on April 27, 1977, Julieta
Pueblas Dalisay charged her
husband, Euclides Dalisay,
a court stenographer in the Court of First Instance of Davao
Oriental, Branch IV, with immorality.^[1]

The complaint alleged that the complainant and the respondent
were married in Mati, Davao
Oriental, on August 22, 1970; that later the complainant and the respondent had
a son who was named Geoffrey; that sometime in the early part of 1972, the
respondent abandoned the complain­ant and their son and lived with another
woman, Salome Lumod, at Mati,
Davao Oriental; that the respondent also failed to
support the complainant and their son; and that the respondent likewise broke
his promise to leave Salome Lumod.

In his comment,^[2]
the respondent denied the charge and alleged that it was the complainant who
left their conjugal home.

In a resolution dated July
31, 1978, this Court referred the instant case to Executive Judge
Francisco Consolacion of the Court of First Instance
of Davao City for investigation, report and
recommendation.^[3]

The evidence adduced by
the complainant established that the complainant and the respondent were
married on August 22, 1970 as shown by their marriage contract^[4]; that the complainant later gave birth to a
son named Geoffrey on June 22, 1971^[5]; that in the early part of 1972, the
respondent left his family and stayed away from their conjugal
home; that later in 1972, the complainant discovered that the respondent was
living with another woman named Salome Lumod; that
upon said discovery, the respondent promised to leave Salome Lumod and he and the complainant together with Salome Lumod executed on November 22, 1972 a mutual agreement
which reads:

“MUTUAL
AGREEMENT

That I, EUCLIDES P. DALISAY, of legal age, married to Julieta Pueblas and a resident of
Mati, Davao Oriental is
hereby known as party of the first part;

I, JULIETA PUEBLAS, of legal age, married to Euclides
P. Dalisay and a resident of Mati,
Davao Oriental is hereby known as party of the second
part;

I, SALOME LUMOD, of legal age, single and a resident of Mati, Davao Oriental is hereby known as party of the third part;

That party of the first part here­by promise to the party of the
second part that he will remain faithful to the party of the second part and
will live with her again as husband and wife;

That party of the third part also promise that she will not come in
contact with the party of the first part;

That party of the second part hereby promise to the party of the
first and third part to forgive them of their illegal actuations in the past
and to warn the party of the first part not to perform other illegal acts in
the future.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affix our signatures this 22nd
day of November, 1972, at Mati, Davao
Oriental, Philippines.

(SGD) EUCLIDES P.
DALISAY

Party of the first part

(SGD) JULIETA PUEBLAS
DALISAY                                                           (SGD)
SALOME LUMOD

Party of the second part                                                                               Party
of the third part

Witness to signatures:

1. ILLEGIBLE

2. ILLEGIBLE“^[6];

that despite the foregoing undertaking,
the respondent continued to live with Salome Lumod
and they had three children namely, Randolph L. Dalisay
who was born on May 9, 1973^[7];
Clyde L. Dalisay who was born on July 1, 1976^[8];
and Jennifer L. Dalisay; and that the respondent also
failed to support the complainant and their son Geoffrey.

After the complainant had rested her case during the
investigation, the respondent, through counsel, made the following
manifestation:

“ATTY. LADERA:

Your Honor please, after
a lengthy discussion with my client, he manifested his desire not to present
evidence any longer your Honor so we are now waiving the right of the
respondent to present evidence in this proceeding and we are therefore
submitting the case for the resolution of the Honorable Court with­out any
further argument your Honor.”^[9]

The investigating judge submitted a report based on the evidence
of the complainant only.  He found that
the respondent is guilty of the charge of immorality and recom­mended that he
be dismissed from the government service.

The evidence of record has clearly shown that the respondent is
not only guilty of immorality but of failure to comply with his duty to support
the complainant and their son Geoffrey. 
The penalty of separation from the service is warranted.

WHEREFORE, the respondent is found guilty of immorality
and of failure to support his wife, the complainant, and their son, Geoffrey,
and is hereby ordered DISMISSED as court stenographer of the Court of First
Instance of Davao Oriental, Branch IV, with
forfeiture of all retirement privileges and with prejudice to reinstatement in
the national and local governments, as well as in any instrumentality or agency
including government owned or controlled corporations, effective upon the
finality of this decision.

Let a copy of this decision be filed with his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-2.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 5-6.

^[3]
Rollo, p. 28.

^[4]
Exhibit
“A”, Rollo, p. 57.

^[5]
Certificate of Live Birth, Exhibit “B”, Rollo,
p. 58.

^[6]
Exhibit “E”, Rollo, p. 62.

^[7]
Certificate of Live Birth, Exhibit “C”, Rollo,
p. 59.

^[8]
Certification of the Local Civil Registrar, Exhibit “D”, Rollo, p. 60.

^[9]
T.s.n., pp. 44-45, Hearing on January 26, 1979, afternoon session.