PRECIOUSA CASTILLO-MACAPUSO, COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. NELSON B. CASTILLEJOS, JR., OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CAUAYAN, ISABELA, RESPONDENT.

Castillo-Macapuso versus Castillejos

The Case

This is a consolidated administrative matter. Preciousa Castillo-Macapuso, a Social Welfare Officer of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, filed a complaint for disbarment and removal from office against Atty. Nelson Castillejos, Jr., Clerk of Court of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cauayan City, Isabela, on grounds of grave misconduct, immorality, and conduct unbecoming of a court employee. An anonymous complaint against Preciousa herself for immorality was later consolidated with it. The case matters because it fixes the standard for grossly immoral conduct as a ground for disciplinary action against both lawyers and judicial personnel, and it shows that the Court applies one moral standard to both parties to an illicit relationship.

Procedural History

The complaint against Atty. Castillejos and the anonymous complaint against Preciousa were consolidated by the Court in March 2014 to expedite the investigation and resolution of both cases. Investigating Executive Judge Omar Viola recommended that Atty. Castillejos be dismissed from the service and thereafter suspended for six months as a member of the Bar. The Office of the Court Administrator, in a Memorandum dated January 26, 2015, found both Atty. Castillejos and Preciousa guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and recommended that each be suspended for one year without pay, with a stern warning. The records were then transmitted to the Supreme Court for review, and the Court resolved the consolidated cases in this decision.

Facts

Preciousa, separated in fact from her husband for sixteen years, met Atty. Castillejos in February 2010 during a meeting of the Philippine Association of Court Employees in Cauayan City, Isabela. In March 2010, while in Cauayan for a regional election, she accepted his invitation to dinner inside his car; he kissed her, drove to a motel, and they had sex that night. He then revealed that he had a child with a live-in partner. He courted her from April 2010 to February 2011, and in February 2011 they officially became a couple, seeing each other twice a month.

In March 2011, Atty. Castillejos convinced Preciousa to have her marriage annulled and undertook to handle everything, from the petition to the hiring of a lawyer and a psychologist, for an agreed fee of 150,000 pesos, later increased by another 100,000 pesos. After a total hysterectomy in June 2011, she stayed in Isabela for her recovery, and he visited her daily. In August 2011, after a convention in Cebu, he admitted having had sex with a commercial sex worker there. Medical examination showed that Preciousa had a sexually transmitted infection, and they underwent HIV testing, which turned out negative. In September 2011, he revealed that he was in truth a married man.

In November 2011, Preciousa asked about the status of her nullity case, and he replied that he knew nothing about it. She went to Cauayan City and learned from Executive Judge Raul Babaran that no nullity case had ever been filed. She claimed she had given Atty. Castillejos 250,000 pesos, sent him a demand letter, and in December 2011 filed a case against him for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act. He denied her allegations, claimed that what transpired between them was mutual lust and desire between two consenting married adults, and denied receiving any money.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Castillejos is guilty of grossly immoral conduct warranting disciplinary action as a lawyer and as a court employee.
• Whether or not Preciousa Castillo-Macapuso is equally guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct as a court employee.
• Whether or not the penalty of one year suspension without pay is proper for both of them.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

This is the lawyer's foremost duty, and the Court holds that Atty. Castillejos violated it by his extramarital affair.

Section 46 (B) (3), Rule 10 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service provides:

The following grave offenses shall be punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense: Less serious dishonesty; Oppression; Disgraceful and immoral conduct.

This fixes the range of the penalty for disgraceful and immoral conduct, and the Court imposes the maximum of one year.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agrees with Judge Viola and the Office of the Court Administrator that Atty. Castillejos committed acts of gross immorality, showing utter disregard of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Immoral conduct is that which is so willful, flagrant, or shameless as to show indifference to the opinion of good and respectable members of the community; to warrant disciplinary action it must be grossly immoral, that is, so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. He admitted that entering into a relationship with Preciousa, a married woman, constituted gross immorality, and what makes it more reprehensible is that he himself is a married man with one child. Describing the relationship as mere mutual lust and desire only proves that his moral fiber is questionable. Extramarital affairs of lawyers are offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the family, and the community, and good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement for membership in the legal profession.

On the second issue, the Court finds Preciousa equally guilty. She was herself married at the time of the illicit relationship, and the Court doubts her claim that she did not know his marital status, since he was one of the more notable employees of the court in Cauayan City and it would have been easy for her to ask her co-employees. Her abusive and insulting text messages to him and to his wife show an erratic and impulsive attitude, and she presented no proof of her claim that he received 250,000 pesos. The Court characterizes sexual relations with a married person, or married persons having relations outside marriage, as disgraceful and immoral conduct, because it manifests deliberate disregard of the marital vows protected by the Constitution and the laws, and such perversion is especially egregious when committed by judicial personnel. There is no dichotomy of morality; a court employee is judged also by his or her private morals.

On the third issue, the Court notes that Atty. Castillejos appears remorseful and repentant and has reconciled with his wife and terminated the illicit relationship, but his past transgressions cannot be disregarded without punishment. Because of his indiscretion in maintaining the relationship for at least one year, the proper penalty is one year suspension, the maximum under the rules, and the same penalty applies to Preciousa.

Doctrine

First, for immoral conduct to warrant disciplinary action, it must be grossly immoral: so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree, or committed under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as to shock the community's sense of decency. Second, a lawyer's extramarital affair violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, because good moral character is both a condition precedent and a continuing requirement for admission to and membership in the Bar. Third, disgraceful and immoral conduct of judicial personnel, whether in their professional or private lives, is punishable under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service, because there is no dichotomy of morality and court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety.

Disposition

The Court found both Atty. Nelson Castillejos, Jr. and Preciousa Castillo-Macapuso guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct and suspended each of them for one year without pay effective upon receipt of notice, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that immoral conduct must be grossly immoral, so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. Examiners use this case to test the standard of gross immorality for lawyers and court employees, and the rule that both parties to an illicit affair are disciplined alike.