Court of Appeals dismisses immorality case vs BOC official

MANILA, Philippines - The Court of Appeals, citing “compelling legal reasons,” has reversed its own ruling in the immorality case filed against a customs official by her former husband.

In a decision dated Aug. 31, the appellate court granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Subic Customs collector lawyer Marietta Zamora-nos, reversing its earlier decision that set aside the Civil Ser-vice Commission resolution that dismissed the complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct filed against her.

The complaint was one of several cases filed against Zamoranos by Iligan Customs collector Samson Pacasum Jr. who accused her of marrying him “deceitfully” because she had a previous marriage that was allegedly still valid at that time.

The appellate court affirmed the CSC resolutions recognizing and respecting the Islamic divorce law that judicially dissolved the marriage of Zamoranos to Jesus de Guzman, who were both Muslims when they married under Muslim rites in 1982.

 “On the strength of the Divorce Decree issued by the Shari’a Circuit Court of Isabela City, Basilan, respondent Zamoranos unmistakably had the civil status of a divorcee as of Dec. 18, 1983.

Such status gave her the requisite capacity to marry petitioner Paca-sum on Dec. 20, 1989, pursuant to Article 29 of the Muslim Code,” the court said.

 “Compelling legal reasons mandate that we reconsider,” the court said in its eight-page decision, stressing that “it is the inherent power of every court to amend and control its processes so as to make them conformable to law and justice.”

The court admitted that in its first decision in February, it erred in giving “undeserved consideration” to judicial admissions of Zamoranos in court records of various cases filed by Pacasum stating her being a Roman Catholic or Christian and her husband as a Muslim.

“A second hard look at those admissions would establish, however, that the declarations about respondent’s being a Christian or a non-Muslim, clearly related and referred not to the time of respondent’s first marriage, nor to the time the divorce took place (but) “during and after (respondent’s) marriage to Pacasum,” the court said.

The court also noted that the charge of disgraceful and immoral conduct requires substantiation by clear and convincing evidence but “nowhere in the record it is shown that respondent had an illicit relationship or had acted in a disgraceful manner to the point of affecting her work and functions in the BOC.”