Exacting standards of morality and decency are required of employees in the judiciary in order to preserve the faith of the people in the courts as dispensers of justice. Engaging in sexual relations with a married man is a violation of such standard. But not in this case of Mila, a court stenographer.
Mila first met Tony, a member of the PNP when the latter was assigned as chief of police in their town in 1995. When they met, Tony was already separated from his wife Nita and their three children because of his philandering ways. So Mila did not know that Tony was married and had a family and started having relationship with him on March 8, 1995. Out of such relationship were born three children in 1996, 1998 and 2000. But despite having had three children with Tony, they did not live together in one house. Tony would just visit her in her house from time to time. She thus raised her children as a single mother.
Meanwhile, Tony learned that his wife Nita also cohabited with two different men in succession since they were separated. She had three children with her first live-in partner and one child with the second lover. So on May 31, 2007, to legally end their marriage, Tony filed a petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Nita alleging as ground his own psychological incapacity. This angered and prompted Nita to file a criminal complaint for bigamy and concubinage against Tony and Mila alleging that they were married and were living together as husband and wife despite the subsistence of Tony’s marriage to her.
Upon receipt of the notice of the bigamy and concubinage case, Mila discovered for the first time that Tony was married so she immediately ended her relationship to Tony. But Nita still filed an administrative complaint against her on June 15, 2007 for immorality. On August 24, 2007, the investigating prosecutor dismissed the bigamy and concubinage charges.
Mila then also asked that the administrative case of immorality be dismissed. She claimed that when she first met Tony she didn’t know he was married; that it was only when she received notice of the bigamy and concubinage charges that she discovered Tony’s real civil status; and that upon such discovery, she immediately ended their relationship. This claim was never refuted by Nita who did not present any proof that Mila willingly entered into such relationship. Was Mila guilty of immorality?
No. There is no doubt that engaging in sexual relations with a married man is not only a violation of the moral standards expected of employees of the judiciary but is also a desecration of the institution of marriage which is thus punishable. Indeed immorality includes not only sexual matters but any willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.
However the malevolent intent that normally characterizes the act is not present when the employee is unaware that her sexual partner is actually married. This lack of awareness may extenuate the cause for the penalty.
In this case Mila did not willingly enter into an immoral sexual liaison with a married man. She had no knowledge that Tony was married when she entered into a relationship with him and that she ended their relationship as soon as she learned of his marital status. Her act of immediately distancing herself upon discovering Tony’s true civil status belie just that alleged moral indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the law and the high moral standards required of employees in the judiciary.
In the absence of clear and convincing evidence it would be insensitive to condemn Mila for simply being an unwed mother of three. There has been no showing that she has lived her life in a scandalous and disgraceful manner which, by any means, has affected her standing in the community. To speculate that she did so would be tantamount to committing discrimination against a solo parent which is prohibited under Section 7 of Republic Act 8972, the Solo Parent Welfare Act of 2000 (De la Cueva vs. Omaga, A.M. P-08-2580, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 14)
* * *
E-mail: jcson@pldtdsl.net