A.M. No. P-02-1564 (Formerly OCA-IPI-No. 01-1028-P) - CONCERNED EMPLOYEE, COMPLAINANT, VS. GLENDA ESPIRITU MAYOR, COURT STENOGRAPHER, RTC, BRANCH 72, OLONGAPO CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court has had little qualms with penalizing judicial employees for their dalliances with married persons or for their own betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity. Thus, respondents possible sanction arises not from her having had a child out of wedlock, but from her sexual relations with a married man. That respondent and Neslie Leaño engaged in extra-marital trysts is uncontroverted, admitted by respondent herself in her verified complaint for parental recognition and support filed on 19 May 1998. Moreover, the illicit liaison occurred during her employment with the judiciary. These circumstances were considered by the OCA in arriving at its recommendation. However, the facts are not actually as clear-cut as they seem, and the OCA failed to appreciate the entire picture. Respondents admission is qualified by what ostensibly is a valid defensethat she was not aware that Leaño, her paramour, was a married man. This is evidenced by an allegation to that effect in her Complaint , which was verified and under oath. [30] Respondent testified under oath in open court during the hearing on her Petition that she learned that Leaño was married only after she became pregnant in 1997: Q: And when did you come to know for the first time that the defendant is married? A: When I was on the family way and he told me and keep [sic] on telling me that they were just living-in and having one child. [31] Had respondent indeed not known that Leaño was married when they commenced their relationship, such lack of awareness may constitute a valid defense for her actions. It is not beyond belief that she would not have known of Leaños existing marriage. The legal effect of such ignorance deserves due consideration, if only for intellectual clarity. The act of having sexual relations with a married person, or of married persons having sexual relations outside their marriage is considered disgraceful and immoral conduct because such manifests deliberate disregard by the actor of the marital vows protected by the Constitution and our laws. The perversion is especially egregious if committed by judicial personnel, those persons specifically tasked with the administration of justice and the laws of the land. However, the malevolent intent that normally characterizes the act is not present when the employee is unaware that his/her sexual partner is actually married. This lack of awareness may extenuate the cause for the penalty, as it did in the aforementioned Ui case. However, the evidence on record also reveals that even after respondent learned of Leaños marital state, she still, at least on one occasion, had a sexual encounter with him. In the proceedings on her Petition for support, she testified as follows: Court (to witness [Mayor]) Q: When was your last intercourse (sic) with [Leaño]? A: I can no longer remember the date but it was May, this May 1998. [32] Significantly, this admitted encounter in May of 1998 occurred about one year after respo