A.M. No. OCA-00-01 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 99-02-OCA) - JULIETA B. NAVARRO, COMPLAINANT, VS. RONALDO O. NAVARRO AND ROBERLYN JOY C. MARIÑAS.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court Administrator recommends the suspension of both respondents for a period of one year. [3] Based on the memorandum report of the OCA, the case was docketed as a regular administrative matter. The parties were then asked to manifest if they are willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings already filed, [4] to which the complaint [5] and both respondents [6] responded in the affirmative. The facts of the case are not in issue as both respondents admit begetting a child out of wedlock; they, however, deny that are still living together. As complainant failed to adduce any proof to support her bare allegation that respondents are still living together purporting to be husband and wife, we see no reason to disbelieve respondents' claim to the contrary. Hence, what remains to be resolved is the penalty to be imposed on the respondents for having had an illicit relationship in the past. Respondent Navarro entreats the Court to be lenient in the imposition of penalty in this administrative case considering that he is an ordinary employee upon whom the high standard of integrity and ethical conduct required of a judge should not be applied. Moreover, he avers that his infraction should not be measured against the standards of moral integrity expected of a lawyer. He insists that a minor distinction should be made on the yardstick of morality between an ordinary employee and that of a judge or a lawyer. We disagree. Under the Administrative Code of 1987, disgraceful and immoral conduct is a ground for disciplinary action. [7] The disciplinary authority may impose the penalty of removal from the service, demotion in rank, suspension for not more than one year without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding six month's salary, or reprimand. [8] In Ecube-Badel v. Badel , [9] this Court suspended a court employee for one (1) year for having illicit relations with another woman not his wife by whom he begot a child. Under Rule XIV, Sec. 23 (o) of the Civil Service Rules and applicable rulings, immorality is considered a grave offense and is punished by suspension for 6 months and 1 day to 1 year for the first offense and, for the second offense, by dismissal. In a recent case, Edgar Bucatcat and Gene Jaro, Court Interpreter and Clerk of Court respectively, were dismissed from service for maintaining an illicit relationship. [10] In Lim-Arce v. Arce, [11] a staff assistant of the trial court was dismissed from service for disgraceful and immoral conduct for having illicit relations with a married man while employed in government. In that case, we stressed that: Time and again we have stressed adherence to the principle that public office is a public trust. All government officials and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. This constitutional mandate should always be in