A.M. No. P-06-2282 - LOLITA S. REGIR, VS. JOEL T. REGIR.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that a two (2) months suspension without pay be imposed upon the respondent Joel T. Regir. [7] We agree with the Investigating Judge's finding of guilt. However, the recommended penalty is lower than what the law requires and, therefore, should be modified. A careful perusal of the evidence, consisting of the affidavits of witnesses, [8] the Investigation Report, [9] and the transcripts of hearings, [10] reveals that, for his defense, respondent merely denied the allegations of immoral conduct against him. Without any other evidence, respondent's bare denial necessary fails in light of the positive testimony of complainant and her witnesses. Well-settled is the rule that bare denials cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the witnesses. [11] Positive and forthright declarations of witnesses are often held to be worthier of credence than the self-serving denial of an accused. [12] Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law. [13] The evidence presented is enough to hold respondent guilty of the charge of immorality or disgraceful and immoral conduct. It is elementary that administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule. [14] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. [15] The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that the person indicted was responsible for the alleged wrongdoing or misconduct. [16] The acts imputed against respondent, a married man, consist of his cohabitation with a woman other than his legal wife and there is a strong likelihood that respondent fathered a child with the said woman. It is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate relations with a person other than his or her spouse. [17] Moreover, immorality is not based alone on illicit sexual intercourse. It is not confined to sexual matters, but includes conducts inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is 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. [18] It is of no moment that respondent's immoral acts were committed outside the confines of his work as an employee of the judiciary. This Court has previously ruled that the conduct of all court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also as to their behavior outside the court as private individuals. [19] The Court likewise finds unpersuasive Judge Domael's opinion that since respondent is new in the civil service and unfamiliar with the norms of conduct for public servants, and taking into account that this is the first time he is charg