A.M. No. P-94-1054 - Acebedo vs. Arquero

Edwin A. Acebedo, the complainant, filed a letter-complaint on June 1, 1994, charging Eddie P. Arquero, the process server of the Municipal Trial Court of Brookeas Point, Palawan, with the crime of immorality.
The complaint alleged that Arquero unlawfully and scandalously cohabited with Dedje Irader Acebedo, who is the wife of Edwin Acebedo. The alleged cohabitation took place at Bancudo Pulot, Brookeas Point, Palawan, and resulted in the birth of a girl, Desiree May Irader Arquero, on May 21, 1989, as evidenced by the attached baptismal certificate.
The complainant also attached a copy of a marriage contract showing that he and Dedje Irader were legally married on July 10, 1979.

The court required Eddie P. Arquero to file an answer, which he did on October 6, 1994.
In his answer, respondent vehemently denied the charge of immorality, claiming that the complaint was a mere scheme fueled by the complainant’s hatred and extreme jealousy.
Arquero supported his defense by submitting:

An affidavit of desistance dated September 27, 1987, executed by the complainant in an earlier administrative proceeding against his wife.
A sworn statement dated September 13, 1994, in which the complainant acknowledged paternity of another child born out of wedlock.

Additionally, the respondent mentioned that in 1991 the complainant had filed a criminal complaint against him for adultery, which was dismissed after preliminary investigation, and also hinted at the complainant’s own cohabitation with another woman.

By a resolution dated February 6, 1995, the case was referred to Executive Judge Filomeno A. Vergara for investigation; after his retirement, Executive Judge Nelia Y. Fernandez took over.
Judge Fernandez’s investigation, conducted under instructions to verify the authenticity of the marriage and baptismal certificates and to probe the circumstances under which the latter was issued, culminated in an Investigation Report submitted on February 12, 2001.
The report revealed:

The non-appearance of both the complainant and his wife, whose whereabouts turned out to be unknown, as evidenced by the return of a subpoena.
The inadmissibility of the baptismal certificate due to the lack of corroborative testimony from Dedje Irader and inconsistencies in the document.

On April 25, 2001, the case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, and ultimately, on December 12, 2001, the OCA recommended that the respondent be held guilty of immorality.

That the respondent admitted to having maintained a “short lived” sexual relationship with Dedje Irader for about eight to nine months.
The respondent’s justification was partly based on a purported “Kasunduan” or agreement allegedly entered into by the complainant and his wife, which purportedly gave freedom to pursue extramarital relations.
However, being a court employee, the respondent was expected to know that such an agreement was void and had no legal effect on the validity of the marriage.

During his testimony before the investigating judge, the respondent admitted to the illicit relationship, albeit with some ambiguity regarding the paternity of Dedje Irader’s daughter.
The investigation noted that even with the complainant’s apparent desistance in actively prosecuting the case, the court retained jurisdiction to assess the conduct of its employees and ensure adherence to ethical standards.

Whether the baptismal certificate and other documentary evidence are sufficient and admissible to establish with certainty that respondent maintained an illicit relationship with the complainant’s wife.
The reliability of the documents given the non-appearance and unavailability of key witnesses, such as Dedje Irader Acebedo and the complainant.

Whether the alleged agreement (Kasunduan) between the complainant and his wife can be invoked as a substantive defense justifying respondent’s actions.
Whether such a private stipulation, even if notarized, holds any legal effect in the context of the inviolable nature of marriage under the Family Code.

Whether the complainant’s loss of interest and the subsequent desistance to actively pursue the case extinguishes the court’s jurisdiction to investigate the administrative charge of immorality against a court employee.

Whether the respondent’s admitted conduct falls within the definition of "immorality" due to offenses against the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
The proper quantum of suspension given that this pertains to the respondent’s first offense under the applicable administrative rules.