A.M. No. P-10-2803 - Acebido vs. Halasan

Judge Jeoffre W. Acebido, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Cagayan de Oro City, filed an administrative case for disgraceful and immoral conduct against two court employees.
The complaint was anchored on a letter dated 27 October 2008 addressed to Ms. Caridad A. Pabello, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The subject of the complaint involved the application for promotion for respondent Joel A. Largo, Utility Worker I, who was applying for the position of Process Server.

In a subsequent letter dated 23 January 2009, Judge Acebido alleged that respondent Largo had engaged in an illicit relationship with respondent Ludycissa A. Halasan, Court Stenographer III.
Based on this allegation, Judge Acebido recommended that the two respondents be detailed to separate courts to prevent further improper conduct.
The recommendation was approved by the Executive Judge, thereby prompting the OCA to treat the letter as a formal administrative complaint.

Ludycissa A. Halasan admitted to being separated from her husband for four years and acknowledged having had a relationship with Largo.

She explained that she entered into the relationship during a difficult period and that it ended once she informed a colleague, Atty. Nelison P. Salcedo, and later requested a transfer.
Halasan further stated that she believed the matter was closed following her transfer, emphasizing her concern for her seven children, all of whom depended solely on her for support.

Joel A. Largo admitted that his relationship with Halasan lasted for approximately three months.

He expressed regret, admitting that he exploited Halasan’s emotional vulnerability and that he had since distanced himself by being transferred to another office.

Evaluation and Recommendations by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

The OCA’s review noted a discrepancy in the start date of the relationship: Halasan claimed the relationship began in July 2008, while Largo confirmed the relationship lasted only three months until their reassignment to separate courts.
Given the uncontradicted admissions of the respondents, the OCA concluded that no additional evidence was required to establish the illicit relationship.
The OCA recommended that:

Judge Acebido’s 23 January 2009 letter be re-docketed as a formal administrative complaint against both respondents.
Both Halasan and Largo be found guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.
A penalty of suspension from office for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay be imposed on both respondents, along with a stern warning against repeating their conduct.

On 2 July 2010, the Court re-docketed Judge Acebido’s letter as a formal administrative complaint and sought the responses of the parties regarding resolution based solely on pleadings and the records on file.
Both respondents submitted their respective manifestations indicating their willingness to resolve the matter under the present evidentiary record.
Judge Acebido later submitted a letter clarifying that he had not formally filed an administrative complaint against Halasan and Largo.

The principal issue presented in the case is whether respondents Ludycissa A. Halasan and Joel A. Largo are guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.
Secondary considerations include:

The sufficiency and credibility of the respondents’ admissions in establishing the facts of the alleged illicit relationship.
Whether the administrative penalties imposed (suspension and fine) are appropriate given the circumstances and mitigating factors.