Case Digest (A.M. No. R-156-P)
Facts:
Pepita Celis v. Deputy Sheriff Levy Q. Marquez, Adm. Mat. No. R-156-P, August 27, 1985, Supreme Court En Banc, Makasiar, C.J., writing for the Court. Complainant Pepita Celis filed an administrative complaint alleging immorality against respondent Levy Q. Marquez, a deputy sheriff of the City of Manila. The complaint charged that respondent maintained extramarital relations with a woman identified as Alicia (or Alice) Celis and fathered four children with her; the complaint included certified birth certificates for Alvin (b. Apr. 17, 1976), Bernadette (b. June 24, 1979), Alma (b. Nov. 22, 1981) and Vilma (b. Feb. 3, 1983), each listing Marquez and Alicia Celis as parents.The Acting Court Administrator referred the complaint to respondent for comment; respondent denied the charges, stated he was married to Hilda Marquez, disclaimed paternity of Alicia's children, and moved for dismissal on grounds of complainant's alleged lack of legal capacity and malicious motive. Alicia Celis later submitted an affidavit recounting that she had filed, but did not pursue, a prior complaint for abandonment and immorality after respondent left their home and ceased support, and averred that respondent had promised support but later took another concubine.
The administrative matter was referred to the Acting Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila for investigation and, subsequently, to Presiding Judge Alfin S. Vicencio. Judge Vicencio reported that when evidence was called, the complainant presented an affidavit of desistance (later sworn) and offered no further testimony, and therefore he recommended dismissal for failure to adduce evidence. The Acting Court Administrator and the Court disagreed with that recommendation, noting that the complainant submitted an "Agreement for Support" dated April 24, 1985 in which respondent acknowledged living with Alicia as husband and wife since 1972 and promised monthly support for the four children; respondent had also signed one child's birth certificate. The Court Administrator applied precedents and administrative rules on immorality and employee discipline and recommended that respondent be found guilty, fined three months' salary, and deprived of authority to exercise sheriff functions, with circulation of the decision to Manila trial courts and notice to the Mayor of Manila. The Supreme Court approved that report and recomme...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the complainant have legal capacity (standing) to file the administrative complaint against respondent?
- Does the complainant's sworn affidavit of desistance bar administrative discipline of respondent?
- Do the submitted records and attendant facts sufficiently establish respondent's immorality to merit disciplinary sanctions, including withdrawal of his authori...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)