Case Digest (A.M. No. P-137)
Facts:
Marcial de Dios v. Julieta P. Alejo and Elias T. Marfil, A.M. No. P-137. December 15, 1975, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barredo, J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Marcial de Dios, filed an anonymous complaint alleging immorality against respondents Julieta P. Alejo (a stenographer) and Elias T. Marfil (a deputy sheriff), both employees of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. The complaint charged that Alejo, single, had been living maritally with Marfil, a married man, and that Alejo gave birth on October 10, 1964 to a son claimed to be Marfil’s. The Department of Justice (DOJ) transmitted documentary evidence (medical certifications, operating room record, baptismal certificate, and a certificate of live birth) and, by letter of January 5, 1973, gave Marfil seventy-two hours to explain why administrative charges should not be filed.
Respondents jointly answered (January 24, 1973) and admitted the factual relationship but explained the family circumstances: Marfil’s wife, Candida Muldong, left the conjugal home in October 1962 and later lived with another man; Alejo had cared for Marfil’s four daughters and later bore him a son; both respondents asserted motives of family welfare and denied malicious intent. The Secretary of Justice, without conducting a formal hearing, issued a decision dated February 14, 1973 considering the respondents resigned from the service. Respondents moved for reconsideration before the Secretary; the case was indorsed to the Supreme Court pursuant to Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 185 (transferring supervision and control of lower courts and personnel to the Supreme Court).
The Supreme Court initially denied respondents’ motion (resolution of February 7, 1974) and denied reconsideration of that denial (resolution of March 4, 1975). Respondents filed a subsequent motion for reconsideration (with a supplemental motion of April 14, 1975) attaching affidavits by each respondent averring that, as of October 16, 1973, they had broken off their relationship and were living separately. They also invoked precedents (notably Alfredo I. Pascua, Administrative Case No. R-1676, Sept. 18, 1948, and the Board of Civil Service decision in Felino Escusa, July 30, 1941) and argued mitigating circumstances: long service (33 years for Marfil, 25 years for Alejo), absence of prior disciplinary record, the wife’s abandonment of the family, lack of public scandal, and their care for Marfil’s children.
On December 15, 1975 the Court En Banc reconsidered and modified the Secretary’s decision, taking into account the ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court grant respondents’ motion for reconsideration and modify the Secretary of Justice’s decision of February 14, 1973 that considered them resigned from the service?
- Do the factual admissions and documentary evidence establish administrative guilt for immorality warranting dismissal?
- If guilty, what is the appropriate penalty in light of the circumst...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)