Title
Soloria vs. David
Case
A.M. No. P-24-179
Decision Date
Nov 26, 2024
Michelle C. Soloria accused utility worker Alberto R. David of gross immorality, leading to his dismissal from the service, confirmed by the Court's findings.

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-24-179)
Expanded Legal Reasoning

Facts:

  • Parties and Initial Complaint
    • Michelle C. Soloria filed a verified Letter-Complaint on January 16, 2023, against Alberto R. David, Utility Worker I at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Alcala-Bautista, Alcala, Pangasinan.
    • Soloria charged David with gross immorality, prejudicial conduct gravely besmirching the reputation of the service, and vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Sections 14(i), 14(1), and 16(a) respectively of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
  • Background of the Relationship and Conduct
    • Soloria and David's relationship began in 2017 while David was legally married with a child.
    • They cohabited starting 2018, and Soloria gave birth to their daughter.
    • After David's employment at MCTC, he became selfish, refused adequate financial support, and conditioned money given on repayment.
    • David’s child with his wife was illiterate at 17 years old, allegedly due to lack of educational support by David; his wife provided financial support.
    • Soloria caught David womanizing in 2022 and later found he lived with a second mistress since October 2022.
    • David’s work allegedly suffered as he was caught sleeping during office hours but was protected due to relation to the presiding judge.
    • Soloria left David in December 2022 after confirming the second cohabitation.
  • David's Response
    • Admitted legal marriage and that Soloria was not his wife; acknowledged moving on to another mistress.
    • Denied neglecting his children, claiming he raised his first child with family help.
    • Claimed the financial support issues stemmed from difficulty in communicating with Soloria.
    • Admitted sleeping once during office hours but denied habitual tardiness and lack of support.
    • Denied any relation to the presiding judge beyond respectful address.
    • Claimed mutual agreement with Soloria to part ways amicably upon finding new partners.
  • Soloria’s Reply
    • Maintained David was not a good provider; financial support not sufficient even for groceries.
    • Indicated David’s child with his wife was cared for by David’s aunt due to his inattentiveness.
    • David’s officemates expressed concerns about his performance; David admitted mistakes.
    • Felt slighted as a former mistress when David left her for another woman.
  • Reports and Recommendations
    • The Judicial Integrity Board Office of the Executive Director (JIB-OED) recommended finding David guilty of gross immorality and dismissing him from service with forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification.
    • JIB-OED found the charge of gross immorality proven by substantial evidence arising from David’s admission of relationships with Soloria and another mistress despite being married.
    • The JIB-OED did not discuss other charges of prejudicial conduct and vulgar conduct.
    • The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) adopted and approved these findings and recommendations.
  • Supreme Court Proceedings
    • The Court adopted the findings and recommendations with modification.
    • The Court took cognizance motu proprio due to clear evidence of wrongdoing.
    • The Court affirmed that the quantum of proof in administrative cases is substantial evidence.
    • Confirmed David’s incriminating admission removing the facts from controversy.

Issues:

  • Whether the respondent utility worker committed the offense of gross immorality under Section 14(i), Rule 140, as amended.
  • Whether David committed prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service under Section 14(1).
  • Whether David committed vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Section 16(a).
  • Whether David failed to take care of and support his children.
  • Whether David was habitually tardy and poor performer at work.
  • What is the proper penalty for the proven offenses.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.