A.M. No. R-156-P - Celis vs. Marquez

Case Summary (A.M. No. R-156-P)

Factual Background

The complaint alleged that respondent was having extramarital relations with other women not his wife. It specifically cited Alice Celis and averred that respondent fathered four children with her. The complainant submitted the children’s birth certificates, certified by the Local Civil Registrar of Manila, indicating that Alvin Celis Marquez (born April 17, 1976), Bernadette Celis Marquez (born June 24, 1979), Alma Celis Marquez (born November 22, 1981), and Vilma Celis Marquez (born February 3, 1983) were the children of Levy Q. Marquez and Alicia Celis. The records further reflected that the names Alice and Alicia, as well as Levy and Levi Marquez, were used interchangeably in the submissions.

Respondent was directed to comment. After several requests for extension, he submitted his comment on May 10, 1984, denying immorality. He asserted that he was happily married to his wife, Hilda Marquez, and he denied having illicit relations with Alice Celis. He likewise denied being the father of the four children.

Subsequently, the complaint’s course changed. The complainant submitted, on February 28, 1981, an affidavit of Alicia Celis. The affidavit stated that on November 14, 1983, Alicia Celis had filed a complaint for abandonment and immorality against Deputy Sheriff Levi Q. Marquez after he left their home in July 1983 and stopped providing financial support to her and their four children. The affidavit further stated that she did not pursue the complaint because respondent promised semi-monthly support, but she later discovered he had a new concubine named Enreta.

Referral for Investigation and the Investigating Judge’s Recommendation

On January 16, 1985, the administrative case was referred to the Acting Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, for investigation, report, and recommendation. On April 9, 1985, it was referred to Presiding Judge Alfin S. Vicencio of the Regional Trial Court for the same purpose.

In Judge Vicencio’s report and recommendation, it was stated that the parties appeared on April 24, 1985, but during the presentation of evidence, the complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance that was not yet sworn. The investigator warned that if complainant did not adduce evidence supporting the complaint, the case would be recommended for dismissal. The complainant did not submit further evidence at that time. She stated that she would return a duly subscribed and sworn affidavit of desistance. The affidavit was submitted as promised on April 26, 1985.

Based on the failure to adduce evidence, the Investigating Judge recommended dismissal. The report treated the complainant’s desistance, coupled with her non-presentation of substantive evidence, as sufficient ground to recommend the complaint’s dismissal.

The Court’s Appreciation of the Evidence and the Effect of Desistance

The Court rejected the Investigating Judge’s conclusion that complainant failed to adduce evidence. It acknowledged that complainant filed an affidavit of desistance requesting dismissal, citing personal reasons such as hatred and misunderstanding. However, the Court treated the desistance as not controlling because the records included a contemporaneous Agreement for Support dated April 24, 1985, entered into between Alicia Celis and respondent Levi Q. Marquez.

The agreement stated that Alicia Celis and respondent lived as husband and wife since 1972, and that out of their relationship, the four children Alvin, Bernadette, Alma, and Vilma—each surnamed Marquez—were born. The agreement also reflected respondent’s promise to provide monthly support in the amount of P400.00, payable in P100.00 weekly, for the children’s sustenance and educational needs.

The Court held that complainant’s desistance did not bar disciplinary action. It reasoned that the Agreement for Support supplied the “best proof” that respondent had maintained illicit relations with Alicia Celis, which resulted in the birth of the four children, despite respondent’s legal marriage to Hilda Marquez.

The Court further noted that respondent acknowledged Alvin Celis Marquez when he signed his name in the birth certificate of that child, undermining respondent’s denial of paternity and, consequently, the denial of the illicit relationship.

Challenges Raised by Respondent

Respondent contended that the administrative complaint stated no valid cause of action against him. The Court rejected the contention for lack of legal basis, in light of the support agreement and the acknowledgement reflected in the birth certificate.

Respondent also argued that the complainant lacked legal personality to file the complaint. The Court likewise rejected this. It invoked the principle that even anonymous complaints may be entertained in exceptional circumstances where the charge can be fully borne by public records of indubitable integrity and does not require corroboration by evidence offered by the complainant. The Court cited Anonymous Complaint vs. Araula, Adm. Matter No. 1571-CFI, February 7, 1978, 81 SCRA 483.

Nature of the Offense and Administrative Authority

The Court treated disgraceful or immoral conduct as a grave offense. It described the applicable administrative sanctions under Civil Service Law and Regulations, citing CSC No. 8, Series of 1970, which provided for transfer or demotion in rank or salary from two to three grades, or suspension for one year in its minimum period, and forced resignation without prejudice to reinstatement in its medium period.

The Court also clarified that respondent was a city employee because he had been appointed by the City Mayor of Manila and was receiving compensation from city funds. Accordingly, the Court recognized that the power to investigate, suspend, discipline, or remove him is lodged in the appointing power, citing Amolador vs. Felicidario, 84 SCRA 267, 273.

At the same time, the Court distinguished the scope of administrative power over a deputy sheriff. While a deputy sheriff, as an officer of the court whose duties form an integral part of administering justice, may be punished short of dismissal or suspension by the tribunal exercising administrative supervision over the judicial branch for conduct violating the Rules of Court and impairing fair administration of justice, the Court treated the specific charge of immorality as within the framework of disciplinary punishment. It held that respondent’s authority to exercise the functions attendant to the office of a sheriff should be withdrawn, without prejudice to whatever administrative action the Mayor of the City of Manila might take.

The Parties’ Positions and the Disposition

The complainant’s position was that respondent engaged in immorality through extramarital relations that produced four children with Alicia/Alice Celis. Although the complainant later desisted, the Court found that the Agreement for Support and other documentary indicia remained probative of illicit relations and immorality.

Respondent maintained that he did not commit immorality, that he was happily married to his wife, that he had no illicit relations, and that he was not the father of the four children. He also attacked the complaint for lack of legal capacity of the complainant and for allegedly stating no valid cause of action.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court’s reasoning rested on the evidentiary weight o

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. R-156-P)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Pepita Celis filed an administrative complaint against Deputy Sheriff Levy Q. Marquez for immorality.
The complaint was processed through endorsements and comments in the Office of the City Sheriff.
The matter proceeded to the Acting Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Acting Executive Judge referred the case to Presiding Judge Alfin S. Vicencio for the same purpose.
Presiding Judge Vicencio recommended dismissal after the complainant’s affidavit of desistance and failure, in his view, to adduce evidence.
The Court disagreed with the investigating judge’s findings and approved a disciplinary disposition against the respondent.
Concepcion, Jr., J. took no part, while Abad Santos, J. was on leave.

Key Factual Allegations

The complaint alleged that respondent was having extramarital relations with women other than his lawful wife.
The complaint specifically alleged relations with Alice Celis, with whom respondent fathered four children.
Certified birth certificates were submitted showing that Alvin Celis Marquez (born April 17, 1976), Bernadette Celis Marquez (born June 24, 1979), Alma Celis Marquez (born November 22, 1981), and Vilma Celis Marquez (born February 3, 1983) were children of Levi Q. Marquez and Alicia Celis.
The records allegedly reflected interchangeability of the names Alice and Alicia and Levy and Levi Marquez.
Respondent denied immorality and asserted that he had no illicit relations, particularly denying paternity of the four children.
Respondent also moved for dismissal, contending that complainant had no legal capacity, that the complaint was meant to harass and malign him, and that the complaint stated no valid cause of action.

Complainant’s Desistance and Supporting Documents

Complainant submitted an affidavit of Alicia Celis stating that on November 14, 1983, a complaint for abandonment and immorality had been filed against respondent after he left their home in July 1983.
The affidavit stated that the filing was not pursued because respondent promised semi-monthly support but failed to comply.
The affidavit further alleged that respondent had a new concubine named Enreta.
During the investigation on April 24, 1985, the complainant produced an affidavit of desistance that was not yet sworn at first.
The investigator warned that dismissal would be recommended if complainant did not adduce evidence to support the complaint.
Complainant offered no further evidence during that appearance but promised to submit a duly subscribed and sworn desistance affidavit.
Complainant submitted the sworn desistance affidavit on April 26, 1985.
The Court relied on an “Agreement for Support” dated April 24, 1985, executed between Alicia Celis and respondent, stating that they lived as husband and wife since 1972 and that the four children were born from that relationship.
The agreement required respondent to provide monthly support in the amount of P400.00, payable in P100.00 weekly for the children’s sustenance and educational needs.

Respondent’s Arguments

Respondent argued that complainant had no legal capacity to file the administrative complaint.
Respondent argued that complainant filed the complaint to harass, ridicule, embarrass, and malign his good name.
Respondent contended that the complaint stated no valid cause of action against him.
Respondent maintained that he was happily married to his wife, Hilda Marquez.
Respondent denied illicit relations and denied that he was the father of the four children attributed to him.
Respondent also anchored his position on the complainant’s desistance as a basis for exculpation or dismissal.

Issues Raised

The case presented the propriety and effect of complainant’s desistance on administrative liability for immorality.
The case required a determination whether complainant lacked legal capacity to file the complaint.
The case required a determination whether the evidence on record, including the Agreement for Support and birth certificates, sufficiently established the act constituting immorality.
The case required a determination of the appropriate administrative penalty and whether the respo