Case Summary (A.M. No. P-02-1651)
Key Dates
July 27, 2000 – Letter-complaint filed by Estrada.
October 12, 2000 – Preliminary conference before RTC Judge Caoibes.
July 17, 2001 – Court directed Escritor to comment.
March–May 2002 – Hearings before Investigating Judge Maceda.
August 4, 2003 – Decision rendered by the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 5 (Free Exercise Clause) and Article II, Section 6 (Separation of Church and State).
Revised Administrative Code (Book V, Title I, Chapter VI, Section 46[b][5]) – ground for disciplinary action: “disgraceful and immoral conduct.”
Relevant Civil Service Rules on suspension and dismissal.
Factual Background
Estrada alleged Escritor was living with a man not her husband and had a grown child by him, tarnishing the judiciary’s image. Escritor admitted the long-standing cohabitation but explained her sect’s practice of executing a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” after ten years of union. Both she and Quilapio executed such Declarations in 1991 before congregation elders in Atimonan, Quezon, who certified investigation of their marital impediments and approved their arrangement as binding before God and fellow members.
Administrative Proceedings
Judge Caoibes handled the initial case, denied Escritor’s motion to inhibit him, and oversaw a preliminary conference where the core dispute emerged. The complaint and respondent’s comment were transmitted to the Office of the Court Administrator. Executive Judge Maceda of RTC Branch 255 conducted hearings on religious practice and evidence, finding Escritor’s allegations credible and recommending dismissal of the immorality charge in deference to her free-exercise claim.
Divergent Positions of the Court Administrator
Deputy Court Administrator Lock concurred with the factual findings but, citing decisions requiring high moral standards of court personnel, recommended conviction for immorality and six-month suspension. He viewed membership in a sect as insufficient to override the judiciary’s demand for personal morality.
Issue for Resolution
Whether the respondent’s right to the free exercise of religion under the 1987 Constitution creates an exception to established jurisprudence holding that a government employee’s illicit relationship with a married partner constitutes “disgraceful and immoral conduct” warranting discipline.
Doctrine of Religious Freedom vs. Integrity of the Judiciary
The Free Exercise Clause protects sincerely held religious beliefs but does not necessarily exempt conduct proscribed by generally applicable laws, especially where the State has a compelling interest in enforcing them. Court employees must adhere to strict standards of personal conduct to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. The task is to balance the resp
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-02-1651)
Procedural History
- July 27, 2000: Alejandro Estrada (resident of Bacoor, Cavite) filed a sworn letter-complaint with RTC-Las Piñas (Branch 253), accusing court interpreter Soledad S. Escritor of living with a man not her husband.
- Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr. forwarded the complaint to Escritor, who denied it and demanded proof.
- October 12, 2000: Preliminary conference held; Escritor’s motion to inhibit Judge Caoibes was denied.
- November 2000 – July 2001: Case shuffled among Executive Judges Fernandez and Maceda; Court Administrator ordered Escritor to comment.
- July 17, 2001: Acting Court Administrator directed Escritor to comment on charge; she reiterated her church’s approval of her conjugal arrangement and submitted her “Declarations of Pledging Faithfulness.”
- April–May 2002: Investigating Judge Maceda held hearings, received testimonial and documentary evidence.
- July 1, 2002: Judge Maceda recommended dismissal of the complaint, citing freedom of religion.
- August 2002: Deputy Court Administrator Lock, with Court Administrator approval, recommended finding Escritor guilty of immorality and suspension for six months and one day without pay.
- August 4, 2003: Supreme Court took up the case for decision en banc.
Facts of the Case
- Escritor was employed in 1999 as interpreter in RTC-Las Piñas (Branch 253).
- She had been a widow since 1998; her husband died after long separation.
- Since 1980, Escritor has lived with Luciano D. Quilapio, Jr., not her legal husband; they have one son (now 21).
- Both are devout Jehovah’s Witnesses. In 1991, after thorough congregational investigation, they signed identical “Declarations of Pledging Faithfulness” before three elders in Atimonan, Quezon, acknowledging legal impediments to civil marriage but promising:
- Faithfulness to one another as a binding spiritual union
- To continue efforts to obtain civil marriage if possible
- No civil marriage was ever celebrated; the pledges are recognized worldwide by the Watch Tower Society when legal marriage is barred.
- Estrada, unrelated to them, complained they tarnished the court’s image and should be disciplined.
Issue
- Whether Respondent Escritor is administratively liable for “gross and immoral conduct” under Section 46(b)(5), Book V, Title I of the Revised Administrative Code, given her church-sanctioned conjugal arrangement with Quilapio.
- Subsidiary: Whether her fundamental right to free exercise of religion (Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 5) exempts her from prevailing jurisprudence on illicit live-in relationships by government employees.
Applicable Laws
- Revised Administrative Code Book V, Title I, Sec. 46(b)(5): grounds for disciplinary action include “disgraceful and immoral conduct.”
- Civil Service Commission Rules: first offense—suspension of 6 months + 1 day; second offense—dismissal.
- Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 5: “No law … prohibiting the free exercise” of religion; no religious test for civil rights.
- Revised Penal Code Articles 333–334: adultery and concubinage are criminal offenses; prosecutions commence only upon the offended spouse’s complaint.
Historical Antecedents of the Religion Clauses
- Ancient union of religious and civil law under Babylonian and Hebrew theocracies.
- Shift to priest-king separation; Mosaic Law blended religious and civil commands.
- Constantine’s Edict of Milan (313 A.D.) tolerated religious worship.
- Medieval Europe: Catholic Church’s temporal power, Inquisition, religious wars.
- Reformation: emergence of three rationales for church-state relations:
- Erastianism—state superiority (Luther)
- Theocracy—church supremacy (Calvin)
- Separatism—state indifferent, religion voluntary (Anabaptists, Quakers)