Acebedo v. Arquero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Edwin A. Acebedo charged respondent Eddie P. Arquero, a Process Server, with immorality. Complainant alleged that his wife, Dedje Irader Acebedo, and respondent unlawfully and scandalously cohabited as husband and wife, resulting in the birth of a child, Desiree May Irader Arquero, whose baptismal certificate listed respondent and Dedje Irader as parents. Complainant attached his marriage contract with Dedje Irader and the child's baptismal certificate to the complaint. Procedural History: Respondent denied the charge, claiming it was harassment and presented an affidavit of desistance by the complainant in a prior administrative case against his wife, and a sworn statement by the complainant acknowledging paternity of a child born out of wedlock. Respondent also claimed the complainant had filed a criminal complaint for adultery against him previously, which was dismissed, and that the complainant himself was cohabiting with another woman. The case was referred to the RTC for investigation. The investigating judge recommended dismissal for failure to adduce adequate evidence, citing the non-appearance of the complainant and Dedje Irader, and the inadmissibility of the baptismal certificate without testimony from Dedje Irader. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, disagreed and recommended suspension for one year without pay. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent is guilty of immorality. Whether the "Kasunduan" between the complainant and his wife is a valid defense for the respondent's actions. Whether the baptismal certificate is sufficient proof of filiation and illicit relations.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Eddie P. Arquero guilty of immorality and suspended him for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with a stern warning. The Court held that the "Kasunduan" was void and could not justify the respondent's illicit relationship with the complainant's wife. The baptismal certificate alone was insufficient proof of filiation or illicit relations, but the respondent's own admission of having a sexual union with the complainant's wife was decisive.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent is guilty of immorality: The Court found the respondent guilty of immorality. This was primarily based on the respondent's own admission during the investigation that he had an "illicit relationship" with the complainant's wife, which involved "sexual union" for a period of eight (8) to nine (9) months. The Court emphasized that public employees, especially those in the judiciary, are held to a higher standard of morality and are expected to refrain from acts contrary to good morals and public policy. The respondent's conduct was deemed disgraceful and immoral under Section 46(5) of the Administrative Code of 1987. On the issue of whether the "Kasunduan" between the complainant and his wife is a valid defense for the respondent's actions: The Court ruled that the "Kasunduan" had no force and effect on the validity of the marriage between the complainant and his wife. Article 1 of the Family Code clearly states that marriage is an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. As an employee of the judiciary, the respondent should have known that such an agreement was void and could not justify his entering into an immoral relationship with a married woman. Therefore, the "Kasunduan" did not serve as a valid defense for his actions. On the issue of whether the baptismal certificate is sufficient proof of filiation and illicit relations: The Court held that the entry of the respondent's name as father in the baptismal certificate of Desiree May I. Arquero could not be used to prove her filiation or to imply that the respondent maintained illicit relations with Dedje Irader Acebedo. A baptismal certificate is conclusive proof only of the administration of the sacrament, not the veracity of the declarations contained therein regarding the relationship of the baptized person. However, this did not absolve the respondent, as his own admission of the illicit relationship was sufficient evidence.
Main Doctrine
A "Kasunduan" or agreement between spouses to separate and for each to find a new partner is void and has no force and effect on the validity of the marriage. A public employee, particularly one in the judiciary, is expected to uphold high standards of morality and decency, and engaging in illicit relations with a married woman constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct, a grave offense punishable by suspension.