Ubongen v. Ubongen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Amado N. Ubongen filed an administrative case against respondent Virginia S. Ubongen, a Court Stenographer III, for disgraceful and immoral conduct, alleging she was legally married to Dionisio F. Dela Cruz and subsequently contracted a second marriage with Benjamin N. Ubongen on August 18, 1993, knowing Benjamin was already married to Ruth Notada Ubongen with whom he had seven children, and that respondent lived with Dionisio prior to her second marriage. Respondent denied these allegations, claiming she obtained a judicial declaration of presumptive death for her first husband and certifications from the Civil Registrar and National Statistics Office indicating no prior marriage between Benjamin N. Ubongen and Ruth Notada, though she admitted Benjamin had children with Ruth born out of wedlock. The complainant countered that his parents, Benjamin N. Ubongen and Ruth S. Notada, were married on September 2, 1972, and their marriage was valid despite no civil registry record. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for investigation, with a subsequent judge being designated due to the initial investigator's inhibition. The investigating judge found the respondent guilty of disgraceful conduct, determining that Benjamin Ubongen's marriage to Ruth Notada was subsisting when the respondent married him, and recommended a lighter penalty, citing the complainant's alleged ulterior motive. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the administrative complaint against Virginia S. Ubongen, with the core issue being whether the respondent, as a court stenographer, committed disgraceful and immoral conduct by contracting a second marriage while her first marriage was allegedly still subsisting and by cohabiting with Benjamin Ubongen prior to her judicial declaration of presumptive death of her first husband.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Virginia S. Ubongen committed disgraceful and immoral conduct. Whether the marriage between Benjamin N. Ubongen and Ruth Notada was valid despite the lack of a marriage certificate in the civil registry. Whether the respondent acted in good faith when contracting her second marriage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Virginia S. Ubongen GUILTY of immoral and disgraceful conduct and SUSPENDED her for one (1) year. She was STERNLY WARNED that any repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely. The Court ordered a copy of the decision to be entered into her personal record.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: Whether respondent Virginia S. Ubongen committed disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Court held that the respondent was indeed guilty of immoral and disgraceful conduct. The evidence clearly showed that Benjamin Ubongen was legally married to Ruth Notada, and this marriage was subsisting when the respondent contracted her second marriage with Benjamin. The non-registration of the first marriage with the Local Civil Registry's Office did not invalidate it. The respondent's second marriage suffered from legal infirmity. Furthermore, the respondent's claim of good faith in contracting her second marriage was belied by the fact that she only verified her husband's alleged first marriage three years after her own marriage to him, indicating a lack of due diligence. The Court emphasized that employees of the judiciary are held to high moral standards, and their conduct, both official and private, must be beyond reproach. Such conduct, when falling short, constitutes a grave offense that cannot be countenanced, as it damages the image of the judiciary. On Issue 2: Whether the marriage between Benjamin N. Ubongen and Ruth Notada was valid despite the lack of a marriage certificate in the civil registry. The Court affirmed the validity of the marriage between Benjamin N. Ubongen and Ruth Notada. The existence of the marriage was evidenced by their Marriage Contract and Certificate of Marriage issued by the officiating priest, Father William G. Mahoney. The Court clarified that the apparent reason for the discrepancy in dates on birth certificates was to make the children appear legitimate, and this was supported by an Affidavit of Marriage Between Man and Woman Who Have Lived Together for At Least Five Years executed by Benjamin and Ruth. A Certification from Father Leonilo B. Glema explained why the marriage contract was not forwarded to the Office of the Civil Registrar, thus clarifying the absence of a record. The Court also noted that Benjamin Ubongen listed Ruth as his dependent and wife in his INP Personnel Data Sheet, which served as credible evidence of their marriage. The Court reiterated that the forwarding of a marriage certificate to the registry is not a requisite for the validity of a marriage under the Civil Code. On Issue 3: Whether the respondent acted in good faith when contracting her second marriage. The Court found that the respondent did not act in good faith when contracting her second marriage with Benjamin Ubongen. Her claim of verifying the alleged first marriage of Benjamin was done three years after her marriage to him, which demonstrated a lack of due diligence and good faith. The evidence indicated that she was aware or should have been aware of the impediment to her marriage. The Court noted that the petition to declare her first husband presumptively dead was issued on April 19, 1993, and she cohabited with Benjamin Ubongen prior to this, suggesting that her second marriage was not contracted in good faith. The Court concluded that her act constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that court employees are expected to maintain the highest degree of morality and integrity, not only in their official duties but also in their private lives. Immoral and disgraceful conduct, including bigamy or cohabitation with a married person, constitutes a grave offense that warrants disciplinary action, such as suspension, as it undermines public trust and confidence in the judiciary. The Court emphasized that there is no dichotomy of morality; private morals are as important as official conduct for those in the judiciary.