GERALDINE
P. DIZON, complainant, vs. HIYASMIN L. CAMPO, Court Stenographer,
MCTC - Capas, TARLAC,respondent.
[A.M. No. P-04-1774.
February 9, 2004]
Facts: Complainant alleged that respondent who
is a single mother of a nine-year-old child was having an illicit relationship
with her husband, Arnel T. Dizon. On March 3, 2001, according to the
complainant, her husband admitted his
relationship with the respondent who was then already one month pregnant. She
met with respondent in order to beg the latter to leave her husband and
respondent answered “I will” to the plea. However, respondent and complainant’s
husband continued their illicit relationship still. On December 19, 2001,
complainant received a text message from respondent that complainant’s husband
loves her and was willing to leave his family for her.
On March
4, 2002, complainant went to the MCTC of Capas, Tarlac, where she confronted
respondent about the illicit relationship inside the chamber of Judge Panfilo
Valdez, Sr. Respondent allegedly not only admitted her relationship with
complainant’s husband but also stated that she was pregnant. Pleading to
respondent that she leave her husband, complainant offered financial support.
Respondent refused the offer, stating that she is working and that all she
needs is complainant’s husband.
Respondent filed a
comment denying the charges against her. She alleged that complainant’s
husband, a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Capas, Tarlac, became her
acquaintance because of their common place of work. Hence, it was not
infrequent that she and Arnel would be seen talking with each other in public
within the compound of the Municipal Hall. It was only in the year 2001 that she found
out that some employees attributed malice to her acquaintance with Arnel Dizon.
Respondent denied having sent text messages to complainant. She also denied
that she was pregnant and claimed she knew nothing about the alleged admission
of Arnel on the matter. To prove the point she submitted a Medical Certificate dated May 5, 2002, attesting to
the fact that she did not get pregnant within the preceding three months.
On August 7, 2002 the
Officer of the Court Administrator dismissed the complaint.
Respondent
filed a Manifestation with
Motion for Reconsideration dated February 5, 2003, praying that she be
allowed to resign effective as of June 2003. She claimed that several months
after the filing of the administrative complaint, she decided to ask the
indulgence of the OCA to allow her to resign even though, as she claimed, she
was an effective and efficient court stenographer. The recommendation of the
OCA allowing her resignation was simply noted pending the submission of the
report of the investigating judge.
In his Report, Investigating Judge Arsenio P.
Adriano, Executive Judge, RTC, Branch 63, Tarlac City, recommended that
respondent be meted the penalty of three (3) months suspension without pay for
immoral conduct.
Issue: Whether or not
the SMS sent by Campo to Dizon may be admissible in court as basis for the
charge of immorality?
Held: The Court
affirms the findings of immorality on the part of the respondent reached by the
OCA and the investigating judge. However, the penalty they recommended is lower
than what respondent deserves.
The facts
on record warrant the imposition of the penalty of suspension prescribed by the
Civil Service Law for the first offense for disgraceful
and immoral conduct, the minimum of which is six (6) months and one (1) day
while the maximum is one (1) year.
Instead of rectifying her errant ways after the wife of her
paramour had pleaded with her, she continued the illicit relationship and even
abhorrently aggravated the situation by marrying complainant’s husband.
Interestingly, respondent married him after she stated in her Commentthat her relationship
with him was purely based on friendship. Respondent cannot feign ignorance of
Arnel T. Dizon’s marital status for he was then a member of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Capas, Tarlac. Someone like respondent who works in the same Municipal
Hall must have known of, or at least could have easily verified, the status of Arnel. Even
assuming that she was unaware of Arnel’s married status when they first became
acquainted with each other, she should have been put on guard when a woman
claiming to be his wife pleaded to her to abort her illicit relationship for
the sake of the couple’s two children.
By agreeing to marry a man during the subsistence of the
latter’s marriage to another person, respondent subjected both herself and her
paramour to the risk of criminal prosecution. Also, while it appears that Arnel
had courted respondent, the fact remains that she entertained the advances of a
married man. Respondent’s subsequent filing of an action for the annulment of
her marriage to Arnel does not extenuate her liability.
