Estrada v.

Escritor Digest
Estrada v. Escritor
A.M.No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
Puno, J.:
Facts:
1. Respondent is the Court interpreter of RTC Branch 253 in Las Pinas City. The
complainant Estrada requested for an investigation of respondent for living with a man not
her husband while she was still legally married and having borne a child within this live-in
arrangement. Estrada believed that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which
tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed
therein as it might appear that the court condones her act.
2. Respondent admitted she started living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. more than 20 years ago
when her husband was still alive but living with another woman. She likewise admitted
having a son with Quilapio but denies any liability for alleged grossly immoral conduct
because, 1) She is a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society,
2) That the conjugal arrangement was in conformity with their religious beliefs, and 3) That
the conjugal arrangement with Quilapio has the approval of her congregation.
3. Escritor likewise claimed that she had executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness'
in accordance with her religion which allows members of the Jehovahs witnesses who have
been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. The Declaration thus
makes the resulting union moral and binding within the congregation all over the world
except in countries where divorce is allowed.
Held:
Escritor was therefore held not administratively liable for grossly immoral conduct. Escritors
conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from
the law based on her fundamental right to religion. The Court recognizes that state interests
must be upheld in order that freedomsincluding religious freedommay be enjoyed.
In the area of religious exercise as preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to
an authority higher than the state, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so
compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the
freedom. In the absence of a showing that the state interest exists, man must be allowed to
subscribe to the Infinite.