448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

*
A.M. No. P-02-1564. November 23, 2004.
(Formerly OCA-IPI-No. 01-1028-P)

CONCERNED EMPLOYEE, complainant, vs. GLENDA

ESPIRITU MAYOR, Court Stenographer, RTC, Branch 72,
Olongapo City, respondent.

Courts; Court Personnel; Immorality; The bar of morality to

which judicial employees should adhere to is quite high, and with
good reason.·The bar of morality to which judicial employees
should adhere to is quite high, and with good reason. The words of
wisdom of Justice Muñoz-Palma bear repeating: . . . The image of a
court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or
otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge
to the least and lowest of its personnel·hence, it becomes the
imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to
maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.
Same; Same; Same; Unsubstantiated charges as to sexual
misconduct, especially those made from behind the convenient cloak
of anonymity, deserve immediate and emphatic rebuke from the
Supreme Court, lest it engenders an atmosphere of sexual
McCarthyism.·At the same time, the CourtÊs „imperative sacred
duty‰ does not warrant any rush to judgment, regardless of the
rank of the employee or the gravity of the charges. Due caution
must especially be observed in cases such as this, where the
complainant has not been openly identified and where the
accusations are particularly vituperative in nature. Gossip
regarding oneÊs sexual proclivities is rarely flattering to its subject,
and often demeaning. Unsubstantiated charges as to sexual
misconduct, especially those made from behind the convenient cloak
of anonymity, deserve immediate and emphatic rebuke from this
Court, lest we engender an atmosphere of sexual McCarthyism.
Same; Same; Same; The fact alone that a court employee had
given birth to a child out of wedlock is sufficient to warrant sanction
for disgraceful and immoral conduct; There is a wealth of
jurisprudence, pertinent to disbarment cases, ruling that the mere
fact of

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

449

VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 23, 2004 449

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to

warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior.·We
seriously disagree with the OCAÊs suggestion that the fact alone
that respondent had given birth to a child out of wedlock is
sufficient to warrant sanction for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
Such a proposition would neither make nor operate as the general
rule, but would come into play only when the basic fact is conjoined
with other circumstances. For example, there is a wealth of
jurisprudence, pertinent to disbarment cases, ruling that the mere
fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not
sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit
behavior. In such cases, it was held that to be the basis of a
disciplinary action, the act must not merely be immoral; it must be
„grossly immoral‰·„it must be so corrupt and false as to constitute
a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high
degree.‰
Same; Same; Same; Freedom of Religion; In determining
whether the acts complained of constitute „disgraceful and immoral
behavior‰ under the Civil Service Laws, the distinction between
public and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality,
on the other, should be kept in mind·government action, including
its proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law like
concubinage, must have a secular purpose; Judicial declarations
that an activity constitutes „disgraceful and immoral‰ behavior
under the contemplation of the Civil Service Law cannot be mere
effectuations of personal bias, notably those colored by particular
religious mores; The constitutional protections afforded under the
Bill of Rights should be observed, to the extent that they protect
behavior that may be frowned upon by the majority.·Our landmark
ruling in Estrada v. Escritor emphasizes that in determining
whether the acts complained of constitute „disgraceful and immoral
behavior‰ under the Civil Service Laws, the distinction between
public and secular morality on the one hand, and religious morality,
on the other should be kept in mind. The distinction between public
and secular morality as expressed·albeit not exclusively·in the
law, on the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is
important because the jurisdiction of the Court extends only to
public and secular morality. Thus, government action, including its
proscription of immorality as expressed in criminal law like
concubinage, must have a secular purpose. Thus, any judicial
pronouncement that an activity constitutes „disgraceful and
immoral‰ behavior under the contemplation of the Civil Service

450

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

law must satisfy the test that such conduct is regulated on account
of the concerns of public and secular morality. Such judicial
declarations cannot be mere effectuations of personal bias, notably
those colored by particular religious mores. Nor would the demand
be satisfied by the haphazard invocation of „cultural‰ values,
without a convincing demonstration that these cultural biases have
since been recognized and given accord within the realm of public
policy. The Constitution and the statutes of the land would serve as
especially authoritative sources of recognition, since they are
irrefutable as to what the public policy is. At the same time, the
constitutional protections afforded under the Bill of Rights should
be observed, to the extent that they protect behavior that may be
frowned upon by the majority.
Same; Same; Same; In the case of a single woman giving birth
out of wedlock, if the father of the child is himself unmarried, the
woman is not ordinarily administratively liable for disgraceful and
immoral conduct but if the father is himself married, then there
could be cause for administrative sanction against either the father
or mother; The Court has little qualms with penalizing judicial
employees for their dalliances with married persons or for their own
betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.·Under these tests, we can
draw two conclusions arising from the fact that a single woman
gives birth out of wedlock. If the father of the child is himself
unmarried, the woman is not ordinarily administratively liable for
disgraceful and immoral conduct. The situation may not be
desirable, and may cause complications in the life of both mother
and child, but it does not give cause for administrative sanction.
There is no law penalizing such an unmarried mother under those
circumstances by reason of her sexual conduct, or for that matter,
proscribing the consensual sexual activity between two unmarried
persons. Neither does the sexual behavior among single persons
contravene any fundamental state policy as contained in the
Constitution, a document that accommodates various belief systems
irrespective of dogmatic origins. On the other hand, if the father of
the child born out of wedlock is himself married to a woman other
than the mother, then there could be cause for administrative
sanction against either the father or mother. In this case, the
„disgraceful and immoral conduct‰ consists of having extra-marital
relations with a married person. Even if not all forms of extra-
marital relations are punishable under penal law, the sanctity of
marriage is constitutionally recognized and likewise

451

VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 23, 2004 451

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

affirmed by our statutes as a special contract of permanent union.

Accordingly, the Court has had little qualms with penalizing
judicial employees for their dalliances with married persons or for
their own betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.
Same; Same; Same; The act of having sexual relations with a
married person, or of married persons having sexual relations
outside their marriage is considered „disgraceful and immoral‰
conduct because such manifests deliberate disregard by the actor of
the marital vows protected by the Constitution and the laws, and the
perversion is especially egregious if committed by judicial personnel,
those persons specifically tasked with the administration of justice
and the laws of the land.·Had respondent indeed not known that
Leaño was married when they commenced their relationship, such
lack of awareness may constitute a valid defense for her actions. It
is not beyond belief that she would not have known of LeañoÊs
existing marriage. The legal effect of such ignorance deserves due
consideration, if only for intellectual clarity. The act of having
sexual relations with a married person, or of married persons
having sexual relations outside their marriage is considered
„disgraceful and immoral‰ conduct because such manifests
deliberate disregard by the actor of the marital vows protected by
the Constitution and our laws. The perversion is especially
egregious if committed by judicial personnel, those persons
specifically tasked with the administration of justice and the laws of
the land. However, the malevolent intent that normally
characterizes the act is not present when the employee is unaware
that his/her sexual partner is actually married. This lack of
awareness may extenuate the cause for the penalty, as it did in the
aforementioned Ui case.
Same; Same; Same; The Court, like all well-meaning persons,
has no desire to dash romantic fancies, yet in the exercise of its duty,
is all too willing when necessary to raise the wall that tears Pyramus
and Thisbe asunder.·Had respondent desisted from continuing her
affair with Leaño after learning he was married, this would have
exhibited not only prudence on her part, but also a willingness to
respect a legal institution safeguarded by our laws and the
Constitution. Yet her persistence in maintaining sexual relations
with Leaño after that revelation instead manifests a willful
subversion of the legal order, a disposition we are unwilling to
condone, even if avowed in the name of love. The Court, like all
well-meaning persons, has no

452

452 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

desire to dash romantic fancies, yet in the exercise of its duty, is all
too willing when necessary to raise the wall that tears Pyramus and
Thisbe asunder.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court.

Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

TINGA, J.:

This administrative matter concerns a court employee

called to task for her sexual liaisons with a married man.
While the recommended sanction merits affirmance, the
story behind this case contains previously unappreciated
nuances which deserve full consideration and discussion.
Respondent Glenda E. Mayor secured a temporary
appointment in 1990 as Court Stenographer III of 1Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Olongapo City. On 29
October 1998, a letter addressed to then Court
Administrator Alfredo Benipayo adverted to several
immoral activities, characterized by promiscuous sexual
behavior, on the part of respondent. The letter-writer also
alleged that respondent had been unable to pass her Civil
Service Eligibility Exams and noted that „her boss the
famous Judge E. Ubiadas, has been exhausting all
possibilities lately so Glenda Mayor can extend and renew
her appointment. [The letter-writer is] just curious and
wondering about the preference given to Glenda Mayor by
Judge Ubiadas because the former
2
has a bad reputation in
the entire Hall of Justice.‰ The letter was signed by a
„Concerned Employee,‰ whose true identity has never been
revealed.

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 70. Her appointment was consistently renewed until she

passed the StenographerÊs Examination given by the Pampanga Civil
Service Regional Office in 2000, after which she was accorded permanent
status on 26 February 2001.
2 Rollo, p. 85.

453

VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 23, 2004 453

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

The letter was referred 3to then RTC Executive Judge

Leopoldo T. Calderon, Jr. of Olongapo City for Discreet
Investigation and Report. On 30 April 1999, Judge
Calderon submitted his findings in a Report. The Report
stated that on 19 May 1998, respondent filed a complaint
for parental recognition and support of her child, Glen
Hzelle Joseph E. Mayor, with the Olongapo RTC presided
by Judge Calderon himself against Neslie L. Leaño, a
married policeman. In her complaint, respondent alleged
that she was single, and that her child was born on 14 May
1997, „after a short courtship during which [respondent]
 4
was made to believe that [Leaño] was single.‰ The Report
further stated that on 3 February 1999, respondent and
Leaño submitted a compromise agreement, wherein Leaño
admitted paternity of the child and promised to provide
support for the child. The compromise agreement formed 5
the basis of a Decision which has since become final. The
Report also noted that respondent testified during the
hearing on her action for support that she and Leaño had
sexual6 trysts on several occasions, beginning in February of
1996. The Report concluded that incontrovertible evidence
established that respondent had „indulged in an illegal and
immoral sexual relationship with a married man, openly,
and in an (sic) scandalous manner.‰ Judge Calderon
recommended that respondentÊs temporary 7
appointment
should not be renewed after its lapse. No reference was
made in the Report as to the other allegations adverted to
in the anonymous letter.
Upon recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), the case was redocketed as a regular
administrative matter, and respondent was required to
comment on the anonymous letter. In her Comment,
respondent admitted having filed the complaint for
recognition and support against

_______________

3 Then Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 75, Olongapo City.

4 Rollo, p. 4.
5 Id., at p. 2.
6 Id., at p. 2.
7 Ibid.

454

454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

Leaño. However, she denied the other allegations in the

anonymous letter. She also averred that she passed the
StenographerÊs Examination given by the Civil Service
Regional Office of Pampanga on 16 September 2000, as a
result of which her employment status was subsequently
changed
8
from temporary to permanent on 26 February
2001.
 The administrative matter was referred to 9 RTC
Olongapo Executive Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas for
appropriate investigation and report. Judge Ubiadas issued
a Memorandum directing all personnel of the RTC-
Olongapo City to submit via a sealed envelope their
respective comments on the complaint filed against Mayor.
As reported by Judge Ubiadas, none of the employees of
Branch 72 submitted any report or comment in response to
the Memorandum. On the other hand, the employees of
Branches 73 and 74 reported to Judge Ubiadas that not one
of them had written the anonymous letter. Judge Ubiadas
concluded that the charges posed against respondent were
unsubstantiated, and consequently
10
recommended the
dismissal of the complaint.
Judge UbiadasÊ report was submitted to the OCA for
evaluation, report and recommendation. On 3 October
2003, the OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator
(DCA) Jose P. Perez, issued a Memorandum, wherein it
was recommended that respondent be found guilty of
disgraceful and immoral conduct and that she be
suspended for six (6) months without pay with warning
that a repetition of the same or similar offense
11
in the
future would be dealt with more severely. The OCA
conceded that there was no subsequent substantiation of

_______________

8 Rollo, p. 70.
9 Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo City, the same sala
wherein Mayor was employed. The former RTC Olongapo City Executive
Judge Leopoldo Calderon, Jr. died in the interim. See Rollo, p. 95.
10 Vide Report and Recommendation dated 22 July 2003 by Judge E.
Ubadias, p. 2.
11 Vide Memorandum dated 3 October 2003, p. 2.

455

VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 23, 2004 455

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

the allegations in the letter-complaint. However, as it was

undisputed that respondent had given birth to a child out
of wedlock, such finding alone was sufficient ground to
warrant the imposition of an administrative sanction
against the respondent for disgraceful and immoral
 12
conduct, the OCA noted. Also cited was the previous
conclusion of the late Judge Calderon that respondent had
engaged in an illegal and immoral sexual relationship with
a married man, openly and in a scandalous manner.
The bar of morality to which judicial employees should
adhere to is quite high, and with good reason. The words of
wisdom of Justice Muñoz-Palma bear repeating:

„. . . The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the

conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work
thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel·
hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and everyone
in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true
13
temple of justice.‰

At the same time, the CourtÊs „imperative sacred duty‰ does

not warrant any rush to judgment, regardless of the rank
of the employee or the gravity of the charges. Due caution
must especially be observed in cases such as this, where
the complainant has not been openly identified and where
the accusations are particularly vituperative in nature.
Gossip regarding oneÊs sexual proclivities is rarely
flattering to its subject, and often demeaning.
Unsubstantiated charges as to sexual misconduct,
especially those made from behind the convenient cloak of
anonymity, deserve immediate and emphatic rebuke from
this Court, lest we engender an atmosphere of sexual
McCarthyism.

_______________

12 Ibid.
13 Recto v. Racelis, A.M. No. P-182, 30 April 1976, 70 SCRA 438, 443.

456

456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

Administrative penalties must be supported

14
by substantial
evidence for the imposition thereof. The constitutional 15
imperative is that due process must always be observed.
Unquestionably, respondent has been informed of the
charges against her and afforded the opportunity to
respond thereto. The question that remains is whether the
evidence presented warrants the imposition of an
administrative penalty.
As correctly found by DCA Perez, most of the allegations
stated in the anonymous letter-complaint were
unsubstantiated. Thus, they were correctly disregarded.
What becomes clear though from the facts is that
respondent, a single woman, engaged in sexual relations
with a married man, resulting in a child born out of
wedlock. Respondent admitted just as much in her
complaint for parental recognition and support filed on 19
May 1998, her admissions therein verified under oath.
Moreover, the illicit liaison occurred during her
employment with the judiciary. For this reason, the DCA
recommends that respondent be found guilty of disgraceful
16
and immoral conduct and suspended for six months. 17 In
support of the recommendation, he cited jurisprudence.
However, we seriously disagree with the OCAÊs
suggestion that the fact alone that respondent had given
birth to a child out of wedlock is sufficient to warrant
sanction for disgraceful and immoral conduct. Such a
proposition would neither make nor operate as the general
rule, but would come into play only when the basic fact is
conjoined with other circumstances. For

_______________

14 See Bautista v. Guevarra, A.M. No. 2278-MJ, 11 July 1986, 142

SCRA 632, 636.
15 See Section 1, Article III, CONST.
16 Section 23(o), Rule XIV of the Administrative Code of 1987
(Implementing Rules) classifies „disgraceful and immoral conduct‰ as a
grave offense, punishable with six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1)
year suspension for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
17 Cited in particular was Kee v. Calingin, A.M. No. P-02-1663, 29 July
2003, 407 SCRA 325.

457

VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 23, 2004 457

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

example, there is a wealth of jurisprudence, pertinent to

disbarment cases, ruling that the mere fact of sexual
relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to
18
warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior.
In such cases, it was held that to be the basis of a
disciplinary action, the act must not merely be immoral; it
must be „grossly immoral‰·„it must be so corrupt and
false as to constitute a criminal act19 or so unprincipled as to
be reprehensible to a high degree.‰ 20
In one of these cases, Ui v. Atty. Bonifacio, the
respondent female lawyer actually cohabited with, bore the
children of, and contracted a foreign marriage with a man
whose previous marriage was still subsisting. However,
when respondent eventually learned about her paramourÊs 21
subsisting valid marriage, she left him as a result.
Notwithstanding, a complaint for disbarment was filed
against the lawyer by the legal wife of her lover. The Court
found the sanction of reprimand appropriate due to
respondentÊs attachment of an intercalated Marriage
Certificate to the record of the case in an attempt to foist
the mistaken belief22
that her first child was born after her
Hawaii marriage. However, the fact of the

_______________

18 See e.g., Soberano v. Villanueva, 116 Phil. 1208, 1211-1212; 6 SCRA

891, 894 (1962); Reyes v. Wong, A.C. No. 547, 29 January 1975, 63 SCRA
667, 673-674 (Per editors of SCRA, inadvertently omitted in SCRA vol.
62); Radaza v. Tejano, 193 Phil. 433, 437-438; 106 SCRA 246 (1981);
Montaña v. Ruado, A.C. No. 507, 24 February 1975, 62 SCRA 382; Arciga
v. Maniwang, A.C. No. 1608, 14 August 1981, 106 SCRA 591, 596; and Ui
v. Atty. Bonifacio, 388 Phil. 691, 707-708; 333 SCRA 38 (2000).
19 See e.g., Soberano v. Villanueva, supra note 18, at pp. 1211-1212; p.
895; Reyes v. Wong, supra note 18 at pp. 673-674; and Arciga v.
Maniwang, supra note 18 at p. 596.
20 388 Phil. 691; 333 SCRA 38 (2000).
21 Id., at p. 704; p. 47.
22 Id. at pp. 707-708; p. 53. The dispositive portion of the Decision
reads:

458

458 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

illicit affair itself was not adjudged as cause for

administrative sanction, albeit the Court reserved
comment on the moral quandaries the situation presented.
The following disquisition of Justice Sabino de Leon in the
Ui case illustrates the dichotomy between the difficult
ethical questions posed in that case and the appropriate
legal standards governing the proper sanction:

„Simple as the facts of the case may sound, the effects of the
actuations of respondent are not only far from simple, they will
have a rippling effect on how the standard norms of our legal
practitioners should be defined. Perhaps morality in our liberal
society today is a far cry from what it used to be before. This
permissiveness notwithstanding, lawyers, as keepers of public faith,
are burdened with a higher degree of social responsibility and thus
must handle their personal affairs with greater caution. The facts of
this case lead us to believe that perhaps respondent would not have
found herself in such a compromising situation had she exercised
prudence and been more vigilant in finding out more about Carlos
UiÊs personal background prior to her intimate involvement with
him.
Surely, circumstances existed which should have at least aroused
respondentÊs suspicion that something was amiss in her
relationship with Carlos Ui, and moved her to ask probing
questions. For instance, respondent admitted that she knew that
Carlos Ui had children with a woman from Amoy, China, yet it
appeared that she never exerted the slightest effort to find out if
Carlos Ui and this woman were indeed unmarried. Also, despite
their marriage in 1987, Carlos Ui never lived with respondent and
their first child, a circum-

_______________

WHEREFORE, the complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Iris

L. Bonifacio, for alleged immorality, is hereby DISMISSED.
However, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED for attaching to her Answer
a photocopy of her Marriage Certificate, with an altered or intercalated date
thereof, with a STERN WARNING that a more severe sanction will be imposed
on her for any repetition of the same or similar offense in the future. (Id., at p.
708; p. 53.)

459

VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 23, 2004 459

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

stance that is simply incomprehensible considering respondentÊs

allegation that Carlos Ui was very open in courting her.
All these taken together leads to the inescapable
conclusion that respondent was imprudent in managing her
personal affairs. However, the fact remains that her
relationship with Carlos Ui, clothed as it was with what
respondent believed was a valid marriage, cannot be
considered immoral. For immorality connotes conduct that
shows indifference to the moral norms of society and the
opinion of good and respectable members of the community.
Moreover, for such conduct to warrant disciplinary action, the same
must be „grossly immoral,‰ that is, it must be so corrupt and false
as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree.
We have held that „a member of the Bar and officer of the court
is not only required to refrain from adulterous relationships . . . but
must also so behave himself as to avoid scandalizing the public by
creating the belief that he is flouting those moral standards.‰
RespondentÊs act of immediately distancing herself from Carlos Ui
upon discovering his true civil status belies just that alleged moral
indifference and proves that she had no intention of flaunting the
law and the high moral standard of the legal profession.
ComplainantÊs bare assertions to the contrary deserve no credit.
After all, the burden of proof rests upon the complainant, and the
Court will exercise its disciplinary powers only if she establishes
her case by clear, convincing and satisfactory evidence. This, herein
23
complainant miserably failed to do. (Emphasis supplied)
24
Our landmark ruling in Estrada v. Escritor emphasizes
that in determining whether the acts complained of
constitute „disgraceful and immoral behavior‰ under the
Civil Service Laws, the distinction between public and
secular morality on the one hand,25and religious morality, on
the other should be kept in mind. The distinction between
public and secular morality as expressed·albeit not
exclusively·in the law, on

_______________

23 Ibid.
24 A.M. No. P-02-1651, 4 August 2003, 408 SCRA 1.
25 Id., at p. 180.

460

460 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Concerned Employee vs. Mayor
the one hand, and religious morality, on the other, is
important because the jurisdiction of26 the Court extends
only to public and secular morality. Thus, government
action, including its proscription of immorality as
expressed in criminal
27
law like concubinage, must have a
secular purpose.
Thus, any judicial pronouncement that an activity
constitutes „disgraceful and immoral‰ behavior under the
contemplation of the Civil Service law must satisfy the test
that such conduct is regulated on account of the concerns of
public and secular morality. Such judicial declarations
cannot be mere effectuations of personal bias, notably those
colored by particular religious mores. Nor would the
demand be satisfied by the haphazard invocation of
„cultural‰ values, without a convincing demonstration that
these cultural biases have since been recognized and given
accord within the realm of public policy. The Constitution
and the statutes of the land would serve as especially
authoritative sources of recognition, since they are
irrefutable as to what the public policy is. At the same
time, the constitutional protections afforded under the Bill
of Rights should be observed, to the extent that they
protect behavior that may be frowned upon by the majority.
Under these tests, we can draw two conclusions arising
from the fact that a single woman gives birth out of
wedlock.
If the father of the child is himself unmarried, the
woman is not ordinarily administratively liable for
disgraceful and immoral conduct. The situation may not be
desirable, and may cause complications in the life of both
mother and child, but it does not give cause for
administrative sanction. There is no law penalizing such an
unmarried mother under those circumstances by reason of
her sexual conduct, or for that matter, proscribing the
consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons.
Neither does the sexual behavior among single persons
contravene any fundamental state pol-

_______________

26 Id., at p. 183.
27 Id., at p. 181.

461
 VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 23, 2004 461
Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

icy as contained in the Constitution, a document that

accommodates various belief systems irrespective of
dogmatic origins.
On the other hand, if the father of the child born out of
wedlock is himself married to a woman other than the
mother, then there could be cause for administrative
sanction against either the father or mother. In this case,
the „disgraceful and immoral conduct‰ consists of having
extramarital relations with a married person. Even if not
all forms of extra-marital relations are punishable under
penal law,28 the sanctity of marriage is constitutionally
recognized and likewise affirmed by 29our statutes as a
special contract of permanent union. Accordingly, the
Court has had little qualms with penalizing judicial
employees for their dalliances with married persons or for
their own betrayals of the marital vow of fidelity.
Thus, respondentÊs possible sanction arises not from her
having had a child out of wedlock, but from her sexual
relations with a married man. That respondent and Neslie
Leaño engaged in extra-marital trysts is uncontroverted,
admitted by respondent herself in her verified complaint
for parental recognition and support filed on 19 May 1998.
Moreover, the illicit liaison occurred during her
employment with the judiciary. These circumstances were
considered by the OCA in arriving at its recommendation.
However, the facts are not actually as clear-cut as they
seem, and the OCA failed to appreciate the entire picture.
RespondentÊs admission is qualified by what ostensibly is a
valid defense·that she was not aware that Leaño, her
paramour, was a married man. This is evidenced by an
allegation to that effect in her Complaint, which was
verified and under

_______________

28 See Section 2, Art. XV, CONST.

29 See Art. 1, Family Code.

462

462 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

30
oath. Respondent testified under oath in open court
during the hearing on her Petition that she learned that
Leaño was married only after she became pregnant in
1997:

Q: And when did you come to know for the first time that
the defendant is married?
A: When I was on the family way and he told me and
keep [sic] on telling me
31
that they were just living-in
and having one child.

Had respondent indeed not known that Leaño was married

when they commenced their relationship, such lack of
awareness may constitute a valid defense for her actions. It
is not beyond belief that she would not have known of
LeañoÊs existing marriage.
The legal effect of such ignorance deserves due
consideration, if only for intellectual clarity. The act of
having sexual relations with a married person, or of
married persons having sexual relations outside their
marriage is considered „disgraceful and immoral‰ conduct
because such manifests deliberate disregard by the actor of
the marital vows protected by the Constitution and our
laws. The perversion is especially egregious if committed by
judicial personnel, those persons specifically tasked with
the administration of justice and the laws of the land.
However, the malevolent intent that normally
characterizes the act is not present when the employee is
unaware that his/her sexual partner is actually married.
This lack of awareness may extenuate the cause for the
penalty, as it did in the aforementioned Ui case.

_______________

30 In her complaint in Civil Case No. 201-0-98, Mayor stated: „Plaintiff

is the mother of the above-named minor with the defendant Neslie L.
Leaño. The minor plaintiff was born on May 14, 1997 after a short
courtship during which the ad litem guardian was made to believe that
defendant is single‰; Rollo, p. 4.
31 TSN in Civil Case No. 201-0-98 dated 7 August 1998, p. 15, vide
Rollo, p. 41.

463
 VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 23, 2004 463
Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

However, the evidence on record also reveals that even

after respondent learned of LeañoÊs marital state, she still,
at least on one occasion, had a sexual encounter with him.
In the proceedings on her Petition for support, she testified
as follows:

Court (to witness [Mayor])

Q: When was your last intercourse (sic) with [Leaño]?
A: I can no longer
32
remember the date but it was May, this
May 1998.

Significantly, this admitted encounter in May of 1998

occurred about one year after respondentÊs child was born
on 14 May 1997. Thus, while respondent may have been
truthful in asserting that she had not known Leaño was
married when they commenced their affair, or when Leaño
had impregnated her, the fact remains that even long after
respondent knew Leaño was married, she still consented to
indulge in sexual congress with him.
Had respondent desisted from continuing her affair with
Leaño after learning he was married, this would have
exhibited not only prudence on her part, but also a
willingness to respect a legal institution safeguarded by
our laws and the Constitution. Yet her persistence in
maintaining sexual relations with Leaño after that
revelation instead manifests a willful subversion of the
legal order, a disposition we are unwilling to condone, even
if avowed in the name of love. The Court, like all well-
meaning persons, has no desire to dash romantic fancies,
yet in the exercise of its duty, is all too willing when
necessary to raise the wall that tears Pyramus and Thisbe
asunder.
The conclusion of the OCA that respondent is guilty of
disgraceful and immoral conduct is correct, albeit for the
reasons we do not share.

_______________

32 TSN in Civil Case No. 201-0-98 dated 31 July 1998, vide Rollo, p.
20.

464
 464 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Concerned Employee vs. Mayor

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Glenda E.

Mayor, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Branch 72, Olongapo
City, GUILTY of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct and
orders that she be SUSPENDED for six (6) months without
pay with WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and

Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.

Glenda E. Mayor suspended for six (6) months for

disgraceful and immoral conduct, with warning against
repetition of similar offense.

Notes.·The fact that a judgeÊs dishonorable conduct

occurred several years before his appointment to the
judiciary may be appreciated as a mitigation of his failing
to fully achieve the moral standards required of a judge.
(Zamudio vs. Peñas, Jr., 286 SCRA 367 [1998])
By their very nature, acts of sexual congress are not
proper subjects of photographs. (Liwanag vs. Lustre, 306
SCRA 55 [1999])

··o0o··

465

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.