G.R. No. P-15-3411. September 08, 2020
Carlita E. Villena-Lopez, Complainant, vs. Ronaldo S. Lopez, Junior Process Server, and Buenafe R. Carasig, Clerk II, Both of the Municipal Trial Court, Paombong, Bulacan, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Carlita E. Villena-Lopez, an employee of the Regional Trial Court in Malolos City, is the lawful wife of respondent Ronaldo S. Lopez, a Junior Process Server at the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Paombong, Bulacan. She alleged that her husband engaged in an extra-marital affair with his co-respondent, Buenafe R. Carasig, a Clerk II at the same court. This illicit relationship, which became public knowledge within the court, caused the breakdown of their marriage, with Lopez eventually leaving their conjugal home. Complainant attached photographs from social media as evidence of their intimate relationship.
Both respondents subsequently tendered their resignations from the MTC. Complainant also later executed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating she was no longer interested in prosecuting the case and moved for its dismissal. Despite the resignations and desistance, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) proceeded with the evaluation of the administrative complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct warranting administrative sanction.

RULING

Yes, respondents are guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Court emphasized that every employee of the judiciary, from the judge to the lowest-ranking personnel, serves as a reflection of the court’s integrity. Consequently, they are bound by exacting standards of morality and decency in both their official duties and private lives. There is no dichotomy between public and private morality for court personnel.
The act of a married man maintaining an illicit affair, and of a woman knowingly engaging in a relationship with a married man, constitutes morally reprehensible behavior that violates these standards. Such conduct is inconsistent with rectitude, shows moral indifference to community opinion, and desecrates the sanctity of marriage. The Court has consistently held that such illicit affairs amount to disgraceful and immoral conduct, which is a grave offense under civil service rules.
The respondents’ resignations and the complainant’s desistance do not divest the Court of its jurisdiction or render the case moot. The Court has a paramount interest in upholding ethical conduct within the judiciary, which transcends the personal wishes of the complainant. Since both respondents had already resigned, the penalty of suspension or dismissal could no longer be imposed. Following precedent, the Court instead imposed a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) on each respondent, to be deducted from their accrued leave credits.