A.M. No. P-08-2431. April 16, 2008. EDITHA P. ELAPE, complainant, vs. ALBERTO R. ELAPE, Process Server, Regional Trial Court, Surigao City, Branch 30, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Editha P. Elape, the lawful wife of respondent Alberto R. Elape, a process server at the RTC of Surigao City, Branch 30, filed an administrative complaint for immorality. She alleged that despite a prior complaint in 2001 which she withdrew after respondent promised to reform, he resumed cohabiting with his mistress under scandalous circumstances by May 2003. Respondent abandoned his family and ceased providing financial support. The complainant, along with her daughter and a neighbor, testified that respondent and his mistress lived together publicly as husband and wife in different locations, with supporting evidence including photographs.
Respondent denied the allegations, claiming he had ended the affair and continued to support his family. He argued that his occasional encounters with the woman were mere coincidences. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation, who found the testimonies of the complainant and her witnesses credible and concluded that respondent had not reformed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Alberto R. Elape is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct warranting administrative sanction.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of immorality. The Court emphasized that immoral conduct involves willful, flagrant, or shameless behavior showing moral indifference to the opinion of the respectable community. Abandoning one’s lawful family and cohabiting with another person constitutes such disgraceful and immoral conduct under civil service rules.
The positive and corroborated testimonies of the complainant and her witnesses, detailing respondent’s public cohabitation, prevailed over his bare denials and unsubstantiated claims of coincidence. As a court employee, respondent is held to the highest standards of moral righteousness and decency, both in his official duties and private life, to maintain public respect for the judiciary. His actions violated these exacting standards.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave offense. For this first offense, the penalty of suspension for six months and one day without pay is appropriate. The Court imposed this penalty with a stern warning and ordered respondent to provide financial support to his family after serving his suspension, with failure to do so constituting a ground for dismissal.