A.M. No. P-94-1081. October 25, 1995. VIRGINIA E. BURGOS, complainant, vs. JOSEFINA R. AQUINO, Court Stenographer, RTC, Branch 19, Malolos, Bulacan, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Virginia E. Burgos charged respondent Josefina R. Aquino, a Court Stenographer, with immorality for maintaining an illicit relationship with complainant’s husband, Atty. Francisco Burgos. The affair allegedly began in 1979 and resulted in the birth of a daughter in 1980. The complainant detailed in her letter that the respondent would frequently visit her husband’s office, even during court hours, and presented herself as his wife, causing scandal. Despite a promise to the Executive Judge to cease the relationship, the complainant alleged the affair continued, supported by documents from her husband’s office bearing the respondent’s initials.
In her Comment, the respondent admitted to the past illicit relationship and the paternity of her child but claimed it occurred prior to her entry into the judiciary in July 1981 and had since been severed due to a disagreement over support. The case was referred for investigation, where the parties submitted position papers and documentary evidence but no testimonial evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Josefina R. Aquino is administratively liable for immorality and other related offenses warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court found substantial evidence to conclude that the respondent’s immoral conduct persisted even during her service in the judiciary. While she admitted the affair began while she was employed in the government (the Fiscal’s Office) prior to her judiciary appointment, the Court emphasized that administrative proceedings are summary and not bound by strict technical rules of evidence. The complainant submitted documents from her husband’s law office typed by the respondent, indicating ongoing contact. The Court ruled it was incumbent upon the respondent to disprove the charge that the relationship continued, which she failed to do.
Furthermore, the Court found the respondent liable for perjury. In her Civil Service Form 212 (Personal Data Sheet) submitted for her judiciary application, she deliberately omitted any mention of her daughter despite a declaration under penalty of perjury. This constituted a deliberate untruth upon a material matter in an official document. The Code of Judicial Ethics demands that court personnel conduct themselves with propriety both inside and outside the courtroom. The respondent’s actions violated the exacting standards of morality and decency required of judiciary employees. Consequently, the Court suspended respondent Josefina R. Aquino from office for six (6) months for immorality and perjury.