G.R. No. A.M. No. P-24-179 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 23-197-P). November 26, 2024.
MICHELLE C. SOLORIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALBERTO R. DAVID, UTILITY WORKER I, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, ALCALA-BAUTISTA, ALCALA, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Michelle C. Soloria charged respondent Alberto R. David, a Utility Worker I at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Alcala-Bautista, Alcala, Pangasinan, with gross immorality, prejudicial conduct, and vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Soloria claimed she began a relationship with David in 2017 while he was legally married. They cohabited in 2018 and had a daughter. After David’s employment with the judiciary, he allegedly became selfish, refused adequate financial support, and conditioned support on repayment. Soloria also alleged David neglected his child from his legal marriage, was caught womanizing in 2022, and subsequently cohabited with a second mistress. She further claimed his work suffered, citing an instance of him sleeping during office hours, and she left him in December 2022. In his Comment, David admitted he was legally married, that Soloria was not his wife, and that he had moved on to another mistress. He denied neglecting his children and most other allegations, claiming he and Soloria had agreed to part ways if he found someone else. Soloria, in her Reply, maintained her allegations regarding inadequate support, David’s poor parenting, and his officemates’ concerns about his performance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Alberto R. David is administratively liable for Gross Immorality.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Gross Immorality. The Court adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB). In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof is substantial evidence. David’s own admissions in his Comment—that he is legally married, had a relationship with complainant Soloria, and later took a new girlfriend—constitute incriminating evidence that removes the facts from controversy. Maintaining an intimate relationship with a person other than one’s spouse is morally reprehensible and constitutes gross immorality, defined as conduct so corrupt and unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree. As an employee of the judiciary, David is held to the highest standards of morality and integrity in both his public and private life. His illicit relationships, while personal, tarnish the integrity and good name of the judiciary. Accordingly, the Court found him guilty of the serious charge of Gross Immorality under Section 14(i) of Rule 140. The penalty imposed was DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.