G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-95-1167 December 21, 1998
Case Parties: Carmelita L. Lledo, complainant, vs. Atty. Cesar V. Lledo, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Carmelita L. Lledo filed an administrative complaint for immorality, abandonment, and conduct unbecoming a public official against her husband, respondent Atty. Cesar V. Lledo, a Branch Clerk of Court. The complaint alleged that respondent abandoned his family in 1987, openly cohabited with his mistress Katrina Narvaez, and fathered children with her. Evidence presented included: (1) a birth certificate for a child named Ryan Narvaez Lledo, with the father listed as “Czar Diaz Lledo” residing at 240 Rd. 1, Pag-asa, Quezon City; (2) criminal complaints filed by respondent in 1992 where he referred to Katrina Narvaez as his “wife” and to a child named Don as his child in a sworn affidavit; (3) a contract of lease signed by “K.N. Lledo”; and (4) testimony from their former landlady, Dolores Songco, confirming that respondent and Katrina lived together as husband and wife from June 1988 to November 1992. In his defense, respondent denied the allegations, claimed he left due to his wife’s nagging, and asserted he continued to provide financial support for his legitimate children.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Cesar V. Lledo is administratively liable for immorality, abandonment of family, and conduct unbecoming a court employee.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found the charges substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, including respondent’s own sworn affidavit identifying his paramour as his wife. The Court emphasized that court personnel have a sacred duty to uphold the judiciary’s integrity and good name. Respondent’s acts of abandoning his lawful family, openly cohabiting with another woman, and falsely representing her as his wife constitute disgraceful and immoral conduct, a grave offense that erodes public respect for the judiciary. Such conduct is prejudicial to the best interest of the service and warrants the supreme penalty of dismissal. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED Atty. Cesar V. Lledo from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency. The case was also referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for possible disciplinary action as a member of the bar.