A.M. No. P-137 December 15, 1975
Marcial de Dios, complainant, vs. Julieta P. Alejo and Elias T. Marfil, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Elias T. Marfil, a Deputy Sheriff, and Julieta P. Alejo, a Stenographer, both long-time employees of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, were charged with immorality. Complainant Marcial de Dios alleged that Alejo, who is single, had been cohabiting with Marfil, a married man with children. The complaint was supported by documentary evidence, including a birth certificate showing Alejo gave birth to a son, Christopher, in 1964, with Marfil named as the father. In their joint answer, respondents admitted the relationship. They explained that Marfil’s lawful wife had abandoned him and their four daughters in 1962 and later cohabited with another man. Alejo then assumed a maternal role for Marfil’s children, and their own son was born from the union. The Secretary of Justice, in a decision dated February 14, 1973, found them guilty and considered them resigned from the service.
ISSUE
Whether the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the respondents for immorality should be reconsidered in light of mitigating circumstances.
RULING
Yes, the penalty is modified. The Court affirmed the finding of guilt for disgraceful and immoral conduct, which is prejudicial to the best interest of the service. However, it reconsidered the harsh penalty of dismissal. Significant mitigating factors warranted leniency: both respondents were first-time offenders with long, unblemished records of government service (33 and 25 years, respectively). The relationship arose under compelling personal circumstances following the abandonment of Marfil by his lawful wife. Most critically, the respondents had demonstrated reformation by voluntarily and completely separating from each other as of October 16, 1973, to conform to public moral standards, an act requiring considerable personal sacrifice.
Consequently, the Court modified the Secretary of Justice’s decision. Respondent Julieta P. Alejo was reinstated, deemed to have legally resumed service on October 17, 1973, and entitled to back salaries from that date, but fined an amount equivalent to salaries and benefits for the period of her forced leave. Respondent Elias T. Marfil was also allowed to resume service but was fined an amount equivalent to all salaries, leaves, and benefits for the entire period of his separation from service following the Secretary’s decision until his reinstatement.
