AM 94 1034; (February, 1997) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-94-1034. February 21, 1997. LEWELYN S. ESTRELLER, complainant, vs. SOFRONIO MANATAD, JR., Court Interpreter I, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Lewelyn S. Estreller charged respondent Sofronio Manatad, Jr., a married Court Interpreter I, with disgraceful and immoral conduct. She alleged that while they were classmates in college, he courted her under the pretense of being single, promised marriage, and consequently had sexual relations with her, resulting in the birth of a child in October 1985. The child’s baptismal certificate names respondent as the father. Complainant asserted she only discovered his marital status after she became pregnant, emphasizing that he was already a government employee when he deceived her.
In his counter-affidavit, respondent denied courting the complainant or misleading her about his marital status, claiming his marriage was publicly known. However, he admitted to a single, unexpected sexual encounter, which he attributed to being intoxicated at a party. He later filed an affidavit of desistance from the complainant, who stated she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. Despite this withdrawal, the Supreme Court treated the matter as an administrative case concerning a court employee’s conduct.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Sofronio Manatad, Jr. is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct warranting administrative sanction.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Court emphasized that the affidavit of desistance does not divest it of jurisdiction to discipline court personnel, as administrative cases involve public interest and the preservation of judicial integrity. Respondent’s admission of a sexual relationship with the complainant, a single woman, while he was married and employed in the judiciary, constituted immoral conduct per se. His defenses—that he did not court her, that his marital status was known, and that the act occurred while he was drunk—were deemed irrelevant and indicative of a lack of remorse.
The legal logic centers on the high standard of behavior required of all judiciary personnel. As public servants, they must exemplify integrity, uprightness, and honesty in both official duties and private life to uphold the court’s dignity and public trust. Respondent’s actions, resulting in an illegitimate child, tarnished the judiciary’s image. His conduct fell short of the moral propriety expected, diminishing public confidence in the justice system. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a stern warning that repetition would incur a more severe penalty. This sanction underscores that private misconduct by court employees, reflecting on their fitness for office, is subject to disciplinary action to safeguard the judiciary’s integrity.