G.R. No. A.M. No. O.C.A.-00-01; September 6, 2000
JULIETA B. NAVARRO, complainant, vs. RONALDO O. NAVARRO and ROBERLYN JOY C. MARIÑAS, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Julieta B. Navarro, the lawful wife of respondent Ronaldo O. Navarro, filed an administrative complaint for gross immorality against her husband and his co-respondent, Roberlyn Joy C. Mariñas. Both respondents were Legal Researchers in the Supreme Court. The complaint alleged that Ronaldo abandoned his family to live with Mariñas, with whom he fathered a child named Maria Lourdes. Certified copies of the child’s birth and baptismal certificates, listing the respondents as married parents, were submitted as evidence. Complainant asserted that the two were cohabiting and presenting themselves as husband and wife.
In his comment, Ronaldo Navarro admitted to the marital union with the complainant and acknowledged paternity of the child with Mariñas. He confessed to a past intimate relationship with Mariñas but denied current cohabitation, claiming their interactions were limited to his provision of financial support for their asthmatic child. Mariñas, in her separate comment, also admitted to the relationship and the birth of their child but similarly denied living together as spouses, attributing the “married” status on the birth certificate to a desire to protect their child from social stigma.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Ronaldo O. Navarro and Roberlyn Joy C. Mariñas are administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable. The Court found their admissions conclusive. Ronaldo Navarro, a married man, openly acknowledged an illicit affair with a co-employee, resulting in an illegitimate child. While the Court noted the denial of current cohabitation, the admitted extramarital relationship itself constituted disgraceful and immoral conduct. This behavior violated the exacting standards of morality required of all public servants, who must act with propriety to preserve the integrity and good name of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust, and the conduct of court personnel, both official and private, directly reflects on the institution’s standing as a temple of justice. Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which penalizes disgraceful and immoral conduct as a grave offense, the Court suspended both respondents for one year without pay. A stern warning was issued that a repetition of the offense would warrant dismissal.