A.M. No. P-06-2196; October 22, 2012
MARITES FLORES-TUMBAGA, Complainant, vs. JOSELITO S. TUMBAGA, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marites Flores-Tumbaga filed an administrative complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct against her husband, respondent Sheriff Joselito Tumbaga. She alleged that in December 2002, respondent confessed to having an extra-marital affair, promised to end it, but continued the relationship and eventually abandoned her in August 2003. She claimed he and the other woman were frequently seen together in public. In support, she submitted an affidavit from a wedding sponsor, Perfecto Cabansag, who attested that respondent tearfully admitted the affair during a September 2003 meeting but later filed an annulment petition. Complainant also attached a transcript of her testimony from the annulment case reiterating these allegations.
In his Comment, respondent denied having any extra-marital affair and any admission thereof. He stated the marriage was dysfunctional, prompting him to leave, and submitted affidavits from friends supporting his denial. Due to conflicting claims, the case was referred for investigation. Investigating Judge Marybelle L. Demot Mariñas, after a belated submission of her report, found respondent guilty based on her assessment of the testimonies and evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Sheriff Joselito Tumbaga is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct warranting administrative sanction.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence—relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate—is required. The Court upheld the Investigating Judge’s factual findings, which resulted from a meticulous examination of testimonies and evidence. The positive testimonies of the complainant and her witness, Cabansag, detailing respondent’s confession and subsequent abandonment, prevail over respondent’s mere denial. There is no evidence of improper motive for these witnesses. Respondent’s conduct, involving abandonment of his wife to cohabit with another woman, constitutes willful and flagrant immoral conduct showing indifference to community standards.
Under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave offense. The penalty for a first offense is suspension for six months and one day to one year. Accordingly, respondent is suspended for six months and one day without pay. He is warned that repetition will warrant a more severe penalty. Separately, Judge Mariñas is admonished for her delay in submitting the investigation report, considering her apology and lack of intentional defiance.