A.M. No. P-06-2238. September 27, 2007. Edgar Noel C. Licardo, Complainant, vs. Juliet Almonte Licardo, Utility Worker, MCTC, Biliran, Biliran, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Edgar Noel Licardo, an overseas worker, filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty and immorality against his wife, respondent Juliet Almonte Licardo, a Utility Worker at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Biliran, Cabucgayan-Biliran. The complaint alleged that respondent was engaged in an illicit relationship with a married man, Winnie Caparro. The complainant asserted that during his vacation, he discovered through his children, neighbors, and relatives that respondent was cohabiting with Caparro in Agpangi, Naval, Biliran, as common-law husband and wife, despite their subsisting marriage.
In her defense, respondent denied the illicit relationship, claiming she and Caparro were merely friends and former schoolmates. She admitted to a factual separation from her husband due to marital conflicts over financial support but insisted she only rented a room in Agpangi. However, during the investigation ordered by the Office of the Court Administrator, witnesses, including the Barangay Chairman and a relative of Caparro’s wife, testified to regularly seeing respondent and Caparro together at his residence and commuting daily, supporting the allegation of cohabitation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Juliet Almonte Licardo is administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that court personnel must adhere to the highest standards of morality and decency, as their conduct, both official and private, reflects on the judiciary’s integrity. Immorality involves a course of conduct that willfully violates the standards of propriety and is so notorious as to scandalize the public. The investigation established substantial evidence of respondent’s cohabitation with a married man, Winnie Caparro. Witness testimonies corroborated that they lived together and were seen as a couple, which constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct. Her defense of mere friendship was deemed unconvincing against the consistent and credible evidence presented.
Under civil service rules, disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave offense. Applying precedents, the Court found respondent guilty of her first offense. The prescribed penalty for a first offense is suspension for six months and one day to one year. Accordingly, the Court imposed a suspension of six months and one day without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition would warrant dismissal. This penalty balances the need to uphold ethical standards with the circumstances of a first offense.