A.M. No. P-06-2282; August 4, 2009
Lolita S. Regir, Petitioner, vs. Joel T. Regir, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lolita S. Regir, the lawful wife of respondent Joel T. Regir, a Process Server at the RTC, Branch 37, Caibiran, Biliran, filed an administrative complaint for immorality. She alleged that while married to her, respondent engaged in an illicit relationship with Vilma Sabinay, with whom he begot a child, and that he was openly cohabiting with Sabinay in Naval, Biliran, while ceasing financial support for his legitimate family. Respondent denied the allegations, claiming they stemmed from his wife’s jealousy and that Sabinay was merely a friend. He asserted he rented a house near his workplace solely for convenience and remitted his salary to his wife.
The case was referred for investigation. The evidence established that respondent and complainant were legally married and had three children. Multiple witnesses, including co-employees, testified to seeing respondent and Sabinay living together in various boarding houses in Naval. It was also proven that Sabinay gave birth to a child in November 2004. Hospital records, though using an alias for Sabinay, and eyewitness accounts confirmed the birth. A court interpreter further testified that respondent introduced Sabinay as his girlfriend during a work-related seminar.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Joel T. Regir is administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Court emphasized that court personnel must adhere to the highest standards of morality and decency, as their conduct directly affects the public’s perception of the judiciary. The Investigating Judge found complainant’s evidence, consisting of testimonies and documentary evidence, to be credible and sufficient. In contrast, respondent’s bare denials were deemed unsubstantiated and self-serving. The factual findings clearly demonstrated that respondent, while lawfully married, maintained an illicit relationship with another woman and fathered a child with her. This constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct, a grave offense under civil service rules.
Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for six months without pay, being the minimum period for a first offense of a grave offense. The Court sternly warned respondent that a repetition of the same or a similar act would be met with the ultimate penalty of dismissal. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding ethical standards among its employees to preserve public trust in the administration of justice.