A.M. No. P-08-2590. July 5, 2010. JULIE ANN C. DELA CUEVA, Complainant, vs. SELIMA B. OMAGA, Court Stenographer I, MTC-Calauan, Laguna, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Julie Ann C. dela Cueva, the legal wife of P/Supt. Nestor dela Cueva, filed an administrative complaint for immorality against respondent Selima B. Omaga, a Court Stenographer. The complaint alleged that respondent and the complainant’s husband contracted marriage and lived together as husband and wife despite the subsistence of the complainant’s marriage. The complainant’s husband had earlier filed a petition for the nullity of their marriage, which prompted her to file this and related criminal complaints. In her defense, respondent averred that her relationship with P/Supt. dela Cueva began in 1995, she bore him three children, and she only discovered he was married when she received notice of the criminal case. She asserted they never lived together in one house. During the investigation, the complainant manifested her withdrawal of the complaint after learning that respondent and her husband never cohabited as spouses.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Selima B. Omaga is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct warranting administrative sanction.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint and absolved respondent of administrative liability. The Court emphasized that an administrative case cannot be dismissed solely due to the complainant’s desistance, as the Court’s disciplinary authority is exercised in the public interest to determine if a court employee breached the norms of judicial service. The standard for proving such a charge is clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. The Court found the evidence insufficient to meet this standard. While respondent admitted to an intimate relationship that produced children, there was no conclusive proof that she knew of the man’s existing marriage at the relationship’s inception or that she cohabited with him in a scandalous manner. The investigating judge noted the relationship began after the spouses’ de facto separation, the respondent’s job performance was unaffected, and she conducted herself appropriately in public. The Court held that without clear evidence of knowledge of the existing marriage or scandalous cohabitation, the respondent’s status as an unmarried mother, by itself, does not constitute the disgraceful and immoral conduct required for administrative penalty. To rule otherwise based on speculation would constitute discrimination against a solo parent.