G.R. No. P-19-4020 November 28, 2019
Elizabeth D. Gadong, Petitioner, vs. Josephine Butlig, Court Stenographer I, Municipal Circuit Trial Court-Margosatubig, Zamboanga del Sur, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Josephine Butlig, a Court Stenographer I, was charged with immorality for allegedly having an illicit affair with Leopoldo Gadong, the husband of complainant Elizabeth Gadong. The complaint detailed several incidents: 1) In April 2002, Elizabeth discovered love text messages from “Joy” (Josephine’s nickname) on her husband’s phone; 2) On May 22, 2002, Elizabeth saw Josephine and Leopoldo together in the family van, with Josephine providing conflicting alibis; 3) On October 28, 2003, Elizabeth and her daughter allegedly caught Josephine and Leopoldo in a compromising situation in an apartment, with Josephine found naked. Josephine denied the affair, claiming Leopoldo was stalking her and that the October 2003 incident involved Leopoldo forcibly taking her belongings and making sexual advances. She filed criminal cases against Leopoldo and Elizabeth. The case underwent two investigations. In the first, Executive Judge Harun B. Ismael recommended dismissal for lack of concrete evidence but suggested a reprimand and fine for a “disgraceful act.” The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the investigation insufficient and recommended a reinvestigation. During the second investigation before Executive Judge Rolando L. Goan, Elizabeth, Leopoldo, and their daughter Ma. Eleosa recanted their earlier testimonies via Judicial Affidavits, now claiming the accusations were born of jealousy and that no affair occurred. However, Judge Goan found the recantations not credible and concluded that an illicit relationship existed, as supported by Leopoldo’s original testimony and the surrounding circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Josephine Butlig is guilty of immorality for engaging in an illicit affair with a married man, thereby violating the standards of conduct required of court personnel.

RULING

Yes, respondent Josephine Butlig is guilty of immorality. The Supreme Court found the recantations during the second investigation to be unreliable and contrived to secure the dismissal of the case. The Court gave weight to Leopoldo’s original testimony during the first investigation, where he admitted to the affair, and found it corroborated by the series of incidents described by the complainant. The Court emphasized that court employees must adhere to the highest standards of morality and decency, as their conduct reflects on the judiciary. Engaging in an illicit relationship constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct. Applying Section 52(B)(2) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the penalty for such conduct is suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense. Accordingly, respondent Josephine Butlig is SUSPENDED for six (6) months and one (1) day without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.