AM P 96 1182; (July, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-96-1182. July 19, 2000. JOSEFINA MARQUEZ, complainant, vs. AIDA CLORES-RAMOS, Court Stenographer III, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Josefina Marquez, the legal wife of Florencio Marquez, Sr., charged respondent Aida Clores-Ramos, a Court Stenographer III, with unethical and immoral conduct for maintaining an illicit relationship with her husband. The complaint alleged that this relationship resulted in the birth of a son, Florencio Marquez, Jr., in 1993. Supporting documents, including handwritten letters from the husband to the respondent, were attached. The complaint was also endorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator by the Department of Justice and the Office of the Ombudsman.
In her defense, respondent claimed she was deceived by Florencio Marquez, who presented himself as a widower and provided supporting documents. She stated she severed the relationship upon discovering his true marital status. Complainant initially submitted a withdrawal letter but later disowned it, alleging it was fabricated, and requested the inhibition of the investigating judge due to friendship with her husband. The case was reassigned for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Aida Clores-Ramos is administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Court emphasized that court personnel must adhere to the highest standards of morality, as their conduct, both official and private, reflects on the judiciary’s integrity. The investigating judge’s report, based on testimonial and documentary evidence, established that respondent maintained an illicit relationship with a married man, which continued even after she learned of his true civil status.
The Court rejected respondent’s defense that her meetings with Marquez were necessary for him to fulfill paternal obligations. It ruled that prudence demanded she discreetly distance herself if she were serious about severing ties. Her continued public association with a married man constituted a disgraceful and immoral act, violating the norms of decency expected of court employees and warranting disciplinary action under civil service laws. The Court imposed a one-year suspension without pay, underscoring that such conduct is never sanctioned.