A.M. No. P-99-1312. July 31, 2002
Ermelinda Escleo, complainant, vs. Maritess Dorado, Court Stenographer II, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ermelinda Escleo alleged that respondent Maritess Dorado, a Court Stenographer, solicited a P2,000.00 down payment as a “facilitation fee” from Escleo’s sister, Ma. Phoebe Carbon, to expedite Carbon’s marriage to a Korean national. Carbon was told the total fee was P5,000.00, later bargained to P4,000.00, and a ceremony was set for January 12, 1998. Upon learning this, Escleo confronted Dorado the next day, demanding the return of the money and her sister’s document. Dorado refused, stating she had given them to a contact in Cavite. The altercation drew the attention of Judge Estella Bernabe, who informed Escleo that no fees should be charged for solemnization. The matter was escalated to Executive Judge Leticia Ulibarri, who conducted an investigation. During these proceedings, Dorado allegedly told Escleo they were “fortunate” to be charged only P4,000.00 compared to higher rates for others.
In her defense, Dorado denied receiving any money. She claimed Carbon approached her for help in expediting a marriage license due to urgent travel plans. Dorado asserted she merely referred Carbon to a friend for assistance and was trying to be helpful. She submitted affidavits from co-workers supporting her version of events and claimed her statements during Judge Ulibarri’s investigation were made under duress. The case was referred to a consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator for further investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Maritess Dorado is administratively liable for her actions in connection with the facilitation of a marriage license for a fee.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Simple Misconduct. The Court found the complainant’s version of events, corroborated by the investigation of Executive Judge Ulibarri, to be more credible. Respondent’s defense that she was merely assisting out of kindness is untenable. Her actions—agreeing to facilitate the procurement of a marriage license, which would have involved antedating to circumvent the legal 10-day publication requirement, and doing so for a monetary consideration—constitute a circumvention of the law. The Family Code prescribes specific requirements for issuing a marriage license, and abetting their violation for a fee is an act contrary to law.
The Court emphasized that the constitutional rights during criminal investigations invoked by respondent are inapplicable to an administrative proceeding. Furthermore, the misconduct need not be connected to her official duties as a stenographer. Under the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. 6713), all public servants must refrain from acts contrary to law, morals, and public policy. Court personnel, in particular, must uphold the highest standards of conduct to preserve public trust in the judiciary. For this first offense, the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay is appropriate. The Court warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.