AM R 156 P; (August, 1985) (Digest)
A.M. No. R-156-P. August 27, 1985. PEPITA CELIS, complainant, vs. DEPUTY SHERIFF LEVY Q. MARQUEZ, respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant Pepita Celis filed an administrative complaint for immorality against Deputy Sheriff Levy Q. Marquez, alleging he maintained an extramarital relationship with Alicia (or Alice) Celis, resulting in four children. Certified birth certificates were submitted as evidence, with one child’s certificate bearing respondent’s signature. Respondent denied the allegations, claimed a happy marriage, and moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the complainant lacked legal capacity to sue and that the complaint stated no cause of action.
During the investigation, complainant submitted an affidavit of desistance. The Investigating Judge, noting her failure to present further evidence, recommended the case’s dismissal. However, attached to the desistance was an “Agreement for Support” dated April 24, 1985, executed between respondent and Alicia Celis. In this agreement, the parties acknowledged cohabitation since 1972 and the paternity of the four children, with respondent promising monthly support.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Levy Q. Marquez should be held administratively liable for immorality despite the complainant’s desistance.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Court rejected the Investigating Judge’s recommendation for dismissal. The complainant’s desistance does not bar administrative discipline, as the proceedings are of public interest and aim to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. The “Agreement for Support” itself constituted conclusive proof, supplying the factual basis the complainant failed to present during the hearing. By acknowledging in a written contract that he lived with Alicia Celis and fathered her children while legally married to another, respondent admitted to the illicit relationship.
The Court further held that the complainant’s legal personality to file the charge was immaterial, as anonymous complaints can be entertained when substantiated by public records of indubitable integrity. Here, the agreement and the birth certificates provided such corroboration. As a deputy sheriff, respondent is an officer of the court whose conduct must be beyond reproach. His actions constituted a violation of civil service rules against disgraceful or immoral conduct. However, since the offense is punishable under the Civil Service Law and his appointment was by the City Mayor, the Supreme Court’s disciplinary power is limited. Consequently, the Court found him guilty, imposed a fine equivalent to three months’ salary, and ordered the withdrawal of his authority to perform sheriff’s duties, without prejudice to any administrative action the City Mayor of Manila may take.