A.M. No. R-6-RTJ. May 11, 1988.
PELAGIO SICAT, complainant, vs. JUDGE FERNANDO S. ALCANTARA, RTC, Branch 63, Tarlac, Tarlac, and TERESITA GOMEZ SICAT, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Pelagio Sicat, husband of respondent Teresita Gomez Sicat, a court clerk, filed an administrative complaint for immorality against his wife and respondent Judge Fernando S. Alcantara. He alleged that during their marriage, he frequently witnessed the judge and his wife kissing and embracing in their shared boarding house and locking themselves in the judge’s chambers. He claimed his efforts to stop the relationship, including asking his wife to resign, failed. A witness, Elizabeth Facunla, corroborated the illicit relationship, testifying she lived with Teresita and observed the judge regularly visiting, eating, and sleeping with her as if they were husband and wife, while Facunla slept on the floor in the same room.
Both respondents denied the charges. Judge Alcantara asserted his chambers were always open, that he was authorized to stay in an adjacent room provided by the provincial government, and that he treated all female employees like daughters. He attributed the complaint to disgruntled former court employees. Teresita admitted the marriage but denied any immoral acts, stating her husband left for Manila and that she had her nephew stay with her. During the pendency of the case, Judge Alcantara was phased out of the judiciary.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Fernando S. Alcantara and Teresita Gomez Sicat are administratively liable for immorality.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are guilty of immorality. The Court, adopting the investigator’s findings, ruled that the evidence clearly established an amorous and illicit relationship between the married judge and the married court employee. The positive testimonies of the complainant and his witness, detailing specific acts and cohabitation in the boarding house, were given greater weight than the respondents’ general denials and claims of ill motive. The Court found the judge’s defense of a father-daughter relationship with Teresita to be a lame excuse inconsistent with the proven facts.
The legal logic rests on the exacting standards of morality required of members of the judiciary. A judge’s personal and official conduct must be beyond reproach to preserve public faith in the administration of justice. Moral integrity is a necessity, and immoral conduct constitutes a serious affront to public decency and judicial ethics. The absence of criminal liability does not preclude administrative discipline. Since Judge Alcantara had already been separated from service, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to six months of his last salary. For Teresita Gomez Sicat, the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement was deemed appropriate.