The famous 1921 aphorism “a picture is worth a thousand words” in effect led the Supreme Court (SC) to suspend a trial court employee who was found guilty of gross immorality for intimate and amorous relationship with a woman other than his wife.
“The actions of the respondent (male court employee) do not only violate the moral standards expected of employees of the judiciary, but also desecrate the sanctity of the institution of marriage which this Court abhors and punishes,” said the SC in a resolution issued last July 20 and made public last Oct. 6.
The SC resolution, written by Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, pointed out that “the immoral acts may be committed in a scandalous or discreet manner, within or outside the workplace.”
“As in this case, respondent's immoral acts were committed outside the confines of his work as an employee of the Judiciary, but this fact does not exempt him from administrative liability,” the SC stressed.
Thus, the SC imposed on the male court employee a six-month and one day suspension without pay “with stern warning that a commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.”
The complainant was the wife who also works as a trial court employee. (Manila Bulletin decided not to publish their real names to protect their children. The complainant, the respondent, and the other woman were denominated as wife, husband and woman, respectively).
In her complaint filed with the SC’s Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the wife said that while she was browsing their laptop, she saw “romantic and intimate photographs” of her husband and the other woman. She also said she saw a sex video involving the two.
She said she confronted her husband who admitted it was indeed him in the photographs and video.
But in his answer to the complaint, the husband denied the charges and asserted that the photographs were taken by his wife from his Google account without his knowledge and consent in violation of his constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence.
The husband said the other woman was his business partner and that his wife only took the screenshots showing two naked persons having sexual intercourse from an adult website. He denied it was him and the other woman who were in the screenshots.
The wife filed an affidavit of desistance and pleaded for the dismissal of the complaint she filed against her husband. But the OCA said her affidavit of desistance could not be given due course because the complaint has been raised before it and the SC. It transmitted the complaint to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB).
In its June 21, 2021 report and recommendation, the JIB ruled that the husband’s illicit affair with the other woman was sufficient to hold the husband guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct.
In resolving the issue, the SC said that the wife was able to show, through the photographs she submitted, that her husband has an illicit relationship with the other woman.
As ruled by the JIB, the SC said that “these photographs of respondent (husband) and (the other woman) undeniably displayed their romantic, passionate, and amorous relationship.”
The SC also said:
“Respondent claims that the Complaint should be dismissed outright for violation of his constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence, which made complainant's evidence inadmissible in any proceeding.
“The Court is not persuaded. As the JIB ruled, administrative proceedings do not adhere to the technical rules on evidence as usually observed in judicial proceedings.
“All things considered, the JIB is correct in finding respondent guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct on the ground that it is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to maintain intimate relations with a person other than his or her spouse.
“For an immoral conduct to warrant disciplinary action, it must be grossly immoral, i.e., ‘so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or so unprincipled as to be reprehensible to a high degree.’
"Immorality includes not only sexual matters but also ‘conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness, or is willful flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.’
“Accordingly, (respondent) is found GUILTY of the serious charge of Gross Immorality and is SUSPENDED for six (6) months and one (1) day with STERN WARNING that a commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED.”
TAGS: #SC #IMMORALITY