In a span of 18 years from 1980 to 1998, a man married three women.

The third wife, Shirley – a public-school teacher -- was sued by the second wife, Risa; then by the first wife, Lila; and finally, by the first wife’s daughter, Telle.

The first and third cases were filed before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) while the second case was filed before the regional office of the Department of Education (DepEd).

The real names of the parties in the case, docketed as SC GR No. 275125, were redacted by the Manila Bulletin to protect their and their children’s privacy.

In her complaint before the CSC, Risa charged Shirley with disgraceful and immoral conduct.

In a decision handed down in June 2002, the CSC found Shirley administratively liable and imposed on her a one-year suspension as a public-school teacher.

Later, Lila filed a complaint against Shirley before the DedEd’s regional office for immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

In January 2013, the DepEd’s regional office found Shirley administratively liable and imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service subject to the confirmation of the DepEd Secretary.

In a resolution issued in November 2013, the DepEd Secretary found Shirley liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

However, the DedEd Secretary ruled that since Shirley’s conviction was rendered by two different offices in two different years for the same act, "the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.”

Thus, it said that since the CSC has imposed the maximum penalty of one year suspension for disgraceful and immoral conduct and that the conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service can just be considered as aggravating circumstance, Shirley is deemed to have served the penalty.

Again in 2014, Shirley was charged with immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service before the regional office of the CSC by Lila’s daughter Telle.

Telle claimed that despite Shirley’s conviction, she (Shirley) continued to have an amorous relationship with her (Telle) father, Mar.

Telle also alleged that her father Mar and Shirley moved into their (Telle) house and thus, she and her siblings were forced to move out.

In its decision, the CSC’s regional office found Shirley liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The CSC said that since it was Shirley’s second administrative offense, she was ordered dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits/terminal benefits and personal contributions to the Government Service Insurance System; cancellation of eligibility; perpetual disqualification from holding public office; and bar from taking civil service examinations.

When her motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC’s regional office, Shirley filed an appeal before the CSC’s main office which denied her plea. She then elevated the issue before the Court of Appeals (CA).

In February 2023, the CA granted Shirley’s petition as it dismissed the ruling handed down by the CSC.

The CA ruled that the case against Shirley, for which she was convicted and had served the penalty, was the same as the first case “as they are essentially based on the same set of facts.”

With the denial by the CA of its motion for reconsideration, the CSC elevated the case to the SC on a petition for review.

Ruling on the case, the SC – in a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez – denied the CSC’s petition as it sustained the ruling of the CA.

The SC noted that the administrative case for immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is based on the continued amorous relationship and cohabitation of Shirley and Mar.

It said that the case with the SC was already the third administrative case against Shirley.

“Verily, the instant case is but a continuation of the previous cases where judgments were already rendered and penalties were already imposed upon and served by the respondent (Shirley),” the SC said.

It also said that the same facts or evidence in the present case involved the continuation of Shirley’s relationship with Mar for which she had been found liable and had served the penalty.

“Thus, the CA did not commit reversible error in ruling that the complaint in the instant case was barred by res judicata” (adjudicated with finality), it added.

The dispositive portion of the SC’s decision: “Accordingly, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is denied. The Feb. 28, 2023 Decision and the May 31, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB SP No. 15103 are affirmed. The Complaint filed by (Telle against Shirley) for immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is dismissed. So ordered.”