ACEBED V ARQUERO

FACTS

Complainant alleged that his wife, Dedje Acebedo, a former stenographer

of the Municipal Trial Court and respondent unlawfully and scandalously
cohabited as husband and wife, as a result of which a girl , Desiree was
born to the two
Attached to the complaint was the girls Baptismal Certificate reflecting the
names of respondent and Dedje as well as the marriage contract showing
tha complainant and Dedje contracted their marriage.
Respondent vehemently denied the charge of immorality, claiming that it
was mere harassment and a product of the complainants hatred and
extreme jelousy.
Complainant attached an affidavit of desistance executed by Acebedo in
favor of his wife with respect to an administrative complaint he filed before.
He also included a sworn statement by Acebedo acknowledging his
paternity of the child.
Additionally, Arquero claims complainant instituted a criminal complaint
against him for adultery. He also claims, Arquero had also been cohabiting
with another woman.
The Investigating Judge recommended dismissing the complaint for failure
to provide sufficiend evidence. However the Office of the Court
Administrator disagreed and instead recommended the respondent be held
guilty of immorality and be suspended.

ISSUE
WON respondent should be held guilty of immorality based on the evidence
presented [YES]
HELD
The baptismal certificate cannot be used to prove filiation and therefore
cannot be used to imply that respondent maintained illicit relations with
Dedje. The baptismal certificate does not prove the veracity of the
declarations and statements contained therein. It merely attests to the fact
of the sacrament performed on such date.
With regards the affidavit of desistance executed by complainant, it was
only for the favor of Dedje and not for the respondent.
Respondent, himself admitted to the relations however he justified this with
the spouses having previously entered into an agreement regarding their
marriage. In which they said that they shall be separated and consented to
each other seeking any other partner to live with.
As an employee of the judiciary, the respondent ought to have known that
the said agreement had absolutely no force and effect on the validity of the
marriage between the complainant and his wife.
Respondents act of having illicit relations with the complainantss wife is a
disgraceful and immoral act and the court therefore found him guilty of
immorality and as such suspended him for 6 months and 1 day without pay
and a starn warning.