Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Baguio City: (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1778-P)

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Baguio City
THIRD DIVISION
MARY JANE ABANAG, A.M. No. P-11-2922

Complainant, (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1778-P)
Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
- versus - VILLARAMA, JR., and
SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated:
NICOLAS B. MABUTE, Court April 4, 2011

Stenographer I, Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC), Paranas, Samar,
Respondent.
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E CI S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the administrative case against Nicolas B. Mabute (respondent),

Court Stenographer I in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
Paranas, Samar, filed by Mary Jane Abanag (complainant) for Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct.
In her verified letter-complaint dated September 19, 2003, the complainant, a

23-year old unmarried woman, alleged that respondent courted her and professed his
undying love for her. Relying on respondents promise that he would marry her, she
agreed to live with him. She became pregnant, but after several months into her
pregnancy, respondent brought her to a manghihilot and tried to force her to take
drugs to abort her baby. When she did not agree, the respondent turned cold and
eventually abandoned her. She became depressed resulting in the loss of her baby.
She also stopped schooling because of the humiliation that she suffered.
In his comment on the complaint submitted to the Office of the Court

Administrator, the respondent vehemently denied the complainants allegations and
claimed that the charges against him were baseless, false and fabricated, and were
intended to harass him and destroy his reputation. He further averred that Norma
Tordesillas, the complainants co-employee, was using the complaint to harass him.
Tordesillas resented him because he had chastised her for her arrogant behavior and
undesirable work attitude. He believes that the complainants letter-complaint, which
was written in the vernacular, was prepared by Tordesillas who is from Manila and
fluent in Tagalog; the respondent would have used the waray or English language if
she had written the letter-complaint.
The complainant filed a Reply, insisting that she herself wrote the letter-
complaint. She belied the respondents claim that she was being used by Tordesillas
who wanted to get even with him.
In a Resolution dated July 29, 2005, the Court referred the letter-complaint to
then Acting Executive Judge Carmelita T. Cuares of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Catbalogan City, Samar for investigation, report and recommendation.
The respondent sought Judge Cuares inhibition from the case, alleging that
the Judge was partial and had bias in favor of the complainant; the complainant
herself had bragged that she personally knew Judge Cuares. The Court designated
Judge Esteban V. dela Pea, who succeeded Judge Cuares as Acting Executive Judge,
to continue with the investigation of the case.[1] Eventually, Judge Agerico
A. Avila took over the investigation when he was designated the Executive Judge of
the RTC of Catbalogan City, Samar.
In his Report/Recommendation dated June 7, 2010,[2] Executive Judge Avila

reported on the developments in the hearing of the case. The complainant testified
that she met the respondent while she was a member of the Singles for Christ. They
became acquainted and they started dating. The relationship blossomed until they
lived together in a rented room near the respondents office.
The respondent, for his part, confirmed that he met the complainant when he
joined the Singles for Christ. He described their liaison as a dating relationship. He
admitted that the complainant would join him at his rented room three to four times
a week; when the complainant became pregnant, he asked her to stay and live with
him. He vehemently denied having brought the complainant to a
local manghihilot and that he had tried to force her to abort her baby. He surmised
that the complainants miscarriage could be related to her epileptic attacks during her
pregnancy. The respondent further testified that the complainants mother did not
approve of him, but the complainant defied her mother and lived with him. He
proposed marriage to the complainant, but her mother did not like him as a son-in-
law and ordered the complainant to return home. The complainant obeyed her
mother. They have separated ways since then, but he pledged his undying love for
the complainant.
The Investigating Judge recommends the dismissal of the complaint against the
respondent, reporting that:
Normally the personal affair of a court employee who is a bachelor and

has maintained an amorous relation with a woman equally unmarried has
nothing to do with his public employment. The sexual liaison is between
two consenting adults and the consequent pregnancy is but a natural effect
of the physical intimacy. Mary Jane was not forced to live with Nicolas
nor was she impelled by some devious means or machination. The fact
was, she freely acceded to cohabit with him. The situation may-not-be-so-
ideal but it does not give cause for administrative sanction. There appears
no law which penalizes or prescribes the sexual activity of two unmarried
persons. So, the accusation of Mary Jane that Nicolas initiated the abortion
was calculated to bring the act within the ambit of an immoral, disgraceful
and gross misconduct. Except however as to the self-serving assertion that
Mary Jane was brought to a local midwife and forced to take the
abortifacient, there was no other evidence to support that it was in fact so.
All pointed to a harmonious relation that turned sour. In no small way
Mary Jane was also responsible of what befell upon her.[3]
The Court defined immoral conduct as conduct that is willful, flagrant or
shameless, and that shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and
respectable members of the community.[4] To justify suspension or disbarment, the
act complained of must not only be immoral, but grossly immoral. [5] A grossly
immoral act is one that is so corrupt and false as to constitute a criminal act or an act
so unprincipled or disgraceful as to be reprehensible to a high degree.[6]
Based on the allegations of the complaint, the respondents comment, and the
findings of the Investigating Judge, we find that the acts complained of cannot be
considered as disgraceful or grossly immoral conduct.
We find it evident that the sexual relations between the complainant and the
respondent were consensual. They met at the Singles for Christ, started dating and
subsequently became sweethearts. The respondent frequently visited the
complainant at her boarding house and also at her parents residence. The
complainant voluntarily yielded to the respondent and they eventually lived together
as husband and wife in a rented room near the respondents office. They continued
their relationship even after the complainant had suffered a miscarriage.
Mere sexual relations between two unmmaried and consenting adults are not
enough to warrant administrative sanction for illicit behavior.[7] The Court has
repeatedly held that voluntary intimacy between a man and a woman who are not
married, where both are not under any impediment to marry and where no deceit
exists, is neither a criminal nor an unprincipled act that would warrant disbarment
or disciplinary action.[8]
While the Court has the power to regulate official conduct and, to a certain
extent, private conduct, it is not within our authority to decide on matters touching
on employees personal lives, especially those that will affect their and their familys
future. We cannot intrude into the question of whether they should or should not
marry.[9] However, we take this occasion to remind judiciary employees to be more
circumspect in their adherence to their obligations under the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The conduct of court personnel must be free from any taint of
impropriety or scandal, not only with respect to their official duties but also in their
behavior outside the Court as private individuals. This is the best way to preserve
and protect the integrity and the good name of our courts.[10]
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to DISMISS the present administrative
complaint against Nicolas B. Mabute, Stenographer 1 of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Paranas, Samar, for lack of merit. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Baguio City: (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1778-P)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Baguio City: (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1778-P)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of The Philippines Supreme Court Baguio City: (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1778-P)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

MARY JANE ABANAG, A.M. No. P-11-2922

NICOLAS B. MABUTE, Court April 4, 2011

We resolve the administrative case against Nicolas B. Mabute (respondent),

In her verified letter-complaint dated September 19, 2003, the complainant, a

In his comment on the complaint submitted to the Office of the Court

In his Report/Recommendation dated June 7, 2010,[2] Executive Judge Avila

Normally the personal affair of a court employee who is a bachelor and

You might also like