Gadong v. Butlig, A.M. No. P-19-4020 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.

03-1824-P)
(November 28, 2019)
ELIZABETH D. GADONG, petitioner/s, vs. JOSEPHINE BUTLIG, COURT
STENOGRAPHER I, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT-MARGOSATUBIG,
ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR., respondents. A.M. No. P-19-4020 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
03-1824-P], November 28, 2019.

Subject/s: Legal Ethics.

DOCTRINE

Court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect
to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their behavior outside the court
as private individuals. There is no dichotomy of morality; a court employee is
also judged by his or her private morals. These exacting standards of morality
and decency have been strictly adhered to and laid down by the Court to those in
the service of the judiciary.

FACTS

Respondent Josephine Butlig, Court Stenographer of MTC, Zamboanga del sure is charged
with immorality for allegedly engaging in an illicit relation with Leopoldo Gadong, husband
of complainant Elizabeth Gadong.

This case stemmed from the filing of a swon complaint by Elizabeth Gadong on November
14, 2003, accusing Josephine Butlig, a Court Stenographer I, of having an illicit relationship
with her husband, Leopoldo Gadong. Elizabeth discovered love messages from "Joy"
(Josephine's nickname) on her husband’s cellphone on April 22, 2002. Leopoldo could not
explain the messages, and Josephine denied sending them, claiming someone else used her
phone.

Elizabeth went to the GSIS-Pagadian City Branch to follow-up her loan and was surprised to
see their family van parked near Plaza Luz. She also observed a woman in a dark blue
uniform (Josephine) entering the van with Leopoldo. She followed them and confronted
them at Hiker’s Palace. Josephine initially claimed she rented the van to go to the provincial
jail but later changed her story, saying they were settling a reckless imprudence case.

Elizabeth was informed that Leopoldo and Josephine were together in an apartment below
the Arro Calibration Center. She and her daughter went to the apartment and found
Josephine naked, holding her bag to cover herself. A physical altercation ensued, and the
police were called. Josephine, on her knees, promised to end the affair.

Josephine denied the allegations, stating that Leopoldo had been stalking her since 2001
after she helped him settle a reckless imprudence case. She claimed Leopoldo forcibly took
her handbag and deceived her into following him to the apartment on October 28, 2003,
where he made sexual advances. She resisted, and Elizabeth and her daughter arrived and
assaulted her.

First Investigation

During the first investigation, Leopoldo admitted to courting Josephine and having a
relationship with her since 2001. He also admitted to the October 28, 2003 incident where
Leopoldo chanced upon some text messages fromanother man which made him jealous. To
simmer down his temper, Josephine undressed. Suddently, his wife and daughter barged in,
saw Josephine naked. A quarrel ensued.

Josephine reiterated the defenses she raised in her Comment. Her co-workers testified that
Leopoldo had been stalking her, and she had reported his behavior to the police.

Executive Judge Harun B. Ismael found no concrete evidence of an illicit affair but
recommended a reprimand and a fine of Php500 for Josephine’s involvement in the October
28, 2003 incident.

Second Investigation

During the second investigation, Elizabeth, Leopoldo, and their daughter recanted their
earlier testimonies. Elizabeth admitted she was mistaken and acted out of jealousy. She
acknowledged that the text messages and meetings between Leopoldo and Josephine were
related to the settlement of the reckless imprudence case. Meanwhile, Josephine
maintained her defense and denial, and her witness corroborated her defense.

Judge Rolando L. Goan recommended dismissing the immorality charge due to the
recantation of Elizabeth and her witnesses. He found no evidence of Josephine engaging in
immoral conduct.

Nevertheless, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Josephine should not be
completely exonerated from disciplinary action. However, Josephine's disgraceful
involvement in the incident tainted the image of the Judiciary and constituted conduct
unbecoming of a public employee. Thus, the OCA recommended that she be fined in the
amount of Php10,000.00 and admonished to behave with decorum and circumspection
even in the conduct of her personal affairs.

ISSUE/S

Whether the respondent be sanctioned for immorality despite the recantation of

RULING

Yes. Court personnel must be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to
their duties in the judicial branch but also to their behavior outside the court as private
individuals. There is no dichotomy of morality; a court employee is also judged by his or her
private morals. These exacting standards of morality and decency have been strictly
adhered to and laid down by the Court to those in the service of the judiciary.

Here, Elizabeth's Sworn-Complaint essentially alleged that Josephine had maintained an

The required quantum of proof to sustain a finding of guilt in administrative disciplinary

Mere desistance or recantation by the complainant does not necessarily result in the
dismissal of an administrative complaint against any member or employee of the Judiciary.
Administrative actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may,
for reasons of his or her own, condone what may be detestable under our Code of Conduct
and most especially our laws. Otherwise, the efforts of this Court in improving the delivery
of justice would be put to naught by private arrangements between parties to disciplinary
proceedings

A recantation, like any other testimony, is subject to the test of credibility. Although
findings on credibility of witnesses are generally entitled to great weight, the Court will not
shy away from re-examining such findings when cogent reasons call for it, as here.

To begin with, evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself, such as the common experience and observation of
mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances.

Here, Josephine's claim that she had been texting Leopoldo to help the latter reach a
settlement for a reckless imprudence case deserves scant consideration. For Josephine
herself admitted that said case had already been settled as early as 2001. [61] Yet, as
Elizabeth discovered, the two (2) remained in contact and had in fact been meeting up in
2002 and 2003. Josephine was lying through her teeth on May 22, 2002 when she told
Elizabeth that they were on their way to see her relatives in Macasing for the settlement. If
it were true, Josephine had no reason to lie about renting the van for Php200.00 to go to the
provincial jail.

More, it is indeed quite peculiar, if not contrary to common experience, that Josephine did
not bother seeking police assistance when Leopoldo allegedly snatched her handbag and
cellphone. For a woman who claimed having been stalked and forcibly undressed by a
rejected suitor, it is uncanny that Josephine charged Leopoldo with robbery only, not for any
attempt to violate her honor.

From these circumstances, the Court is convinced that Josephine and Leopoldo had an illicit
affair. Josephine is, therefore, and indeed, guilty of immorality.