FIRST DIVISION

[OCA IPI No. 16-4626-P. March 18, 2019.]

JEFFREY A. DE GUZMAN , complainant, vs. ROSALIA R. DE GUZMAN,

COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF STA. CRUZ,
LAGUNA, BRANCH 28 , respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March
18, 2019 which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 16-4626-P — (Jeffrey A. De Guzman v. Rosalia R. De
Guzman, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna,
Branch 28)
Before this Court is a Complaint-A davit 1 dated September 14, 2016, led by
Jeffrey A. De Guzman (complainant) charging his wife, Rosalia R. De Guzman
(respondent), Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch
28, with immorality.
Complainant, a seafarer, is respondent's husband. In 2015, when he went back to
the Philippines, his uncle informed him that he discovered that complainant's wife was
having an illicit relationship with another man as early as 2014. Complainant's mother
con rmed this and the latter even asked respondent to end her illicit relationship to no
avail. 2
Complainant alleged that the paramour of his wife was Rudy Ryan Cabasa (Rudy),
a jail guard at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP). Complainant also
learned that respondent had an abortion sometime in April 2015. He con rmed seeing
respondent talking to Rudy outside her o ce when he visited her. He noticed, too, that
respondent had new passwords for her social media accounts, which she did not want
to disclose to him. 3
On June 6, 2015, respondent confessed to complainant about having an illicit
relationship with another man. She asked to live separately from him in order to " nd
herself." Complainant, thus, rented an apartment for respondent and their son and
visited them from time to time. After returning to work in July 2015, he learned that
Rudy always stayed in respondent's apartment. His cousin even saw Rudy and
respondent in an uncompromising position. He also learned that Rudy's mother-in-law
confronted respondent and accused her of being the "kabit" (mistress) of Rudy. 4
Complainant returned to the country in April 2016 to discuss with respondent the
custody of their son. Respondent, however, refused to talk to him and he never saw his
son again. He later learned at the Laguna Doctor's Hospital that his wife was pregnant
and due to give birth in October or November 2017. He realized that he could not be the
father of the child she was carrying because he only came back to the Philippines in
April 2016. 5 CAIHTE

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 On September 19, 2016, the O ce of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed
respondent to comment on the complaint 6 but she failed to do so. On June 7, 2017,
the OCA reiterated its September 19, 2016 directive for respondent to comment but
she again failed to do so. 7
Subsequently, respondent led a Compliance 8 dated June 25, 2018. She averred
that complainant, in addition to the complaint he led before this Court, also led a
case for adultery against her; that during one of their meetings, complainant and
respondent had ironed things out and were able to settle amicably; that complainant
even led a "Salaysay ng Pag-uurong ng Sakdal" (A davit of Desistance) and by virtue
of the said a davit, the case for adultery against respondent was dismissed; and that
complainant admitted that he had no witnesses to prove his allegations against
complainant in the adultery case. Respondent stressed that the adultery case and the
case led before this Court arose from the alleged same incident, therefore, the case
against her should likewise be dismissed. 9
Report and Recommendation

In its Memorandum, 1 0 dated November 5, 2018, the OCA recommended the

dismissal of the administrative complaint against respondent for insu ciency of
evidence. It concluded that there was no substantial evidence to hold respondent
administratively liable, particularly in view of the a davit of desistance led by the
complainant wherein he stated, among others, that he had no witnesses who could
testify on his behalf. However, the OCA recommended that complainant be admonished
for her inappropriate behavior.
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the findings of the OCA with modification.
Immorality has been de ned to include not only sexual matters but also conduct
inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and
dissoluteness; or is willful, agrant or shameless conduct showing moral indifference
to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude
toward good order and public welfare. 1 1 There is no doubt that engaging in sexual
relations with a married man is not only a violation of the moral standards expected of
employees of the judiciary but is also a desecration of the sanctity of the institution of
marriage which this Court abhors and is, thus, punishable. 1 2
In the instant case, respondent claims that the case against her for immorality
must be dismissed for failure of the complainant to prove his allegations. In
administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for nding of guilt is
substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 1 3 It must be stressed that the burden of
substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding falls on the complainant,
who must be able to prove the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. 1 4
Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative
complaint with no leg to stand on. 1 5
The Court agrees with the ndings of the OCA that complainant failed to justify
his allegations against respondent. Complainant even admitted in his a davit of
desistance that he has no witnesses to testify on his behalf. There being no substantial
evidence to prove his allegations against respondent, the complaint against the latter
must be dismissed.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 Nevertheless, the OCA recommended that respondent be admonished because
of her inappropriate behavior which does not comply with the standards set by this
Court for individuals connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice.
The Court does not agree.
As aforementioned, complainant was not able to prove that respondent was
having an illicit relationship with another man. The pictures showing respondent with
another man, which is attached in his complaint, cannot be considered by the Court as
evidence su cient to prove respondent's immorality. Moreover, complainant was
unable to present any witness to corroborate his allegations. As such, there is no basis
for admonishing respondent for her alleged inappropriate behavior.
Admonition is a warning or reminder, counseling on a fault, error or oversight, an
expression of authoritative advice or warning. 1 6 Notably, the OCA failed to specify or
expound the alleged inappropriate behavior exhibited by respondent considering that
there was no credible proof of immorality on her part. Yet, the OCA decided to
admonish the respondent.
WHEREFORE , the complaint dated September 14, 2016, against Rosalia R. De
Guzman, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28 is
DISMISSED . DETACa

SO ORDERED." Bersamin, C.J. , on o cial business; Del Castillo, J. , Acting

Chairperson per Special Order No. 2645 dated March 15, 2019.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 1-5.

2. Id. at 1.
3. Id. at 1-2.

4. Id. at 2-3.
5. Id. at 3-4.

6. Id. at 32.
7. Id. at 33.
8. Id. at 41.

9. Id. at 45.
10. Id. at 50-52.

11. Dela Cueva v. Omaga, 637 Phil. 14, 23 (2010).

12. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 13. Re: Letter of Rafael Dimaano, A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA & IPI No. 17-258-CA-J, July 11, 2017,
830 SCRA 538, 546 (2017).

14. Id.
15. Id.

16. Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr., et al., 590 Phil. 8, 38 (2008).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com