A.M. No. HOJ-10-03; November 15, 2010
Thelma T. Babante-Caples, Complainant, vs. Philbert B. Caples, Utility Worker II, Hall of Justice, Municipal Trial Court, La Paz, Leyte, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Thelma T. Babante-Caples, the legal wife of respondent Philbert B. Caples, a Utility Worker II at the Hall of Justice in La Paz, Leyte, filed an administrative complaint for Immorality. She alleged that respondent abandoned their conjugal home to cohabit with his paramour, Rennalyn Cordovez, with whom he has a child. The complainant detailed public knowledge of the affair, a physical assault by respondent against her, and his failure to provide moral and financial support despite a prior promise to reform. Witnesses corroborated her claims, testifying to seeing respondent frequently visit the paramour’s residence at night and confirming his cohabitation with her in another municipality.
During the investigation by the Executive Judge, respondent, through counsel, manifested his unwillingness to testify and waived his right to present evidence, opting instead to tender his resignation to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The Investigating Judge proceeded with the case, citing jurisprudence that a pending resignation does not terminate an employee’s status or liability. Based on the substantial evidence presented, the Investigating Judge found respondent guilty and recommended dismissal from service.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Philbert B. Caples is administratively liable for Immorality.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Immorality. The Court affirmed the Investigating Judge’s findings, which were based on a meticulous analysis of the testimonial evidence. The standard in administrative cases is substantial evidence, which was satisfied here through the consistent accounts of the complainant and her witnesses, which respondent did not rebut. His abandonment of his lawful family to cohabit with another woman constitutes disgraceful and immoral conduct, defined as willful and shameless behavior showing moral indifference to community standards.
While the recommended penalty was dismissal, the Court modified it because respondent had resigned from his position prior to the decision. Resignation does not render an administrative case moot or absolve an employee from liability for acts committed while in service. Given the circumstances, and following precedents for similar offenses, the Court imposed a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00). This amount is to be deducted from his accrued leave credits; if insufficient, he must pay it directly to the Court. This penalty underscores that public office is a public trust, and conduct undermining morality and integrity warrants commensurate sanction.