ADM. MATTER NO. P-04-1836 ; July 30, 2004
ROSELA N. GAMBOA, complainant, vs. PEDRO S. GAMBOA, respondent.

FACTS

Rosela N. Gamboa filed an administrative complaint against her husband, Pedro S. Gamboa, a Deputy Sheriff, for immorality and falsification of a public document. She alleged that respondent cohabited with another woman, Felicidad Cariño, with whom he has two children, and that he physically maltreated her. She further claimed he falsified his civil status to “single” to contract marriage with Cariño. In his comment, respondent admitted the illicit relationship but attributed it to complainant’s prolonged absence as an overseas worker and her neglect of his needs. He denied falsifying any document or marrying his mistress.
Subsequently, complainant filed an Affidavit of Forgiveness, Pardon and Desistance, confirming respondent’s explanations and stating he had left his mistress to return to the family. She pleaded for the dismissal of her complaint. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), however, found respondent guilty of immorality and recommended a six-month suspension, while recommending exoneration on the falsification charge due to lack of evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff is administratively liable despite the complainant’s affidavit of desistance.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct. The Court emphasized that administrative cases involve public interest and the preservation of the judiciary’s integrity, and thus cannot be dismissed solely due to a complainant’s desistance. The Court’s disciplinary power is not dependent on the will of a private complainant, as the primary concern is whether the employee has breached the norms and standards of judicial service.
On the merits, the Court found respondent’s admission of an extramarital affair sufficient to establish disgraceful and immoral conduct. Court personnel are held to the highest standards of morality in both their official and private lives to uphold the judiciary’s good name. Respondent’s behavior fell short of this standard. The charge of falsification was correctly dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the Court imposed the penalty of suspension for six months and one day without pay, modifying the OCA’s recommendation to align with the prescribed penalty for a first offense of a grave nature. A warning of stricter consequences for repetition was also issued.