FLORIA V.

SUNGA
J. SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ

FACTS:
1. On August 5, 1999, one Mrs. Badilla filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a letter-
complaint against Alda C. Floria alleging that she has an illicit relationship with
Rodrigo Badilla, a former employee of the Court of Appeals, married to Celia Badilla,
also a former employee of the same court. In a Sworn Affidavit dated September 22,
1999, likewise filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, one Rogelio Goyal charged
Floria with falsification by indicating in her childrens certificates of live birth that she
and Rodrigo Badilla were married on May 22, 1972 in Cabanatuan City. Both
complaints were forwarded by the Office of the Ombudsman to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA).
2. On September 8, 1999, Isidro Aperocho, Curie Sunga, Danny Constantino, Josefina
Padilla, Mitos Santos, Sheila Casaclang, and Phil Calinga, all employees of the Court
of Appeals Information and Statistical Data Division, filed a Manifesto with the OCA
a. They alleged therein that Floria committed immorality, falsification and
misrepresentation by having an illicit relation with a married man; by causing
false entries in the certificates of live birth of her children stating that she and
Rodrigo Badilla were married on May 22, 1972; and by misleading the Court of
Appeals Selection and Promotions Board that she is a graduate of Masteral
Degree in Management from the Technological University of the Philippines
(TUP). However, the TUPs Certification dated September 6, 1999 states that
while Floria completed the academic requirements for Master in Management
as of March 1999, her application for graduation is still to be acted upon by
the Board of Regents. The Manifesto also states that Celia Badilla and Rogelio
Goyal have filed with the Office of the Ombudsman similar complaints against
Floria.
3. Meanwhile, Floria filed with the OCA a complaint dated September 17, 1999 against
Curie Sunga and Isidro Aperocho for Conduct Unbecoming of a Court Employee
a. Floria alleged that she is an Assistant Chief of Division assigned at the
Archives Section of the Judicial Records Division of the Court of Appeals. On
August 6, 1999, the position of Chief of the Information and Statistical Data
Division was declared vacant due to the compulsory retirement of Maria
Coronel. She stated that Curie Sunga, Assistant Chief of that Division, was
interested to sit as Acting Chief of Division until December 1999 when she
shall compulsorily retire. Among the four applicants, only she (Floria) and
Isidro Aperocho, Assistant Information Officer in the same Division, were
nominated for promotional appointment to the vacant position by the
Selection and Promotions Board. Sunga and Aperocho, motivated by jealousy
and malice and believing that no employee outside of the Division should
apply for the vacancy, conspired to malign and destroy her through their
Manifesto, designed to discredit and eliminate her from being nominated for
the vacant position.
4. In her comment on the Manifesto, Floria admitted she has two children with Rodrigo
Badilla, her co-employee, born in 1974 and 1979. However, she did not know then he
was married. It was only later that she came to know of his marriage with Celia
Badilla, also an employee in the Court of Appeals. In February 1980, she severed her
relationship with Badilla when I regained by senses and sensitivity and realizing the
impropriety of my relationship with him. According to her, if there is anybody who
should complain against her, it should be Celia Badilla who was prejudiced and knew
 such illicit relationship. She claimed that for 25 years, everyone in the Court of
Appeals knew that her children have been using the surname Badilla. But Celia
Badilla has remained silent. Her inaction for a prolonged period of time constitutes
laches. Floria denied having prepared or signed the certificates of live birth of her
children. On the charge of misrepresentation, she submitted her official transcript of
records from the TUP dated December 10, 1999 showing she finished her Master in
Management and a letter from the same university dated September 15, 1999 with
an attached Certification of Graduation on June 3, 1999.
5. SC: ADOPTED the OCAs Recommendation dismissing for lack of merit the complaint
of Sunga and Aperocho against Floria; and imposing a fine of P5,000.00 each on
Sunga and Aperocho (for causing Floria irreparable harm and prejudice)
6. HENCE, THIS MR
SUPREME COURT: Floria admitted having indulged in an illicit relation, from 1974 to 1980,
with a married co-employee whose wife was employed in the same court; and that she is in
possession of the certificates of live birth of her children born in 1974 and 1979 stating that
she and Badilla are married. Her allegation that she did not know that he is married to Celia
Badilla at the start of her illicit affair with him is self-serving and contrary to common
experience. For normally, a womans first impulse is to investigate the civil status of her man.
That she was unaware that Badilla was married would have been credible were it not for her
admission that his wife was also an employee in the Court of Appeals.
It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored by the conduct,
official and otherwise, of its personnel, from the judge to the lowest of its rank and file, who
are all bound to adhere to the exacting standard of morality and decency in both their
professional and private actuations. These norms, it should be kept in mind, are ever so
essential in preserving the good name and integrity of the judiciary
But the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the charge of immorality on
the ground that Sunga and Aperocho failed to adduce evidence that Florias immoral conduct
is still ongoing. We cannot agree with the Court Administrator. Administrative offenses do not
prescribe. It bears stressing that it is not in accordance with the norms of morality for a
woman, even if single, to maintain an illicit relationship with a married man. Even if such
relationship had ended, the stigma of immorality still attaches to the parties, especially the
woman. This is specially so when the persons concerned are public employees who are
supposed to maintain a high standard of morality in order to live up to their role as models in
society. The fact that the illicit relationship between Floria and Rodrigo Abadilla has ceased
will only mitigate her culpability.
On the charge for falsification, which constitutes the administrative offense of
dishonesty, we find Floria liable. Her childrens certificates of live birth show that Floria and
Badilla were married on May 22, 1972 in Cabanatuan City, which of course is not true. The
certificate of live birth of Florias first child bears Alda Calzado Floria as the mother and
Rodrigo Garcia Badilla as the father. The second childs certificate of live birth bears the
same entries. Indeed, the charge of falsification which is tantamount to dishonesty is clearly
supported by evidence. The entry in the said documents that she is married to Rodrigo
Badilla is certainly spurious. Why she has not taken any legal step to have it corrected
clearly indicates her predilection to dishonesty. This Court cannot countenance such
conduct.
The charge that Floria committed misrepresentation, which is likewise categorized as
dishonesty, by stating in her application for promotion that she is a graduate of a masteral
degree, must fail (Floria was able to submit a certification from TUP)
The Court ruled to modify their prior resolution. The complaint for conduct unbecoming
of a court employee against Curie Sunga and Isidro Aperocho must be dismissed for lack of
merit. Meanwhile, we sustain their complaint against Floria for immorality and dishonesty
(for falsifying the certificates of live birth of her children), the same being supported by
substantial evidence, the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings. Under
Section 52, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
dishonesty and immoral conduct are grave offenses. Immoral conduct is punished by
suspension of 6 months and 1 day to 1 year; while dishonesty is punished by dismissal from
the service.
RULING: REPRIMAND + WARNING, because: 1. The administrative offense of
immorality took place many years ago; 2. Floria has been employed in the Court of
appeals for a period of twenty nine (29) years; 3. This is the first time that she is
being found administratively liable as per available record; and 4. Her children are
innocent victims. Dismissing or suspending their mother from the service is a heavy
toll on them, a punishment they do not deserve.