Sei sulla pagina 1di 4

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Manila City

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA,
Complainant,

-versus- ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 12345


For: Disgraceful and immoral
conduct

SOLEDAD ESCRITOR,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM

Every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like
any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance
of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the courts good
name and standing. It cannot be overstressed that the image of a court of justice is mirrored in the
conduct, official and otherwise, of the personnel who work thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its
personnel. Court employees have been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and
decency in their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity of
courts of justice (Bucatcat v. Bucatcat, A.M. No. P-93-985. January 28, 2000).

COME NOW PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, through the undersigned counsel, unto


this Honorable Supreme Court most respectfully submit and present this Memorandum in the
above-titled case and aver that:

THE PARTIES

1. Complainant Alejandro Estrada is of legal age, a Filipino citizen, and resides in Bacoor
Cavite.

2. Defendant Soledad Escritor is of legal age, a Filipino citizen, resides in Las Pias City and
is working as a court interpreter in Las Pias Regional Trial Court.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

1. On July 27, 2000, herein complainant, In a sworn letter-complaint wrote to Judge Jose F.
Caoibes, Jr., presiding judge of Branch 253, Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City, requesting
for an investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is
living with a man not her husband.

2. Judge Caoibes referred the letter to Escritor who stated that there is no truth as to the
veracity of the allegation and challenged Estrada to appear in the open and prove his allegation in
the proper forum.[6]Judge Caoibes set a preliminary conference on October 12, 2000.
3. Judge Caoibes endorsed the complaint to Executive Judge Manuel B. Fernandez, Jr., who,
in turn, endorsed the same to Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo.

4. Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock recommended that the case be referred
to Executive Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda, RTC Branch 255, Las Pias City for investigation,
report and recommendation

5. Accordingly, the Honorable Regional Trial Court ordered the parties to submit their
respective Memoranda fifteen (15) days from notice, otherwise regardless whether or not
Memoranda were filed, the petition shall be submitted for decision;

Hence, the filing of the instant Memorandum.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6.. Respondent Escritor testified that when she entered the judiciary in 1999, [8]she was
already a widow, her husband having died in 1998. [9] She admitted that she has been living with
Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage for twenty years and that they have a
son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch
Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious
beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness.

7. Escritors partner, Quilapio, executed a similar pledge on the same day. Both pledges
[11]

were executed in Atimonan, Quezon and signed by three witnesses. At the time Escritor
executed her pledge, her husband was still alive but living with another woman. Quilapio was
likewise married at that time, but had been separated in fact from his wife.

8. Respondent Soledad Escritor is living with a man not her husband. They have a child of
eighteen to twenty years old. She is committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the
court, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might appear that the
court condones her act.

III. ISSUES OF THE CASE

A.) WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT ESCRITOR IS GUILTY OF


ADULTERY;

B.) WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT ESCRITOR CAN ALSO BE CHARGED


TOGETHER WITH QUILAPIO FOR CONCUNIBANAGE;

C.) WHETHER OR NOT THE DECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESS


EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT IS VALID;

D.) WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT HAS COMMITTED


DISGRACEFUL AND IMMORAL CONDUCT UNDER BOOK V, TITLE 1,
CHAPTER VII, SECTION 46(b)(5) OF THE REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE.

IV. ARGUMENTS

A.) The respondent is guilty of adultery because she admitted herself that her husband
was still alive when she executed her declaration of pledging faithfulness.
B.) The respondent may also be charged with concubinage together with Quilapio
because Quilapio is still legally married to another woman.

C.) The respondents Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness is valid only among members
of her religious sect.

D.) The respondent has committed a disgraceful and immoral conduct under Book V,
Title 1, Chapter VII, Section 46 (b)(5) when she started living together with another
man who is not her husband.

V. DISCUSSION

1. Adultery is the carnal relationship between a married woman and a man not her husband.
Under Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code, adultery is committed by any married woman who
shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by the man, who has carnal
knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared void.
The elements of adultery are:

a. That the woman is married;


b. That she had sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
c. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to be
married.

2. Concubinage is committed by a married man who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife under scandalous
circumstances or shall cohabit with her in any other place. Under Article 334 of the Revised
Penal Code, any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall have sexual
intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or shall cohabit
with her in any other place, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
The elements of the crime of concubinage are:

a. The man must be married;


b. That he committed any of the following acts:
i. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
ii. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not
his wife
iii. Cohabiting with her in any other place
iv. As regards the woman, she must know him to be married.

3. The Declaration of Pledging of Faithfulness executed by the respondent and her mate
greatly affect the administrative liability of respondent. Jehovahs Witnesses admit and recognize
the supremacy of the proper public authorities in the marriage arrangement. Art. 239. When a
husband and wife are separated in fact, or one has abandoned the other and one of them seeks
judicial authorization for a transaction where the consent of the other spouse is required by law
but such consent is withheld or cannot be obtained, a verified petition may be filed in court
alleging the foregoing facts.

The aforecited whereas clauses express a clear intent to limit the operation of PD
1517 to specific areas declared to be located in both an APD and a ULRZ. The
conjunctive and in the last sentence of the quoted provision confirms this
intention. And in statutory construction implies conjunction, joinder or union. As
understood from the common and usual meaning of the conjunction and, the provisions
of PD 1517 apply only to areas declared to be located within both an APD and a
ULRZ.

With the foregoing recognized jurisprudence said, the Defendant-Petitioners action would
necessarily lead to futility for no cause of action.
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premise considered, it respectfully prayed for that this Honorable


Supreme Court that Defendant-Petitioners prayer for writ of injunction be DENIED for having
no cause of action and the petition DISMISSED for being clearly unmeritorious.

Other just and equitable relief under the foregoing are likewise being prayed for.

Respectfully submitted.

Makati City for Manila City, Philippines. April 8, 2011.

AZURIN BUHAIN BONTUYAN AND ARICAYOS LAW OFFICES


Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent
10th Floor, New Building,
Makati Avenue, Makati City

By:

ATTY. PAOLO COELHO


IBP Lifetime No. 67891; 5/10/2005
PTR No. 44568; 1/10/2011
Roll of Attorney No. 2005-001023
MCLE Compliance No. III 000899

Copy Furnished:

ATTY. JEFFREY A. ARCHER


Counsel for Petitioner
Unit 1200, Tall Building Condominium,
Espana, Manila

Potrebbero piacerti anche