Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Moral integrity: not just a virtue but a necessity
“Can a man scoop fire into his lap without his clothes being burned? Can a man walk on hot coals without his feet being scorched?” So goes an early admonition against immorality from the Holy Book that is as valuable today as it was thousands of years ago. In the judiciary, “moral integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity.”
In several cases, the Court has been confronted with issues calling for the application of moral standards. It has refused to apply religious morality as a standard because of the divergent religious tenets and practices. In many cases, the Court ruled that secular morality should be applied. In illegal dismissal cases, pregnancy out of wedlock with a man who has no legal impediment to marry is not considered as immorality following the standard of secular morality. However, the Court is consistent in ruling that maintaining an illicit relationship with a married man is disgraceful and immoral conduct.
A court employee who has fallen short of the exacting standards of morality and decency has to face the consequences, even after the embers have died and the scars have faded. Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct under Section 46(b)(5), Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 which, as defined in Section 1 of CSC Resolution No. 100912 dated May 17, 2010 (Revised Rules on the Administrative Offense of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct), is “an act which violates the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the society” and “conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the community.”
Respondent’s act of maintaining an illicit relationship with a married man comes within the purview of disgraceful and immoral conduct. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence, that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is required.
The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.
“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.” This Court has thus consistently penalized court personnel who had been found wanting of such standards, even if they have precipitately resigned from their positions. Resignation should not be used either as an escape or as an easy way out to evade an administrative liability or an administrative sanction. (Lifted from the case digest of Banaag vs. Espelita, A.M. No. P-11-3011 December 16, 2011 prepared by Atty. Erickson Balmes, 2019 PRE-BAR POINTS TO PONDER IN LEGAL and JUDICIAL ETHICS/ THE CASE DOCTRINES of the Ponencias of Associate Justice ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE)