By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
The exacting standards of morality and decency in government offices
“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”.
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)