FACTS: In her verified
letter-complaint dated September 19, 2003, the complainant, a 23-year old
unmarried woman, alleged that respondent courted her and professed his undying
love for her. Relying on respondent’s promise that he would marry her, she
agreed to live with him. She became pregnant, but after several months into her
pregnancy, respondent brought her to a “manghihilot” and tried to force her to
take drugs to abort her baby. When she did not agree, the respondent turned
cold and eventually abandoned her. She became depressed resulting in the loss
of her baby. She also stopped schooling because of the humiliation that she
suffered. These allegations were denied by the respondent, a court
stenographer, and claimed that the charges against him were baseless, false and
fabricated, respondent and alleged that those were intended to harass him and
destroy his reputation.
ISSUE: Whether the
acts of respondent is considered as disgraceful or immoral conduct.
HELD: SC ruled that
the acts complained of cannot be considered as disgraceful or grossly immoral
conduct. Mere sexual relations between two unmmaried and consenting adults are
not enough to warrant administrative sanction for illicit behavior. The Court
has repeatedly held that voluntary intimacy between a man and a woman who are
not married, where both are not under any impediment to marry and where no
deceit exists, is neither a criminal nor an unprincipled act that would warrant
disbarment or disciplinary action. While the Court has the power to regulate
official conduct and, to a certain extent, private conduct, it is not within
our authority to decide on matters touching on employees’ personal lives,
especially those that will affect their and their family’s future. We cannot intrude into the question of
whether they should or should not marry.
No comments:
Post a Comment