Case

Dhecee B.
Viray
ADMIN CASE NO._______
Complainant
-versus- -for-
FO1 Charlieson D. Viray

FO3 Suzette M. Albay DISGRACEFUL AND IMMORAL CONDUCT
x-------------------------------------------x
DECISION
Prefatory Statement
The family is the basic unit of our society and it is the foundation of our nation, no less than the
Constitution guarantees the promotion and protection of it. The sanctity of marriage is equally
held in high esteem and is considered as an inviolable social institution since it is essential to
the formation of the family. There is no dichotomy in the existence of both, tear down one and
the other will stumble down and fall.
ISSUE
1. Whether FO1 Charlieson D. Viray and FO3 Suzette A. Baterina are guilty of Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct.
The inherent frailty of man is an inescapable fact of life which causes him to fall into
undesirable consequences and short comings. However, this moral weakness is something that
does not deserve our acquiescence or silence, actions like this deserves to be corrected with
the end goal of reformation.
FO1 Viray’s act of engaging into extramarital relationship with FO3 Baterina falls squarely within
the contemplation of Sec. 1 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 15 S.2010 which provides that
Section 1. Definition of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. – Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct
refers to an act which violates the basic norm of decency, morality and decorum abhorred and
condemned by the society. It refers to conduct which is wilful, flagrant or shameless, and which
shows moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the
community.
The Court ruled in the case of Banaag v. Espeleta “Respondent’s act of maintaining an illicit
relationship with a married man comes within the purview of disgraceful and immoral
conduct”.
The acts of FO1 Viray and FO3 Baterina is highly scandalous and shocking to morals. Both of
them are married individuals who chose to renege on their marital duties and engaged in extra
marital affairs with each other. The matter is made worse by the fact that they believe that
what they are doing is legal because of the agreement done before the Punong Barangay of
Bued dated 25 March 2009 executed by the complainant and FO1 Viray.
Art. 1 of the Family Code is clear on this matter. To wit:
Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman
entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the
foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and
incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements
may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.
The provision is clear as day that the nature, consequences and incidents of marriage are
governed by law and not subject to stipulation. Hence, the agreement is null and void ab initio.
The court has consistently ruled that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership
without judicial approval is void.
In Panganiban vs. Borromeo, 58 Phil. 367, a lawyer was severely censured for having notarized
a document containing "an agreement between the husband and the wife which permitted the
husband to take unto himself a concubine and the wife to live in adulterous relationship with
another man, without opposition from either one of them".
Absent any indication that the respondent’s marriage has been judicially declared void or
annulled. He is still legally bounded to his marriage and no agreement or stipulation can nullify
the effects of the marriage nor it can estopped the complainant from filing administrative case
against the latter.
The respondents’ went on to argue that disgraceful and immoral conduct is a subjective and
relative term that is based on the reaction of a particular community witnessing such act, and
the fact that the agreement was executed and approved by the barangay officials was a proof
that their relationship is not disgraceful and immoral. However, the court ruled otherwise and
stated that
“For a particular conduct to constitute “disgraceful and immoral” behavior under civil service
laws, it must be regulated on account of the concerns of public and secular morality, and the
constitutionally guaranteed rights (such as the right to privacy) should be observed to the
extent that they protect behavior that may be frowned upon by the majority. Anonymous vs.
Radam , 541 SCRA 567”
In the Philippines, not only is concubinage and adultery frowned upon and morally revolting,
they are also illegal under our jurisdiction. Under Art. 333 of the Revised Penal Code a married
woman can be prosecuted for having sexual relationship with a man other than her husband
and Art.334 strictly proscribes a man from cohabiting with another woman other than his wife.
In a civilized society such as ours, the rule of law should always prevail to allow otherwise
would be productive of nothing but mischief, chaos and anarchy.
The respondents do not deny the existence of their relationship; in fact they only argue that
such illicit relationship is not disgraceful and immoral. Which as we discussed previously, their
position is untenable. The final nail to the coffin of this case is that they have a common child,
Alexander Charlemaigne Albay Viray. The birth certificate of the child bears the name of the
respondents as his mother and father which strongly supports the accusation against them
having an illicit relationship.
In Miro v. Vda. De Eredros the Court ruled:
“Substantial evidence, quantum of proof in administrative cases. It is defined as such amount of

relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied
when there is reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the
respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be overwhelming or
preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as
is required in criminal cases, but the evidence must be enough for a reasonable mind to
support a conclusion.”
In Anonymous vs. Radam , 541 SCRA 567 the court ruled:
“Two things may be concluded from the fact that an unmarried woman gives birth out of
wedlock—(1) if the father of the child is himself unmarried, the woman is not ordinarily
administratively liable for disgraceful and immoral conduct, but (2) if the father of the child
born out of wedlock is himself married to a woman other than the mother, then there is a
cause for administrative sanction against either the father or the mother”.
The overwhelming evidence provided leads us to sufficiently conclude that FO1 Viray and FO3
Baterina had an illicit relationship which falls under the purview of Disgraceful and Immoral
conduct. Under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service the offense is
punishable by suspension from 6 months and 1 day to 1 year and dismissal from the service for
the second offense.
The respondents have been originally been imposed the minimum penalty of 6 months and 1
day suspension from the service for their first offense. Despite the overwhelming evidence and
the lenient penalty imposed on them, the respondents deemed it unacceptable and appealed
the ruling. The apparent lack of remorse on their part has led the officer to uphold the previous
ruling with modification.
WHEREFORE premises considered, the ruling is upheld FO1 Charlieson Viray and FO3 Suzette
Albay are found GUILTY of disgraceful and immoral conduct and the penalty imposed is
modified from 6 months and 1 day suspension to 1 year suspension. They are STERNLY warned
of the possibility of dismissal from the service should they persist in their illegitimate and
immoral relationship.
THEO MIGUEL A. BALLESTEROS

INTERN
ATTY. VOLTAIRE VAN L. DELOS REYES

HEARING OFFICER

Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dhecee B.

FO1 Charlieson D. Viray

Art. 1 of the Family Code is clear on this matter. To wit:

In Miro v. Vda. De Eredros the Court ruled:

“Substantial evidence, quantum of proof in administrative cases. It is defined as such amount of

In Anonymous vs. Radam , 541 SCRA 567 the court ruled:

THEO MIGUEL A. BALLESTEROS

ATTY. VOLTAIRE VAN L. DELOS REYES

You might also like