BANAAG vs.
ESPELETA
A.M. No. P-11-3011
November 29, 2011
Perlas-Bernabe, J.
SUBJECT MATTER:
De Facto Separation; Effects on Personal Relations
DOCTRINE(S):
Sec. 46 (b) (5), Chap. 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct as
“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.”
Section 52(A) (15), Rule IV of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 99-1936 specifies that a grave offense is punishable with
suspension from the service for 6 months and 1 day to 1 year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. – Had the
respondent not resigned, she would have been suspended for 6 months and 1 day (disgraceful and immoral conduct is classified
under grave offenses).
ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:
Administrative Complaint charging respondent with Gross Immorality and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.
Petitioner(s): Evelina C. Banaag
Parties
Respondent(s): Olivia C. Espeleta
SUMMARY:
Evelina Banaag introduced Olivia Espeleta to her husband, Avelino, as a court interpreter who may help them with their pending
cases. Little did Evelina know that the casual meeting would blossom into an amorous relationship. A year after Olivia and Avelino
met, Evelina found out that the two had been seeing each other. Avelino had been supporting Olivia financially by sending
substantial amounts to her bank account. Evelina claimed that more than P3 Million had been sent to Olivia. Evelina filed an
administrative case charging her with Gross Immorality and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Olivia failed to
comment on the letter-complaint filed by Evelina as she had previously tendered her resignation and flew to the United States. The
Court held that Olivia is guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct evidenced by her guilt when she escaped to US and the
photocopies of deposit slips which is indicative of the intimate relationship between her and Avelino.
ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● Evelina, wife of Avelino Banaag, met Olivia Espeleta for the first time in October 2005. Gloria Tubtub, Evelina’s “sister” in a
Marriage Encounter group, was accompanied by Olivia when she went to JB Crystal Building (Evelina’s house) to request for
encashment of a check amounting to P11,000.
○ Gloria told Evelina that she needed the money for her grandchild who was hospitalized but in truth, the check was
for Olivia.
○ At the same meeting, Olivia introduced herself as a court interpreter. Believing that Olivia could assist her and her
husband in their pending cases, Evelina introduced Olivia to her husband who, after learning that they are both
from Batangas, asked for Olivia’s phone number.
● Evelina found out about the affair in 2006 when her husband asked to withdraw P180,000 from their joint bank account to
lend to his brother, Reynaldo who was hospitalized.
○ She learned from Reynaldo’s wife, Ana Fe, that Reynaldo was only given P80,000.
○ Ana Fe warned her to be careful about giving money to her husband who has a mistress working at the City Hall.
● Upon further investigation, Evelina found out the following:
C2023(FADRILAN) – LAW100, PANGALANGAN
○ On two separate occasions in 2006, Avelino had gone to Olivia’s house in Bulacan with his friend, Engr. Pacifico
“Jun” R. Sabigan. Jun told her that they would have drinks and once tipsy, Olivia and Avelino would dance together.
Jun also mentioned that Avelino had admitted that he and Olivia were seeing each other.
○ Olivia had been receiving P5,000 for groceries from Avelino.
● Evelina confronted her husband who admitted that using their conjugal funds, he had been depositing substantial amounts
of money to the Landbank account of Olivia, Metrobank account of Olivia’s daughter, and bank accounts of Olivia’s co-
employees (since Olivia formerly did not have an ATM card).
● Evelina claimed that more than P3 Million had been deposited to Olivia’s account and that this was possible since Avelino
was the administrator of the family-owned JB Crystal Building which earned rentals he himself collected.
● Evelina filed a letter-complaint (dated May 3, 2009) against Olivia Espeleta charging her with Gross Immorality and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for engaging in an illicit and immoral relationship with her husband, Avelino
Banaag.
○ She attached the following to the letter-complaint:
■ Photocopies of cash deposit slips showing Avelino’s transfers to accounts of Olivia (Avelino indicated that
Olivia was his “cousin”), Olivia’s daughter, and Olivia’s co-employees
■ Summaries of unremitted rentals from their commercial building and unauthorized withdrawals made by
Avelino from their bank account
○ She also submitted affidavits executed by Gloria Tubtub and Engr. Jun Sabigan confirming the illicit relationship.
● Olivia failed to comply with the Office of the Court Administration’s (OCA) orders even after several notices directing her to
comment on the letter-complaint.
● The Office of Administrative Services (OAS) found that Olivia had filed a letter of resignation on June 11, 2009 and had gone
to the United States.
● On August 11, 2011, OCA reported its findings to the Supreme Court and recommended that: (1) the instant petition be re-
docketed as a regular administrative complaint, and (2) respondent be found guilty of Gross Immoral Conduct.
ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):
1. WON respondent Olivia C. Espeleta is guilty of immoral conduct – YES.
RATIO:
1. The Court finds respondent guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct.
○ Sec. 46 (b) (5), Chap. 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 defines Disgraceful and
Immoral Conduct as “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.”
○ In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence is required.
i. Substantial evidence – amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion
ii. In spite of the many opportunities given to the respondent to be heard and refute the charges against her,
she chose not to file any comment. Instead, she hastily tendered her resignation which was followed by
her departure for the United States. These acts are strongly indicative of respondent’s guilt.
iii. Deposit slips show that various amounts have been deposited directly and indirectly to her account
proving the allegation that she had been receiving substantial amounts from Avelino. There could be no
doubt that respondent was indeed in an intimate relationship with Avelino.
○ The Court cited other similar cases involving employees in courts:
i. Sealana-Abbu vs. Laurenciana-Hurano: two court stenographers engaged in illicit affair were suspended
for a year. The Court emphasized that, “it is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to
maintain intimate relations with another person of the opposite sex other than his or her spouse.”
ii. Elape vs. Elape: a process server of the RTC was suspended for 6 months and 1 day for cohabitating with
his mistress, abandoning his family, and depriving them of financial support.
C2023(FADRILAN) – LAW100, PANGALANGAN
iii. Regir vs. Regir: another process server was suspended for 6 months and 1 day for carrying on an illicit
relationship with a woman not his wife, with whom he begot child.
iv. Babante-Caples vs Caples: a utility worker in the MTC, who had resigned, was ordered to pay a fine for
maintaining an illicit relationship with a woman not his wife.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, respondent Olivia C. Espeleta is found GUILTY of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct. In view of her resignation, a FINE in
the amount of P50,000 is imposed on respondent, to be deducted from her accrued leave credits, if sufficient; otherwise, she is
ORDERED to pay the amount of the fine directly to this Court.
xxx
SO ORDERED.
C2023(FADRILAN) – LAW100, PANGALANGAN
