411 Phil. 12
VITUG, J.:
"x x x However, it is important to evaluate in this case the effect as to the receipt of Jumilan Marketing Corp. (Exhibit A) the statement of Accountant of New Butuan Otis Enterprises Inc. (Exhibit B) for goods taken on credit by Nida S. Montante under a Credit Card in the name of respondent and the COMELEC 'Voter's Affidavit' executed by Nida S. Montante (Exhibit C) wherein it is stated and appeared that Efren Lauro is her husband, which Exhibits bear the name and/or signatures of `Nida Lauro' (Exhibits A-1, B-2 and C-2) and the kind of treatment respondent gave to the child of Nida S. Montante.
"Respondent in his evidence claims that Nida S. Montante is his household help who washed his clothes and prepared his food as complainant had abandoned their conjugal dwelling. Respondent denied that Nida S. Montante is his paramour.
"Respondent in effect admitted that the woman Nida S. Montante is the same woman who lived with him and the same woman whose name appeared and signed Exhibits A, B and C as `Nida Lauro.' The explanations of the respondent on Exhibits A, B and C as to why Nida S. Montante signed them as `Nida Lauro' do not inspire belief. If it is true that respondent authorized Nida S. Montante to get goods on credit using his credit card from Otis Enterprises Inc., for convenience, why did Nida sign Exhibit B as `Nida Lauro' and not her true name, Nida S. Montante? On Exhibit A, who caused the name of Nida Lauro to be typewritten on it and why did Nida did not protest but signed it using the name `Nida Lauro.' With regards to Exhibit C, where Nida S. Montante stated that her husband is Efren Lauro (Exh. C-3) respondent maintain that this was due to inadvertence on the part of Nida S. Montante that Nida S. Montante executed later another Voter's Affidavit (Exhibit 11) where it is stated that her civil status is `widow' and the name of respondent do not appear anymore as her husband. To the undersigned the execution of Exhibit 11 was only an after thought and a futile attempt to destroy the adverse effect of Exhibit C. The Voter's Affidavit marked Exhibit C was executed and/or placed under oath on `12/7/86' but this administrative complaint was filed only on November 6, 1991 and the Voter's Affidavit marked Exhibit 11 was executed or placed under oath on a much later date of `1-28-95.' The behavior of the respondent in giving money to the child of Nida S. Montante and not giving money to his own grandchild, a child of his daughter, Maria Estrella Lauro-Demicillo, indicated that respondent had a special feeling and gave special treatment to Nida S. Montante and the latter's child coupled with the fact that respondent had provided Nida S. Montante with capital so that she can put up her own store.
"Although there is no direct evidence as to any specific immoral acts against the respondent but there are ample circumstantial evidence will show against him. From the actuations of Nida S. Montante behaving like a wife of the respondent, it can only be concluded that in fact and in reality respondent has been treating considering and living with Nida S. Montante as his wife indulging and enjoying the marital privilege of sex. Because of these respondent's treatment and actuation, Nida S. Montante is made to believe and feel, and lead her to conclude that she is the wife of respondent. The actuations of the respondent towards Nida S. Montante and to her child, the actuations of Nida S. Montante behaving like the wife of respondent would not have manifested if they have no romantic but only platonic relationship.
"This case not being a criminal case, it does not need proof beyond reasonable doubt, only preponderance of evidence is sufficient. Every government employee, like Caesar's wife, must be above-suspicion.
"Respondent's attributing acts of immorality and unfaithfulness to the complainant as the former's wife would not justify the behavior and conduct of the respondent. An employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty."[1]
"It must be emphasized that every employee of the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty. Like any public servant, he must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of his official duties but in his personal and private dealings with other people, to preserve the court's good name and standing (Paredes vs. Padua, 222 SCRA 881)."