JILDO A. GUBATON v. ATTY.
AUGUSTUS SERAFIN AMADOR
(A.C. No. 8962, July 9, 2018)
PONENTE: PERLAS-BERNABE, J:
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that respondent, a former Assistant Prosecutor at the City Prosecutor's
Office in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, was having an illicit romantic relationship with his wife, Ma.
Bernadette R. Tenorio-Gubaton (Bernadette), since 2005 up to the present.
Early 2008: While working at the United States of America, it was the couple’s househelper that
first informed him of the alleged affair. The househelper told him that a “Fiscal Amador” often
spends the night at their house. When Complainant called Bernadette’s dental clinic, it was her
secretary who answered and also confirmed the illicit affair.
August 2009: Complainant returned to the Philippines. On their first night together, Bernadette
demanded him to sleep in another room. Despite his pleas, she refused to sleep with him. He
discovered some birth control pills and condoms inside their house and in Bernadette’s handbag
which she denied ownership thereof. He also found love letters, some of them have the word
“fiscal” on them.
He personally saw respondent and Bernadette kissing inside a vehicle. When he approached
them, respondent ran away. Several people knew about the affair – Complainant’s sister Nila,
Carlos Delgado (Delgado), Chief of Barangay Public Safety Office in Poblacion, Malaybalay City,
and one Edgar Navarez (Navarez), an employee of the Bureau of lnternal Revenue (BIR) and a
resident of Casisang, Malaybalay City.
Respondent’s Defense: denied all the allegations against him and said that he was merely
acquainted with Bernadette and they would only see each other on various occasions and social
gatherings. He also denied the incident where complainant allegedly saw him and Bernadette
kissing inside a vehicle.
IBP’s Report and Recommendation (2012): Dismissal of affidavit-complaint for insufficieny of
evidence. Info were purely hearsay. No proof that love letters were written by Bernadette to
respondent. An offended husband would be expected to do more than just confront them (in the
kissing incident). IBP reversed this recommendation in 2013, and instead, suspended respondent
from the practice of law for a period of two years.
ISSUE: Whether or not substantial evidence exist to hold respondent administratively liable for gross
immorality.
RULING: Respondent Atty. Augustus Serafin D. Amador is found guilty of gross immorality. Accordingly,
he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, and is STERNLY WARNED that
a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
RATIO:
YES. There is substantial evidence to prove complainant's accusation of gross immorality against
respondent. The quantum of proof in administrative cases is substantial evidence. Substantial
evidence is that amount of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably
opine otherwise.
It was emphasized that to satisfy the substantial evidence requirement for administrative
cases, hearsay evidence should necessarily be supplemented and corroborated by other
evidence that are not hearsay.
Complainant's statements were corroborated by the affidavit executed by Navarez, who works in
BIR, Malaybalay City as a messenger and therefore, goes around the city in relation to his work.
Navarez averred that he had seen them together on different intimate occasions. He even saw
them kissing each other at one instance. Notably, it must be highlighted that Navarez is a neutral
and disinterested witness and hence, his declarations deserve ample consideration.
Moreover, complainant's sister, Nila, described how respondent would often visit Bernadette and
spend the night in their residence, while she was still living with Bernadette and their children.
Respondent would even spend some time with Bernadette inside the latter's bedroom. Nila
likewise recounted that whenever the two of them arrived home in one vehicle, they would kiss
each other before alighting.
While the information by Complainant and the witnesses constitute hearsay, they should not be
completely disregarded. The doctrine on independently relevant statements holds that
conversations communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that,
regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to the making of such
statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a) constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is
circumstantially relevant to the existence of such fact. Accordingly, the hearsay rule does not
apply, and hence, the statements are admissible as evidence.
The love letters/notes were not refuted. Consequently, they lend credibility to complainant's
claim.
The denial of respondent is an intrinsically weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be
supported by strong evidence of non-culpability.
Extramarital affairs of lawyers are regarded as offensive to the sanctity of marriage, the
family, and the community. When lawyers are engaged in wrongful relationships that blemish
their ethics and morality, the usual recourse is for the erring attorney's suspension from the
practice of law, if not disbarment. This is because possession of good moral character is both
a condition precedent and a continuing requirement to warrant admission to the Bar and to
retain membership in the legal profession. Under the Code of Professional Responsibility:
Rule 1.01 — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
Canon 7 — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the integrated bar.
Rule 7.03 — A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice
law, nor shall he, whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit
of the legal profession.
