Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

Estrada vs. Escritor,

492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

Facts:

Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Pias City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting
with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes that Escritor is committing
a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it
might appear that the court condones her act.

Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that
she is a member of the religious sect Jehovahs Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in
conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness in accordance
with her religion which allows members of Jehovahs Witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital
relations. The Declaration makes the union moral and binding within the congregation throughout the world except in countries where
divorce is allowed.

Issue:

Is Escritor guilty of gross immorality for having an illicit relationship?

Does her religious belief justify such act?

Ruling:

Yes the act was grossly immoral. In a catena of cases, the Court has ruled that government employees engaged in illicit relations are
guilty of "disgraceful and immoral conduct" for which he/she may be held administratively liable. In these cases, there was not one
dissent to the majority's ruling that their conduct was immoral. The respondents themselves did not foist the defense that their conduct
was not immoral, but instead sought to prove that they did not commit the alleged act or have abated from committing the act.

No, Escritor is not guilty of gross immorality and she cannot be penalized for her freedom of religion justifies her conjugal
arraignment. In interpreting the Free Exercise Clause, the realm of belief poses no difficulty. The early case of Gerona v. Secretary of
Education is instructive on the matter, viz:

The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one's imagination and thought. So is the freedom of belief,
including religious belief, limitless and without bounds. One may believe in most anything, however strange, bizarre and unreasonable
the same may appear to others, even heretical when weighed in the scales of orthodoxy or doctrinal standards. But between the
freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road to travel.

The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedom, including religious freedom, may be enjoyed.