Freedom of Religion

Perfecto vs Esidera
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2417, July 22, 2015

FACTS:

Petitioner Eladio Perfecto filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-
Esidera for falsification of public document and dishonesty.

Petitioner Perfecto alleged that respondent Judge Esidera falsified her daughter’s birth certificate to make it
appear that she and Renato Verano Esidera were married on March 18, 1990 when in fact they were married
on June 3, 1992, hence, in order to show that their daughter was a legitimate child of Renato Verano Esidera. It
was also alleged that her first marriage with Richard Tang Tepace was contracted on May 7, 1987 and was later
declared void on January 27, 1992.

Perfecto prays for respondent Judge Esidera’s dismissal from office for her alleged dishonesty. However,
respondent Judge Esidera argued that everything she did was legal and in accordance with her religious beliefs.
She was indeed, married to her second husband (Renato Verano Esidera) on March 18, 1990, but only under
recognized Catholic rites. The priest who officiated their marriage had no authority to solemnize marriages
under the civil law. She said that couples who are civilly married are considered living in state of sin, and may
be ex-communicated. They cannot receive the sacraments.

ISSUES:

Whether or not respondent Judge Esidera was guilty of immoral conduct based on, among others, her alleged
affair and falsification of her daughter’s birth certificate.

HELD:

No. The Court finds respondent Judge Esidera’s omission to correct her child’s birth certificate is not sufficient
to render her administratively liable under the circumstances. The error in the birth certificate cannot be
attributed to her. She did not participate in filling in the required details in the document. The birth certificate
shows that it was her husband who signed it as informant.

Respondent Judge Esidera is also not guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct under the Code of Professional
Responsibility. The Court cannot conclude that respondent Judge’s acts of contracting a second marriage during
the subsistence of her alleged first marriage and having an alleged “illicit” affair are “immoral” based on her
Catholic faith. The Court is not a judge of religious morality.

The Court may not sit as judge of what is immoral conduct according to a particular religion. The Court has no
jurisdiction over and is not the proper authority to determine which conduct contradicts religious doctrine.
They have jurisdiction over matters of morality only insofar as it involves conduct that affects the public or its
interest.

For purposes of determining administrative liability of lawyers and judges, “immoral conduct” should related
to their conduct as officers of the court. To be guilty of “immorality” under the Code of Professional
Responsibility, a lawyer’s conduct must be so depraved as to reduce the public’s confidence in the Rule of Law.
Religious morality is not binding whenever this court decides the administrative liability of lawyers and
persons under this court’s supervision. At best, religious morality weighs only persuasively on the Court.

Hence, the Court cannot properly conclude that respondent judge’s acts of contracting a second marriage
during the subsistence of her alleged first marriage and having an alleged “illicit” affair are “immoral” based on
her catholic faith. The Court is not a judge of religious morality.