A.M. No. P-1623 - OCTOBER 1979 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. P-1623October 9, 1979 Julieta P. Dalisay vs. Euclides Dalisay G.R. No. L-38056October 9, 1979 Abraham F. Malic vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-27843October 11, 1979 Clara Torela vs. Felimon Torela, et al. G.R. No. L-43059October 11, 1979 Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. vs. Jalwindor Manufacturers, Inc. G.R. No. L-51637October 15, 1979 Faustino C. Ramos vs. United Doctors Madical Center G.R. No. L-49568October 17, 1979 Banco De Oro vs. Jaime Z. Bayuga G.R. No. L-49998October 17, 1979 Domingo Larioma vs. Workmen's Appeal & Review Staff G.R. No. L-26702October 18, 1979 Juan Augusto B. Primicias vs. the Municipality of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, et al. G.R. No. L-28658October 18, 1979 Vicente C. Reyes vs. Francisco Sierra, et al. G.R. No. L-33172October 18, 1979 Ernesto Cease, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-35861October 18, 1979 Municipality of Daet vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-42594October 18, 1979 Eligio Roque vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-45224October 18, 1979 Eriberta R. Cariño vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-51154October 18, 1979 Metro Drug Corporation vs. Eugenio I. Sagmit, et al. G.R. No. L-32629October 23, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Tabion, et al. G.R. No. L-32690October 23, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Ronald P. Tanchico G.R. No. L-34657October 23, 1979 Erlinda Ravanera vs. Felipe I. Imperial G.R. No. L-35278October 23, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Leonides Quinto G.R. No. L-40880October 23, 1979 Asuncion Cruz, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-46146October 23, 1979 People of the Phil vs. Laurencio Laspardas G.R. No. L-49460October 23, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Montinola G.R. No. L-49481October 23, 1979 Gas Corporation of the Philippines vs. Amado G. Inciong G.R. No. L-49760October 23, 1979 Pedro N. Calimlim vs. J. Isidoro A. Vera G.R. No. L-50295October 23, 1979 Alberto C. Cerezo vs. Employees, Compensation Commission A.M. No. 28-MJOctober 30, 1979 Francisco Awa-Ao vs. Judge Ramon Sison, Jr. A.M. No. P-1175October 30, 1979 Felicisima Sanchez vs. Agustin Fabillaran G.R. No. L-28485October 30, 1979 People of the Philippine vs. Datu Ombra Kiram, et al. G.R. No. L-31401October 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Pepito Villa, et al. G.R. No. L-33604October 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Jesus G. Ruiz G.R. No. L-36020October 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Nazarito Aquino, et al. G.R. No. L-37791October 30, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Cesario Salazar G.R. No. L-45497October 30, 1979 Federico M. Faicol vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-48252October 30, 1979 Domingo Enriquez, Sr vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-48720October 30, 1979 Republic of the Philippines vs. J. Felix V. Barbers G.R. No. L-48723October 30, 1979 Lope Gerian vs. al ejandro R. Boncaros G.R. No. L-50835October 30, 1979 Prima Tandoc vs. Ricardo Tensuan G.R. No. L-23465October 31, 1979 The People of the Philippines vs. Casto al ejandrino G.R. No. L-29414October 31, 1979 Provincial Board of Agusan vs. Pastor D. Ago G.R. No. L-30449October 31, 1979 The People of the Philippines vs. Antonio C. Garcia, et al. G.R. No. L-50550-52October 31, 1979 Chee Kiong Yam, et al. vs. Hon. Nabdar J. Malik, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Julieta P. Dalisay vs. Euclides Dalisay Abraham F. Malic vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. Clara Torela vs. Felimon Torela, et al. Sampaguita Pictures, Inc. vs. Jalwindor Manufacturers, Inc. Faustino C. Ramos vs. United Doctors Madical Center Banco De Oro vs. Jaime Z. Bayuga Domingo Larioma vs. Workmen's Appeal & Review Staff Juan Augusto B. Primicias vs. the Municipality of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, et al. Vicente C. Reyes vs. Francisco Sierra, et al. Ernesto Cease, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Municipality of Daet vs. Court of Appeals Eligio Roque vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Eriberta R. Cariño vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Metro Drug Corporation vs. Eugenio I. Sagmit, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo Tabion, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Ronald P. Tanchico Erlinda Ravanera vs. Felipe I. Imperial People of the Philippines vs. Leonides Quinto Asuncion Cruz, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. People of the Phil vs. Laurencio Laspardas People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Montinola Gas Corporation of the Philippines vs. Amado G. Inciong Pedro N. Calimlim vs. J. Isidoro A. Vera Alberto C. Cerezo vs. Employees, Compensation Commission Francisco Awa-Ao vs. Judge Ramon Sison, Jr. Felicisima Sanchez vs. Agustin Fabillaran People of the Philippine vs. Datu Ombra Kiram, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Pepito Villa, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Jesus G. Ruiz People of the Philippines vs. Nazarito Aquino, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Cesario Salazar Federico M. Faicol vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Domingo Enriquez, Sr vs. Republic of the Philippines Republic of the Philippines vs. J. Felix V. Barbers Lope Gerian vs. al ejandro R. Boncaros Prima Tandoc vs. Ricardo Tensuan The People of the Philippines vs. Casto al ejandrino Provincial Board of Agusan vs. Pastor D. Ago The People of the Philippines vs. Antonio C. Garcia, et al. Chee Kiong Yam, et al. vs. Hon. Nabdar J. Malik, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. P-1623 October 9, 1979
JULIETA P. DALISAY,complainant,
vs.
EUCLIDES DALISAY,respondent.
FERNANDEZ,J.:
In a verified letter-complaint filed with this Court on April 27, 1977, Julieta Pueblas Dalisay charged her husband, Euclides Dalisay, a court stenographer in the Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental, Branch IV, with immorality.1
The complaint alleged that the complainant and the respondent were married in Mati, Davao Oriental, on August 22, 1970; that later the complainant and the respondent had a son who was named Geoffrey; that sometime in the early part of 1972, the respondent abandoned the complainant and their son and lived with another woman, Salome Lumod, at Mati, Davao Oriental; that the respondent also failed to support the complainant and their son; and that the respondent likewise broke his promise to leave Salome Lumod.
In his comment,2the respondent denied the charge and alleged that it was the complainant who left their conjugal home.
In a resolution dated July 31, 1978, this Court referred the instant case to Executive Judge Francisco Consolacion of the Court of First Instance of Davao City for investigation, report and recommendation.3
The evidence adduced by the complainant established that the complainant and the respondent were married on August 22, 1970 as shown by their marriage contract4; that the complainant later gave birth to a son named Geoffrey on June 22, 19715; that in the early part of 1972, the respondent left his family and stayed away from their conjugal home; that later in 1972, the complainant discovered that the respondent was living with another woman named Salome Lumod; that upon said discovery, the respondent promised to leave Salome Lumod and he and the complainant together with Salome Lumod executed on November 4-12, 1972 a mutual agreement which reads:
MUTUAL AGREEMENT
That I, EUCLIDES P. DALISAY, of legal age, married to Julieta Pueblas and a resident of Mati, Davao Oriental is hereby, known as party of the first part;
I, JULIETA PUEBLAS, of legal age, married to Euclides P. Dalisay and a resident of Mati, Davao Oriental is hereby known as party of the second part;
I, SALOME LUMOD, of legal age, single and a resident of Mati, Davao Oriental is hereby known as party of the third part;
That party of the first part hereby promise to the party of the second part that he will remain faithful to the party of the second part and will live with her again as husband and wife;
That party of the third part also promise that she will not come in contact with the party of the first part;
That party of the second part hereby promise to the party of the first and third part to forgive them of their illegal actuations in the past and to warn the party of the first part not to Perform other illegal acts in the future.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto affix our signatures this 22 nd day of November, 1972, at Mati, Davao Oriental, Philippines.
(SGD) EUCLIDES P. DALISAY
Party of the first part
(SGD) JULIETA PUEBLAS DALISAY
Party of the second part(SGD) SALOME LUMOD
Party of the third partWitness to signatures:
1. ILLEGIBLE
2. ILLEGIBLE6;
that despite the foregoing undertaking, the respondent continued to live with Salome Lumod and they had three children namely, Randolph L. Dalisay who was born on May 9, 19737; Clyde L. Dalisay who was born on July 1, 19768; and Jennifer L. Dalisay; and that the respondent also failed to support the complainant and their son Geoffrey.
After the complainant had rested her case during the investigation, the respondent, through counsel, made the following manifestation:
ATTY. LADERA:
Your Honor please, after a lengthy discussion with my client, he manifested his desire not to present evidence any longer your Honor so we are now waiving the right of the respondent to present evidencein this proceeding and we are therefore submitting the case for the resolution of the Honorable Court without any further argument your Honor.9
The investigating judge submitted a report based on the evidence of the complainant only. He found that the respondent is guilty of the charge of immorality and recommended that he be dismissed from the government service.ℒαwρhi৷
The evidence of record has clearly shown that the respondent is not only guilty of immorality but of failure to comply with his duty to support the complainant and their son Geoffrey. The penalty of separation from the service is warranted.
WHEREFORE,the respondent is found guilty of immorality and of failure to support his wife, the complainant, and their son, Geoffrey, and is hereby orderedDISMISSEDas court stenographer of the Court of First Instance of Davao Oriental, Branch IV, with forfeiture of all retirement privileges and with prejudice to reinstatement in the national and local governments, as well as in any instrumentality or agency including government owned or controlled corporations, effective upon the finality of this decision.
Let a copy of this decision be filed with his personal record.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, Actg. C.J., (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, De Castro and Melencio- Herrera, JJ., concur.
Footnotes