Educational Management Test (EMT) Final Coaching – CASE 1

Conducted by GML Review and Consultancy

CASE NO. 1: MARIMAR SAGLIT VERSUS FERNANDO JOSE

In contracting marriage with Eva Fonda on May 23, 1986, Mr. Fernando Jose, public school
teacher of Eden Elementary School, Division of Timbuktu., for more than twenty (20) years, did not hide
the fact that he was married to complainant Marimar Saglit, having disclosed it in his affidavit jointly
executed with Eva Fonda on May 23, 1986, particularly paragraph 4 thereof which reads:

“4. That affiant Adan Fonda, was formerly married to Marimar Saglit but who left and abandoned
their family home sometime in 1965 in Katipunan, Phil, and until now at present her whereabouts is not
known”

It was therefore a marriage contracted under Article 83(2) of the Civil Code which, although
bigamous, remains valid until automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance
of the absent spouse (Art. 42, Family Code.) Respondent’s assertion that since 1965 to the present, his
first wife Marimar Saglit had left their conjugal welling and did not return, her whereabouts being
unknown, was not controverted. Living as husband and wife pursuant to an authorized bigamous
marriage, respondent cannot be said to be acting in an immoral and scandalous manner, and the
immoral stigma of extra-marital union since 1969 duly declared in their aforesaid joint affidavit, may be
considered cleansed by their marriage in 1986, if Art. 1395 of the Civil Code on ratification on contracts
in general is allowed to be applied, it being ratification of marital cohabitation. Article 76 of Civil Code,
now Art. 34 of the Family Code was intended to facilitate and encourage the marriage of persons who
have been living in a state of concubinage for more than five (5) years. Indicating his civil status in the
marriage contract as “single” is hardly considered a misrepresentation of fact, specially to the
solemnizing officer, Municipal Mayor James Bond to whom the aforesaid joint affidavit was submitted.

THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED. This office holds the respondent culpable for gross immorality, he having
scandalously and openly cohabited with the said Eva Fonda during the existence of his marriage with
Marimar Saglit. Respondent is hereby meted the penalty of suspension from service for six (6) months
and one (1) day.

Contrary to his protestations that he started to cohabit with Eva Fonda only after his first wife,
Marimar Saglit, had long abandoned him and the conjugal home in 1966, it appears from the record that
he had been scandalously and openly living with said Eva Fonda as early as 1970 as known by the fact
that he begot three children by her, namely Uranus, Venus and Saturn, all surnamed Fonda. Uranus was
born on July 14, 1970; Venus was born on September 7, 1971; while Saturn was born on September 20,
1975. Evidently, therefore, respondent and Eva Fonda had openly lived together even while
respondent’s marriage to his first wife was still valid and subsisting. The provisions of Sec. 3 (w) of the
Rules of Court and Art. 390 of the Civil Code which provide that, after an absence of seven years, it being
unknown whether or not the absentee still lives, the absent spouse shall be considered dead for all
purposes, except for those of succession, cannot be invoked by respondent. By respondent’s own
allegation, Marimar Saglit left the conjugal home in 1966. From that time on up to the time that
respondent started to cohabit with Eva Fonda on 1970, only four years had elapsed. Respondent had no

GML does not claim ownership to the materials. Full credit and all rights reserved to the respective authors/ sources cited
1
 Educational Management Test (EMT) Final Coaching – CASE 1
Conducted by GML Review and Consultancy

right to presume therefore that Marimar Saglit was already dead for all purposes. Thus, respondent’s
actuation of cohabiting with Eva Fonda in 1970 when his marriage to Marimar Saglit was still valid and
subsisting constitutes gross immoral conduct. It makes mockery of the inviolability and sanctity of
marriage as a basic social institution. According to Justice Malcolm: “The basis of human society
throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. It is not only a civil contract, but is a new relation, an
institution on the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every
intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony.” (Civil Code, 1933 Ed., Volume 1, p. 122,
Ramon C. Aquino).

By committing the immorality in question, respondent violated the trust reposed on his position
as a public school teacher and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideas and strict standards of morality
required of a public servant.

QUESTIONS:

1. What is the imposable penalty for the commission of Gross Immorality?

2. What is/are the possible mitigating circumstance/s that can be appreciated in the
above-cited case?
3. Is the decision of the Regional Director final and Executory?
4. Enumerate the grounds in filing a motion for reconsideration to the Disciplining
Authority:
5. What is the effect if the complainant in the instant case withdraws her complaint
against Fernando Jose?

QUESTIONS:

1. What is the imposable penalty for the commission of Gross Immorality?

Suggested Answer:

The imposable penalty for the first offense of Gross Immorality or Disgraceful or
Immoral Conduct is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year.

2. What is/are the possible mitigating circumstance/s that can be appreciated in the
above-cited case?

Suggested Answer:

The possible mitigating circumstance that can be appreciated in the instant case
as provided for in Section 59 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of
Education in Administrative Cases (DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006) is the length of service
of the respondent.

GML does not claim ownership to the materials. Full credit and all rights reserved to the respective authors/ sources cited
2
 Educational Management Test (EMT) Final Coaching – CASE 1
Conducted by GML Review and Consultancy

3. Is the decision of the Regional Director final and Executory?

Suggested Answer:

The decision of the Regional Director in imposing the penalty of suspension for
six (6) months and one (1) day shall become final and executory after the lapse of the
reglemantary period of filing a Motion for Reconsideration or an Appeal and no such
pleading has been filed. (Section 46, DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006 Revise Rules of
Procedure of the Department of Education in Administrative Cases)

4. Enumerate the grounds in filing a motion for reconsideration to the Disciplining

Authority:

Suggested Answer:

The Motion for Reconsideration shall be based on any of the following:

a) New Evidence has been discovered which materially affects the decision
rendered;
b) The decision is not supported by the evidence on record;
c) Errors of law or irregularities have been committed prejudicial to the
interest of the movant.

5. What is the effect if the complainant in the instant case withdraws her complaint
against Fernando Jose?

Suggested Answer:

Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Education in

Administrative Cases provides that the withdrawal of the complaint does not result in
the outright dismissal nor in the discharge of the person complained of from any
administrative liability. Where there is obvious truth or merit to the allegations in the
complaint or where there is documentary evidence that would tend to prove the guilt of
the person complained of, the same should be given due course.

GML does not claim ownership to the materials. Full credit and all rights reserved to the respective authors/ sources cited
3