ALEJANDRO ESTRADA VS.

SOLEDAD ESCRITOR
AUG. 4, 2003
PUNO,J.
FACTS:
1. Complainant Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr.,
requesting for an investigation of rumors that respondent Soledad
Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her
husband. They allegedly have a child of eighteen to twenty years old.
Estrada filed the charge against Escritor as he believes that she is
committing an immoral act that tarnishes the image of the court, thus
she should not be allowed to remain employed therein as it might
appear that the court condones her act.
2. Judge Caoibes referred the letter to Escritor who stated that there is
no truth as to the veracity of the allegation and challenged Estrada to
appear in the open and prove his allegation in the proper forum.
3. In the preliminary conference, Escritor testified that when she entered
the judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow, her husband having
died in 1998. She admitted that she has been living with Luciano
Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage for twenty years and that
they have a son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the
Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their
conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In
fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a
Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness. QUILAPIO, on the same day,
also executed the same pledge.
The declaration requires the approval of the elders of the Jehovahs
Witnesses congregation and is binding within the congregation all over
the world except in countries where divorce is allowed. The Jehovahs
congregation requires that at the time the declarations are executed,
the couple cannot secure the civil authorities approval of the marital
relationship because of legal impediments.
4. When Escritor and Quilapio started to live together, they were still both
married to other people. Escritors husband was alive but living with
another woman. Quilapio was separated in fact from his wife.
5. The investigating judge recommended that respondent be found guilty
of immorality and that she be penalized with suspension of six months
and one day without pay with a warning that a repetition of a similar
act will be dealt with more severely in accordance with the Civil
Service Rules
ISSUE: whether or not respondents right to religious freedom should
carve out an exception from the prevailing jurisprudence on illicit relations for
which government employees are held administratively liable.
HELD:

YES. From the cases cited, the Court finds that there is no reason to deviate
from these rulings that such illicit relationship constitutes disgraceful and
immoral conduct punishable under the Civil Service Law. Respondent having
admitted the alleged immoral conduct, she could be held administratively
liable. However, her religious freedom is a distinguishing factor. The
Jehovahs Witnesses, has, after thorough investigation, allowed her conjugal
arrangement with Quilapio based on the churchs religious beliefs and
practices. This distinguishing factor compels the Court to apply the religious
clauses to the case at bar.
The case is REMANDED to the Office of the Court Administrator. The
Solicitor General is ordered to intervene in the case where it will be given the
opportunity (a) to examine the sincerity and centrality of respondents
claimed religious belief and practice; (b) to present evidence on the states
compelling interest to override respondents religious belief and practice;
and (c) to show that the means the state adopts in pursuing its interest is the
least restrictive to respondents religious freedom. The rehearing should be
concluded thirty (30) days from the Office of the Court Administrators receipt
of this Decision.
Since neither Estrada, Escritor nor the government has filed a motion for
reconsideration assailing the August 4, 2003 ruling, the 2003 decision has
attained finality and constitutes the law of the case. Any attempt to reopen
this ruling constitutes a contravention of elementary rules of procedure.
Worse, insofar as it would overturn the parties right to rely upon the
Supreme Courts interpretation which has long attained finality, it also runs
counter to substantive due process.
In its June 20, 2006 ruling, the Supreme Court held that, Escritors sincerity is
beyond serious doubt. She procured the certificate 10 years after their union
began and not merely after being implicated. The free exercise of religion is a
fundamental right that enjoys a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights.
The states broad interest in protecting the institutions of marriage and the
family is not a compelling interest enforcing the concubinage charges against
Escritor. The Constitution adheres to the benevolent neutrality approach
that gives room for accommodation of religious exercises as required by the
Free Exercise Clause. Even assuming that there was a compelling state
interest, the state failed to show evidence that the means the state adopted
in pursuing this compelling interest is the least restrictive to Escritors
religious freedom. Hence, Escritors conjugal arrangement cannot be
penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on
her right to freedom of religion.