Alejandro Estrada, Complainant ( C)
Admitted also that shes been cohabiting
VERSUS
Soledad Escritor, Respondent ( R )
Ponente: Puno, J.
Doctrine: Article III; section 5 : No law shall be made
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibition the
free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession and worship w.out discrimination r
preference shall forever be allowed. No test shall be
regulated for the exercise of civil and poitical rights.
*cohabiting and live-in couples
Ruling Format: case remanded to office of the court
administrator;
OSG- intervened (rehearing in court administrator) SC-
Puno, J. administrative complaint was dismissed.
Facts of the case:
1. Theres a complaint filed by Alejandro Estrada dated
july 27 2000,in the RTC Las Pinas. Complainant is
requesting for an investigation involving Soledad (R)
a court interpreter in the said court. (two were not
related)
2. (C ) filed charge against (R ) as he believes that shes
committing an immoral act that tarnishes the court
and shouldnt be allowed to remain employed.
3. The rumor is that ( R ) is living with a man not her
husband and have a son of 18- 20 yr. old.
4. ( C ) contends that employees of the judiciary should
be respectable and ( R) live-in arrangement did not
command respect.
5. ( R ) testified that when she entered the judiciary in
1999, she was already a widow, her hubby having
died 1988.
w/ Luciano Quilapo Jr. w/out benefir of marriage for
20 yrs and that they have a son.
6. ( R) further invoke that as a member of religious sect.
Jehovahs witnesses and watch tower bible tract
society, their conjugal arrangement is inconformity
w/ their religious belief and she shouldnt be found
guilty of the administrative charge of gross immoral
conduct.
7. That both executed a declaration pledging
faithfulness in their marital union on July 28 1991.
8. She met Luciano 20 yrs. Ago when her husband was
still alive but living w/ another woman.
Issue: W/ N respondents right to religious freedom
should exempt or spare her from the administrative
charge file against her?
Held. NO. ur constitution adheres to the benevolent
neutrality approach which gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises.
OSG failed to demonstrate that the state has used
intrusive means possible. In short, it failed to prove the
elements of the test. It only proved the sincerity and
centrality of ( R )s religious belief and practice.
( R )s conjugal arrangement cant be penalized based on
her fundamental right to freedom of religion.. ADMIN CASE
dismissed! (hooray! 4 her)