Estrada v. Escritor Digest

Estrada v. Escritor

A.M.No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

Puno, J.:

Facts:

1. Respondent is the Court interpreter of RTC Branch 253 in Las Pinas City. The complainant Estrada requested for an investigation  of respondent for living with a man not her husband while she was still legally married and having borne a child within this live-in arrangement. Estrada believed that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act.

2. Respondent admitted she started living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. more than 20 years ago when her husband was still alive but living with another woman. She likewise admitted having a son with Quilapio but denies any liability for alleged grossly immoral conduct because, 1) She is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Watch Tower Society, 2) That the conjugal arrangement was in  conformity  with their religious beliefs, and 3)  That the conjugal arrangement with Quilapio has the approval of her congregation.

3. Escritor likewise claimed that she had executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness' in accordance with her religion which allows members of the Jehovah’s witnesses who have been abandoned by their spouses to enter into marital relations. The Declaration thus makes the resulting union moral and binding within the congregation all over the world except in countries where divorce is allowed.

Held:

Escritor was therefore held not administratively liable for grossly immoral conduct. Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption from the law based on her fundamental right to religion. The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms—including religious freedom—may be enjoyed. 

In the area of religious exercise as preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing that the state interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.