ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant,

vs.
SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-02-1651

June 22, 2006

(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-1021-P)

Facts:
Soledad Escritor is a court interpreter since 1999 in the RTC of Las Pinas City. Alejandro Estrada wrote a
letter to the RTC Judge Jose F. Caoibes of Branch 253 of Las Pinas City, requesting for an investigation
of rumors that Escritor has been living with Luciano Quilapio Jr., a man not her husband, and had
eventually begotten a son. Escritors husband, who had lived with another woman, died a year before she
entered into the judiciary. On the other hand, Quilapio is still legally married to another woman. Estrada
is not related to either Escritor or Quilapio and is not a resident of Las Pinas but of Bacoor, Cavite.
According to the complainant, respondent should not be allowed to remain employed in the judiciary for
it will appear as if the court allows such act.
Escritor is a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower and
Bible Tract Society where her conjugal arrangement with Quilapio is in conformity with their religious
beliefs. After ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a Declaration of Pledging
Faithfulness which was approved by the congregation. Such declaration is effective when legal
impediments render it impossible for a couple to legalize their union. Gregorio, Salazar, a member of the
Jehovahs Witnesses since 1985 and has been a presiding minister since 1991, testified and explained the
import of and procedures for executing the declaration which was completely executed by Escritor and
Quilapios in Atimonan, Quezon and was signed by three witnesses and recorded in Watch Tower Central
Office.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent should be found guilty of the administrative charge of gross and immoral
conduct and be penalized by the State for such conjugal arrangement.
HELD:
A distinction between public and secular morality and religious morality should be kept in mind. The
jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality.
The Court states that our Constitution adheres the benevolent neutrality approach that gives room for
accommodation of religious exercises as required by the Free Exercise Clause. This benevolent neutrality
could allow for accommodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling
state interests.
The states interest is the preservation of the integrity of the judiciary by maintaining among its ranks a
high standard of morality and decency. There is nothing in the OCAs (Office of the Court
Administrator) memorandum to the Court that demonstrates how this interest is so compelling that it
should override respondents plea of religious freedom. Indeed, it is inappropriate for the complainant, a
private person, to present evidence on the compelling interest of the state. The burden of evidence should
be discharged by the proper agency of the government which is the Office of the Solicitor General.

In order to properly settle the case at bar, it is essential that the government be given an opportunity to
demonstrate the compelling state interest it seeks to uphold in opposing the respondents position that her
conjugal arrangement is not immoral and punishable as it is within the scope of free exercise protection.
The Court could not prohibit and punish her conduct where the Free Exercise Clause protects it, since this
would be an unconstitutional encroachment of her right to religious freedom. Furthermore, the court
cannot simply take a passing look at respondents claim of religious freedom but must also apply the
compelling state interest test.