Common-Law Relationship Not Ground for Discipline of Lawyers

I just came across this 2008 Philippine Supreme Court decision which apparently received no publicity but will be of general interest to government employees and lawyers. The issue was whether an unmarried lawyer may be disciplined for maintaining a common law (out of wedlock) relationship and having children with another unmarried individual. 

The respondent in the case (Re: Toledo v. Atty. Toledo, A.M. No. P-07-2403, 6 February 2008), a clerk of court, had been living together with the unmarried mother of his three children for twelve years. For that circumstance, his superiors at the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that he be suspended for three months for "conduct unbecoming a public official and a court employee", and afterwards, he be given 30 days to marry the mother of his children or otherwise resign. 

The Supreme Court rejected the recommendation. There are portions of the ruling¹ that make it quite clear that an out-of-wedlock relationship between unmarried individuals is not cause for disciplinary sanction on the ground of immorality.

This decision validates the choices of unmarried individuals who for whatever reason, are uninterested in the contract of marriage yet wish to live together and start a family (though the children of course will be "illegitimate" and will have to contend with the legal implications of such status). There is no law penalizing unmarried consenting individuals who engage in sexual relations, live together, or have children out of wedlock and live together as a family. (Extramarital relations though are a different matter) Even while lawyers and government employees are judged at a higher standard due to the public service component of their lives, those who engage in such behavior are still not breaking any law. The perception that common-law relationships between unmarried individuals is somehow illegal in the Philippines is probably brought about by the dominant Catholic religion, which frowns upon such relationships. Still, that aspect of Catholic morality has not been translated into Philippine law, and those mores as untransubstantiated cannot be the basis for legal sanction since our Constitution is a religion-neutral document. 

While the particular case involved the administrative discipline of a lawyer, I see no reason why it would not apply as well in the case of government employees. 

---

¹To wit:

"In disbarment cases, this Court has ruled that the mere fact of sexual relations between two unmarried adults is not sufficient to warrant administrative sanction for such illicit behavior. Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as "grossly immoral conduct" will depend on the surrounding circumstances.

This Court has further ruled that intimacy between a man and a woman who are not married, where both suffer from no impediment to marry, voluntarily carried on and devoid of any deceit on the part of respondent, is neither so corrupt as to constitute a criminal act nor so unprincipled as to warrant disbarment or disciplinary action against a member of the Bar.

xxx

It is not unwarranted for us to take judicial notice of the fact that more and more Filipinos are finding it necessary to seek employment abroad in order to provide their loved ones with better lives. We find nothing "unprincipled and undesirable" with seeking all means within the bounds of law and reason to uplift the lot of one's family. It is not for us to inquire into our personnel's motivations for entering into such an arrangement or to judge how they plan to accomplish their goals in life, unless it is shown that they are violating the law in the process.

While the Court has the power to regulate official conduct and, to a certain extent, private conduct, it is not within our authority to make, for our employees, decisions about their personal lives, especially those that will so affect their and their family's future, such as whether they should or should not be married.

There is no allegation that the two have been flaunting their status as common-law husband and wife, or that their cohabitation is attended by scandalous circumstances. Thus, the comportment of respondent and his common-law wife cannot be characterized as "willful, flagrant, shameless, or show[ing] a moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community" as to warrant the exercise of this Court's disciplinary power."