G.R. No.

P-02-1651 (June 22, 2006)

ALEJANDRO ESTRADA, Complainant, vs. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR, Respondent

FACTS:

 Alejandro Estrada wrote to Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., requesting for an investigation of rumors that Soledad
Escritor, court interpreter in said court, is living with a man not her husband.

 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.

 Judge Caoibes set a preliminary conference on October 12, 2000. Escritor moved for the inhibition of Judge
Caoibes from hearing her case to avoid suspicion and bias as she previously filed an administrative complaint
against him and said case was still pending in the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Escritor's motion
was denied. The preliminary conference proceeded with both Estrada and Escritor in attendance.

 Respondent Escritor testified that when she entered judiciary in 1999, she was already a widow. She has been
living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage for 20 years and they have a son. Quilapio was
separated in fact from his wife. As a member of the religious sect Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower and
Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In fact, on their tenth
year of living together, they executed a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness" which is recognized as marital
arrangement before "JEHOVAH" and makes the union moral and binding within the congregation.

 In their August 4, 1003 decision, the Court held that in resolving claims involving religious freedom (1)
benevolent neutrality or accommodation, whether mandatory or permissive, is the spirit, intent and framework
underlying the religion clauses in our Constitution; and (2) in deciding respondent’s plea of exemption based on
the Free Exercise Clause (from the law with which she is administratively charged), it is the compelling state
interest test, the strictest test, which must be applied.

 The Solicitor General contends that the State has a compelling interest to override respondent’s claimed
religious belief and practice, in order to protect marriage and the family as basic social institutions. However,
the Court ruled that it is not the State’s broad interest in "protecting the institutions of marriage and the family,"
that must be weighed against respondent’s claim, but the State’s narrow interest in refusing to make an
exception for the cohabitation which respondent’s faith finds moral. This, the Solicitor General failed to do.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not respondent should be held administratively liable

RULING:

1. No. Escritor’s conjugal arrangement cannot be penalized as she has made out a case for exemption based on her
freedom of religion. The Court recognizes that state interests must be upheld in order that freedoms may be
enjoyed. In the area of religious exercise, 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 such state interest exists, man must
be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.