Bautista v. Costelo

A.M. No. P-94-1043 (February 28, 1996)

Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Arturo Bautista, the Clerk of Court of Branch 11 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calubian, Leyte, against Margarito Costelo, Jr., a deputy sheriff. The complaint alleges multiple charges against Costelo, including malversation, insubordination, grave misconduct, and violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 3-92, which prohibits the use of Halls of Justice for residential or commercial purposes.

The background of the case dates back to 1991 when Judge Octavio Astilla of Branch 11 requested permission from the Philippine National Police (PNP) to use two vacant buildings owned by the PNP. These buildings were the former enlisted personnel's barracks and the Bachelor Officers' Quarters (BOQ) of the 354th PC Company. The barracks were renovated to serve as a courtroom and offices, while the BOQ was designated as living quarters for Judge Astilla. Costelo was invited by Judge Astilla to stay at the BOQ.

After Judge Astilla was transferred to Manila, Costelo continued to reside at the BOQ, allegedly with the permission of the new judge, Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda. Bautista's complaint, dated April 6, 1994, accused Costelo of constructing a house and a chicken coop using materials from the renovated barracks, appropriating fruits from trees on court grounds, raising livestock near the courthouse, and occupying a room in the courthouse as living quarters. Bautista claimed that he had ordered Costelo to remove the chicken coop, but Costelo only moved it to a nearby septic vault.

Costelo denied the allegations, asserting that the house in question belonged to another individual, Leonilo Plaza, and that the chicken coop was built by enlisted personnel of the 354th PC Company. He claimed that the bed he used was purchased prior to the renovation of the barracks and that he did not appropriate any fruits from the trees. Costelo admitted to raising turkeys but claimed it was for personal consumption, not for business.

The case was referred to Judge Maceda for investigation, but Bautista failed to appear at the hearings. Judge Maceda ultimately found the complaint to be without merit and recommended sanctions against Bautista instead.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether Costelo committed malversation or illegal use of government materials.
2. Whether Costelo violated Supreme Court Circular No. 3-92 by using the courthouse premises for residential purposes.
3. Whether Costelo's actions constituted insubordination or grave misconduct.

Arguments:

• Complainant (Bautista):

  • Bautista argued that Costelo misappropriated government materials to build a house and a chicken coop, raised livestock on court premises, and violated the prohibition against using the courthouse for residential purposes.
  • He claimed that Costelo did not comply with orders to remove the chicken coop and that his actions were detrimental to the dignity of the court.

• Respondent (Costelo):

  • Costelo denied all allegations, asserting that the house was not his and that the chicken coop was built by military personnel. He claimed that the bed was purchased before the renovations and that he did not take any fruits from the trees.
  • He admitted to raising turkeys but insisted it was for personal consumption and that he had complied with the directive to remove the coop.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court, upon reviewing the findings of Judge Maceda and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), concluded that the charges against Costelo were largely unfounded. The court found that:

1. There was no evidence to support the claim that Costelo used government materials for personal construction. The bed was purchased before the renovations, and the house in question was not owned by Costelo.
2. The allegations regarding the appropriation of fruits were dismissed, as it was established that other court personnel, including Bautista, also gathered coconuts from the trees.
3. While Costelo admitted to raising turkeys, the court noted that this was for personal consumption and did not constitute a violation of the prohibition against using the courthouse for residential purposes. However, the court acknowledged that Costelo had kept livestock near the courthouse, which was a violation of Circular No. 3-92.

The court ultimately decided to reprimand Costelo for the violation of Circular No. 3-92 but dismissed the other charges for lack of merit. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the dignity of the Halls of Justice and warned Costelo against future violations.

Significant Legal Principles or Doctrines Established:

1. The prohibition against using Halls of Justice for residential or commercial purposes is strict and applies to all court personnel.
2. The dignity and integrity of the court must be preserved, and any actions that could degrade this dignity are subject to administrative sanctions.
3. The burden of proof lies with the complainant to substantiate allegations of misconduct against court personnel.