AM 2008 19 SC; (July, 2010) (Digest)
A.M. No. 2008-19-SC, July 27, 2010
RE: COMPLAINTS OF MRS. MILAGROS LEE AND SAMANTHA LEE AGAINST ATTY. GIL LUISITO R. CAPITO
FACTS
Complainants Milagros Lee and her daughter Samantha charged Atty. Gil Luisito R. Capito, a Court Attorney IV at the Supreme Court’s Office of the Chief Attorney (OCAT), with grave misconduct and willful failure to pay just debts. Milagros Lee initially consulted respondent regarding a claim for support. Subsequently, respondent borrowed money from her, amounting to a total of P16,000, and requested to stay in her house for a month, promising to pay for board and lodging, which he never did. When complainants went to his office to collect the debt on a promised date, respondent failed to pay.
During the confrontation at the OCAT on September 30, 2008, respondent, in the presence of others, made scandalous and offensive remarks to Milagros Lee, stating, “Eh kung sabihin ko na sugar mommy kita,” and adding, “Nagpapakantot ka naman sa akin.” Respondent denied all allegations, claiming no indebtedness and asserting that the complainants were attempting to ruin his reputation.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Gil Luisito R. Capito is administratively liable for his conduct towards the complainants.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable for Gross Discourtesy. The Court found the complainants’ account, corroborated by witnesses including an OCAT employee who heard the offensive remarks, to be credible. The investigating officer correctly dismissed the charge for willful failure to pay just debts due to lack of substantiation, noting that such a monetary claim should be pursued in a regular collection suit.
The Court emphasized that officials and employees of the Judiciary must uphold strict propriety and decorum. Respondent’s use of abusive, offensive, and scandalous language during an official confrontation within court premises constitutes Gross Discourtesy in violation of civil service rules. This behavior also indicates potential violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 7.03 (prohibiting scandalous conduct) and Rule 8.01 (prohibiting abusive language). Consequently, the Court suspended respondent for Three Months without pay, with a stern warning. The case was also referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action regarding the professional responsibility violations.