AM 226; (July, 1977) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-226 July 29, 1977
CESAR M. SOTERO, complainant, vs. ATTY. GREGORIO BAUTISTA, respondent.
FACTS
Assistant Provincial Fiscal Cesar M. Sotero filed a verified complaint alleging that on September 10, 1973, Atty. Gregorio Bautista, a Deputy Clerk of Court, while evidently under the influence of liquor, uttered defamatory statements against him and his wife, a court employee. The NBI investigated, filed a criminal case for grave slander, and referred the administrative matter to the Supreme Court. In his answer, respondent denied the charges but admitted to reporting for work “a little bit drunk” on three specific occasions after lunch due to social drinking. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation, who recommended dismissal based on the complainant’s failure to appear and an affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant’s wife.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Gregorio Bautista is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a court officer.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court rejected the investigating judge’s recommendation for exoneration. The ruling is anchored on substantial documentary evidence independent of the complainants’ subsequent desistance. A police certification documented that on September 9, 1973, respondent created a public disorder at a municipal office while drunk. Furthermore, an NBI agent reported that when summoned, respondent appeared at the NBI office “disgracefully drunk” and unfit to explain himself. These unrebutted proofs, corroborated by respondent’s own admission of reporting to work intoxicated on multiple occasions, conclusively establish misbehavior.
The Court emphasized that an administrative case is a public concern, not dependent on a private complainant’s will. The affidavit of desistance is immaterial, as the charge was substantiated by other evidence. The respondent, as a branch clerk of court, holds a position demanding the highest standards of conduct and public trust. Drunkenness during office hours is conduct prejudicial to the service and tarnishes the judiciary’s integrity. Accordingly, respondent was fined an amount equivalent to two months’ salary with a stern warning.