G.R. No. A.M. No. CA-01-31. July 25, 2002.
JOSELITO SALUNDAY and DANILO M. MANIQUIZ, complainants, vs. JUSTICE EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Joselito Salunday and Danilo Maniquiz filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary against Court of Appeals Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria. The complaint stemmed from two main incidents: (1) On October 3, 2000, at the Department of Justice (DOJ) office of then Secretary Artemio Tuquero, Justice Labitoria allegedly shouted at complainants, telling them not to intervene in the selection of the proposed site for a hall of justice in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya; and (2) Justice Labitoria allegedly used his influence to ensure the hall of justice would be constructed on the Rañada property, which is located near the Juel Garden Hotel owned by a corporation in which his wife is a stockholder, for his financial benefit. Complainants, who were contractors interested in the project, preferred the Dumlao property as the site. Justice Labitoria denied the allegations, explaining that his involvement began in 1995 at the request of then-Mayor Luisa Lloren Cuaresma to help follow up the project. He asserted that the Rañada property was already donated to the DOJ and titled in its name, and his recommendation was based on civic duty, not financial gain. He also denied shouting at complainants, stating he merely advised them that the Rañada property was the appropriate site.

ISSUE

Whether Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria is guilty of grave misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary for allegedly (1) shouting at complainants in the DOJ office and (2) using his position to influence the site selection for the hall of justice for personal financial gain.

RULING

The Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit. On the first charge, the Court found Justice Labitoria’s version more credible, corroborated by the affidavit of then-Secretary Tuquero, who stated no shouting incident occurred and that no staff or security reported any altercation. On the second charge, the Court held that complainants’ allegations of financial interest were speculative and unsubstantiated. Evidence showed that Justice Labitoria had recommended the Rañada property as early as 1995, before the Juel Garden Hotel was built (19971998), and that the hotel was owned by a corporation, not directly by him. Moreover, the Dumlao property was actually nearer to the hotel, making the complainants’ claim illogical. The Court concluded that complainants filed the case after Justice Labitoria refused to recommend them as contractors or support the transfer of the site to the Dumlao property, indicating an impure motive. Thus, no misconduct was established.