G.R. No. A.M. No. P-94-1043. February 28, 1996.
CLERK OF COURT ARTURO Q. BAUTISTA, complainant, vs. DEPUTY SHERIFF MARGARITO C. COSTELO, JR., respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Arturo Bautista, Clerk of Court of the RTC of Calubian, Leyte, charged Deputy Sheriff Margarito Costelo, Jr. with various offenses including malversation, insubordination, and violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 3-92. The charges stemmed from Costelo’s alleged acts of constructing a house and chicken coop using court materials, harvesting fruits from court grounds, raising livestock near the courthouse, and occupying a room within the court premises for residential purposes. The premises in question were former PNP buildings converted for court use, with one building serving as the courthouse and another, the Bachelor Officers’ Quarters (BOQ), used as living quarters.
Respondent denied the material allegations. He asserted that the house belonged to a private individual, the chicken coop was an old structure left by PNP personnel, and the bed was personally purchased. He admitted residing in the BOQ with prior judicial permission but denied living in the courthouse itself. He also admitted raising five turkeys for personal consumption in a coop located just outside the BOQ, which he later relocated after being directed by the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Sheriff Margarito Costelo, Jr. is administratively liable for the acts complained of, particularly for violating Supreme Court Circular No. 3-92.

RULING

Yes, but only for violating Circular No. 3-92. The Court found the charges of malversation, insubordination, and grave misconduct unsubstantiated. The investigating judge’s report, based on uncontradicted evidence from respondent’s witnesses, established that the alleged house construction and material appropriation were false, and the harvesting of fruits was actually done by the complainant and other court personnel. However, the Court found respondent liable for raising livestock within the court premises.
The legal logic is anchored on a strict interpretation of Circular No. 3-92, which prohibits using Halls of Justice for any purpose not directly related to court functions, especially as residential quarters or for carrying on any trade. The Court ruled that this prohibition extends to the immediate vicinity and grounds of the courthouse to preserve its dignity and prevent acts that degrade the administration of justice. Respondent’s act of keeping turkeys just outside the courthouse, even for personal consumption, violated this circular. The excuse of engaging in backyard farming is unacceptable as it compromises the court’s decorum. Following precedent, such use of court premises brings the judiciary into disrepute. Consequently, respondent was ADMONISHED and WARNED that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.