JOSELITO SALUNDAY AND DANILO M. MANIQUIZ, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUSTICE EUGENIO S. LABITORIA, RESPONDENT.

The present administrative case stemmed from the
affidavit-complaint^[1] filed by Joselito P. Salunday and Danilo
M. Maniquiz on October 9, 2000 against Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria,
Associate
Justice of the Court of Appeals, for grave misconduct and/or conduct
unbecoming
a member of the judiciary.

In their complaint, Salunday and Maniquiz alleged that on
August 15, 2000,
they learned from the office of Senator Franklin M. Drilon that there is
an
appropriation for the construction of a justice hall to house a branch
of the
Regional Trial Court and another branch of the Municipal Trial Court in
Bambang,
Nueva Vizcaya.

On August 30, 2000, Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria transmitted to
then Justice
Secretary Artemio G. Tuquero, former Justice of the Court of Appeals,
the
Resolution^[2] of
the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, Nueva Vizcaya Chapter, recommending the construction of
the
justice hall on the lot donated by the late RTC Judge Catalino M.
Rañada.
Complainants claimed that the reason why Justice Labitoria recommended
the
Rañada property is because it is located at the back of the Juel Garden
Hotel
owned by him.

On October 3, 2000, complainants went to the office of
Secretary Tuquero at
the Department of Justice, Padre Faura, Manila, to submit the letter of
Congressman Carlos Padilla recommending them as contractors. While
waiting
outside, Justice Labitoria came out of the Secretary’s room and, upon
seeing
them, shouted and told them not to intervene in the selection of the
proposed
site for the justice hall. Justice Labitoria further yelled, “Who are
you to
confuse the Department of Justice? Refrain from doing acts pertaining to
the
construction of the hall of justice.”

Complainants also alleged that on October 6, 2000, Justice
Labitoria went to
the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and contacted Engr.
Carlos M.
Lopez, the official who would conduct the inspection of the proposed
sites.
Justice Labitoria even wrote Engr. Arturo M. Santos, also of the DPWH,
to
contest the result of the inspection previously conducted, claiming that
“the
area of the proposed hall of justice was personally bulldozed and
leveled upon
my instruction using my personal equipment and money.”^[3] According to
complainants, Justice
Labitoria recommended the Rañada property for his financial
benefit.

Complainants thus assert that Justice Labitoria should be found
guilty of
gross misconduct and penalized accordingly.

In his comment, Justice Labitoria vehemently denied
complainants’
allegations, claiming that this is the first time in his thirty (30)
years of
service in the judiciary that he is being charged with gross misconduct
and/or
conduct unbecoming of a public official.

Justice Labitoria narrated the incidents on October 3, 2000. On
that day,
upon request of former Congressman William Claver, Justice Labitoria
accompanied
him to the office of Secretary Tuquero for some official transactions.
He agreed
to join Congressman Claver since he wanted to follow up with Secretary
Tuquero
the construction of the proposed hall of justice. When they reached
Secretary
Tuquero’s office, he saw complainant Danilo Maniquiz, his townmate from
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya. He then asked Maniquiz, “O, nandito pala kayo,

pinapalo-up ninyo ang justice hall?” The latter replied, “Opo.” He also
saw
complainant Joselito Salunday. Before he left the room, he heard
Salunday
suggesting to Secretary Tuquero to transfer the site of the justice hall
from
the Rañada property to the lot donated by Atty. Antonio Dumlao, saying
he
(Salunday) will undertake the construction of the building per his
agreement
with Mayor Pepito Balgos of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya.

When Maniquiz came out of Secretary Tuquero’s office, Justice
Labitoria told
him that the justice hall should be built at the Rañada lot since it is
in the
name of the Department of Justice (DOJ), registered as early as
September 11,
1998 as shown by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 110480 of the
Registry of
Deeds of Nueva Vizcaya. Justice Labitoria explained that Judge Rañada,
during
his lifetime, donated the lot to then Mayor Luisa Lloren Cuaresma who,
in turn,
donated the same to the DOJ. At any rate, he advised Salunday that he
could bid
for the construction of the justice hall on the Rañada
property.

Justice Labitoria further explained that his involvement in the
construction
of the proposed justice hall started in 1995 when Mayor Cuaresma asked
him to
help in following up the status of the project. Both complainants filed
the
instant administrative case against him when he opposed the transfer of
the site
from the Rañada property to the Dumlao property and refused to recommend
them as
contractors. He did not recommend the Rañada property for the financial
gain of
the Juel Garden Hotel for the following reasons: first, he recommended
the place
to be the site of the justice hall as early as 1996, but the hotel was
built
much later or in 1997 to 1998; second, the owner of the Juel Garden is a

corporation wherein his wife is one of its stockholders; third, the
Rañada
property is not beside the Juel Garden Hotel – it is located 150 meters
away and
is separated from the hotel by a ravine and a municipal road. On the
contrary,
the Dumlao property is nearer to the hotel, being only 130 meters
away.

Justice Labitoria stressed that his interest in the project is
spurred, not
by a dishonest purpose, but mainly by his desire to help his townmates
who can
be spared of more time and expenses in travelling to the “Capitol to
attend
trial of their cases.” Lastly, Salunday is not worthy of belief because
he has
been charged with violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 several
times.

In our Resolution dated June 4, 2001,^[4] we referred the case to retired
Supreme
Court Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. “for recommendation.”^[5]

In a Resolution^[6] dated November 27,
2001, the Court En Banc accepted this case referred to it en
consulta
by the Third Division.

In his Report and Recommendation, Justice Torres recommended
that the
complaint be dismissed but that respondent Justice Labitoria be
admonished to
refrain from doing “similar acts as may taint his personal image as a
magistrate.” Justice Torres’ Report and Recommendation partly
reads:

“Complainants ascribe to respondent two acts allegedly
amounting to gross
misconduct and/or conduct unbecoming a member of the
judiciary;

1. that respondent shouted at them in the office of
   then Secretary of Justice,
   Justice Tuquero on October 3, 2000; and

2. acts of respondent that were allegedly committed in
   the furtherance of his
   desire to benefit financially and take advantage of his position as
   member of
   the judiciary by persuading, inducing or influencing the Department of
   Justice
   to decide that the hall of justice of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya be
   constructed
   beside the Juel Garden Hotel which is wholly owned by Juel Estate Land
   Inc., a
   corporation organized out of the assets of the spouses Labitoria.

“On the alleged incident that took place on October 3, 2000, the version

of the respondent is more worthy of belief, as it is supported by the
affidavit
of a disinterested and credible man in the person of Justice Artemio G.
Tuquero.
x x x. Complainants allege that respondent shouted at them at the
receiving
area, after respondent came out of Justice Tuquero’s office. However,
contrary
thereto, the two complainants could not have been together at that same
moment
because as attested by Justice Tuquero, and thereby corroborating
respondent’s
version, Mr. Salunday was left inside his office when respondent Justice

Labitoria followed Congressman Claver in the receiving area. Moreover,
that
there was such a shouting incident is belied by Justice Tuquero’s
statement that
if there was any shouting or embarrassing words uttered by Justice
Labitoria
against complainants Mr. Salunday and Mr. Maniquiz, during that meeting
on
October 3, 2000, he should have known as the members of his staff or the

security guards in the corridor outside his office, would have reported
to him.
There was no report of any incident that happened between Justice
Labitoria and
the herein complainants.

“Thus, with regard to the alleged incident on October 3, 2000,
it is
recommended that respondent be absolved of the charge.

“The second act complained of shall now be discussed: that of
respondent’s
alleged acts of influencing the Department of Justice to decide that the
hall of
justice of Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, be constructed in the Rañada property
which
is beside respondent’s Juel Garden Hotel, in order for respondent to
benefit
financially thereby.

“The pleadings and annexes thereto, and records of the case
show that
respondent was instrumental from the beginning towards the preparation
of the
construction of a Justice Hall in Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya, upon the
request of
Mayor Cuaresma. It was also the Mayor who requested the respondent to
help the
municipality in the leveling of the Rañada property.

“It is apparent that as early as June 1996, the Rañada property
was already
donated (Rollo, p. 63) to the Municipality of Bambang and titled in the
name of
the Department of Justice on September 1, 1998. However, in August,
2000, the
herein complainants, being building contractors, became interested in
the
project upon learning of the nine million pesos appropriation therefor,
and
wanted the Dumlao property to be the site of the project. Respondent
averred in
his Comment that the complainants even went to his office and his
residence
pleading that he intercede in their favor for the transfer of site of
the
Justice Hall from the Rañada property to the Dumlao property. This,
complainants
did not deny in their Comment (should be Reply, Rollo, pp.
104-106).

“Now, aside from the fact that the Rañada property has the
advantage of being
already titled in the name of the DOJ, whether or not respondent was
following
up in favor of the better site cannot be gleaned from the records of the
case
because the DPWH site inspection reports changed like a pendulum with
every
re-inspection of the two (2) proposed sites as can be observed in the
inspection
reports dated October 25, 1995 (Rollo, p. 51), October 2, 2000 (Rollo,
p.
119-120) and December 15, 2000 (Rollo, p. 88), in relation to the
letters dated
September 14, 2000 (written by Mayor Pepito Balgos, Rollo, p. 76) and
October 6,
2000 (written by respondent, Rollo, pp. 81-82). At any rate, it would
not matter
if the respondent is following-up in favor of the better site. The issue
is
whether or not the respondent overstepped the bounds of propriety when
he went
on following-up the construction of the hall of justice.

“It is submitted that complainants’ allegation that respondent
was
influencing the DOJ in the selection of the site in furtherance of the
latter’s
desire to benefit financially because the Rañada property is beside his
Juel
Garden Hotel is, at best, speculative or conjectural. An allegation per
se is no
evidence.

“It must be noted that it was Mayor Cuaresma who requested the
respondent in
1995 to help the municipality of Bambang in following up the project.
Respondent’s mistake assumably lies in that the moment he acceded to the
said
request, he became steadfast in his resolve to perform the task possibly
as a
civic duty.

“Respondent’s claim is that his only wish is the immediate
construction of a
Justice Hall to help the people of Southern Nueva Vizcaya ease their
burden of
wasted time and expenses in going to and from the capitol to attend
trials of
their cases.

“Respondent’s intention may be commendable— that of
facilitating the
construction of a hall of justice in his hometown. Respondent’s
intention to
help his provincemates to have easy access to the hall of justice
however lofty
may, in the perception of some be misconstrued, given the facts
appearing on
record. While misconduct is one “such as affects his performance of his
duties
as an officer and not such only as affect his character as a private
individual
(Amosco vs. Magro, Ad. Matter No. 439-MTJ, Sept. 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 107),

nevertheless, respondent should not give complainants an occasion to
perceive
that he (respondent) is committing an act of impropriety or the
appearance
thereof in all his activities. While respondent’s acts of following-up
the
construction of the Justice Hall should not be overlooked, neither
should he be
penalized on the basis of suspicions derived from speculative
inferences, such
as, that the result would benefit him.

“Thus, the second charge should likewise be dismissed for being
speculative,
but respondent should be admonished to refrain from doing similar acts
as may
taint his personal image as a magistrate.”^[7]

On January 22, 2002, the Court En Banc
issued a Resolution requiring
the parties to manifest within ten (10) days from notice if they are
willing to
submit this case for decision on the basis of the pleadings
filed.

On February 18, 2002, respondent Justice Labitoria filed a
Manifestation
submitting this case for decision based on the pleadings. Complainants,
despite notice, failed to file the required
manifestation.

On the shouting incident which transpired in the DOJ on October
3, 2000, we
find respondent’s version to be more credible, being corroborated by the
sworn
statement^[8] of
then Justice Secretary
Artemio G. Tuquero. He attested that there was no report from the
members of his
staff and the guards that respondent shouted at the complainants.
Surely,
Justice Tuquero would have known if such an unusual incident transpired
in his
office. It bears emphasis that complainants failed to substantiate their

accusation with adequate proof. Their mere allegation is not equivalent
to
proof.^[9]

On the charge that respondent Justice recommended the
construction of the
hall of justice on the Rañada property because it is nearer the Juel
Hotel of
which he is the owner, we find the same unworthy of belief. The hotel is
owned,
not by respondent, but by a corporation of which his wife is only one of
its
stockholders. More telling is the fact that the construction of the
justice hall
on the Dumlao property proposed by complainants will be more beneficial
to the
Juel Hotel. As shown by a Sketch Plan^[10]
submitted by the respondent which was not contested by the complainants,
“The
Rañada property is separated by a ravine and a road which is 150 meters
away
from Juel Hotel. Reaching the Rañada property from Juel Hotel is by
circuitous
way than the National Highway. The Dumlao property is nearer and more
advantageous to Juel Hotel.^[11]

Moreover, there is no clear indication that in recommending the
Rañada
property, respondent was impelled by a desire to benefit financially. He

recommended that site because primarily it has been leveled with the use
of his
personal equipment upon the request of Mayor Cuaresma. Consequently, the

government will be able to save some public funds. Also, the fact that
he was
recommending the Rañada property as early as 1995 dispels any suspicion
that his
recommendation is anchored on his financial interest.

It is clear from the records that in charging herein respondent

administratively, complainants did not come to court with clean hands,
so to
speak. They have impure motive. They want the respondent to intercede
with the
Department of Justice and the Department of Public Works and Highways in
order
that they would be accredited as contractors of the hall of justice.
They were
turned down by the respondent. Next. They want the hall of justice to be

constructed on the Dumlao property where they would earn more as
contractors.
Again, respondent declined. Sensing that they may not bag the P9M
contract, they
turned the table on respondent Justice and charged him instead as the
one with
financial interest in insisting that the construction of the hall of
justice
should be on the Rañada property.

On the whole, we find that the instant administrative complaint
is baseless
and ill motivated.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against
Justice Eugenio S.
Labitoria is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, and
Corona, JJ.,
concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., on
leave.
Bellosillo, J., no
part. Did not take part in deliberation.

^[2]
Rollo, pp. 4-5.

^[3]
Reply, Rollo, p. 105.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 132.

^[5] Sec.
3, Rule 140 of the Revised
Rules of Court, as amended.

^[6]
Rollo, p. 133.

^[7]
Report and Recommendation, pp.
7-11.

^[8]
Rollo, p. 38.

^[9]
Sadhwani, et al. v. Court of
Appeals, 281 SCRA 75, 87 (1997).

^[10]
Annex “1” of COMMENT and/or
REJOINDER (on Complainants’ Reply captioned Comment) dated January 11,
2002,
Rollo, pp. 152-160, 160.

^[11]
Manifestation and Motion, etc.
dated February 18, 2002, filed by respondent Justice Labitoria, Rollo,
pp.
182-191.