CESAR M. SOTERO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. GREGORIO BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

In a verified letter-complaint, dated September 11, 1973,
addressed to the NBI Sub-Office in Tarlac, Tarlac, Cesar M. Sotero, a Tarlac Assistant Provincial Fiscal, complained that Atty.
Gregorio Bautista, Deputy Clerk of Branch IV, Court of First Instance of Paniqui, Tarlac, committed acts
unbecoming an officer of the court and derogatory to the public service, when,
on September 10, 1973, between 1:30 and 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, said
respondent, evidently under the influence of liquor and for no reason at all,
uttered defamatory statements against him and his wife, Marjorie R. Sotero, a subordinate employee in the same court.

Accordingly, the Tarlac NBI Sub-Office
conducted an investigation of the complaint; filed the corresponding criminal
case for grave slander in the Municipal Court of Paniqui,
Tarlac, docketed therein as Criminal Case No. 2314;
and referred the administrative aspect of the case to this Court for
corresponding action.

Answering the complaint, respondent denied all the charges
against him.  However, he admitted that
“in the interest of truth, x x I drink
occasionally but I do not report for work under the influence of liquor in the
manner I am pictured to have been doing so in the report.  I remember of three occasions only between
August 16, 1971 which is the date of the effectivity
of my appointment herein and September 11, 1973 wherein I was a little bit
drunk in going to the office, and all of these took place after lunch time —
the reason being that I failed to resist the tempting offers for drink by the
company with whom I was then with (sic) in taking my lunch on these
occasions.”

By Resolution of this Court’s First Division, dated August 25, 1976, this case was
referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Tarlac for investigation, report and recommendation.

The Investigating Judge recommended “that Administrative
Matter No. P-226 be dismissed, the case considered
closed and the respondent exonerated.” Evidently, the recommendation of
the Investigating Judge was anchored on the failure of complainant and his wife
to appear, despite notice, at the investigation of the case on October 7, 1976, and on the affidavit
of desistance filed earlier by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Sotero
in behalf of his wife.

(WE cannot subscribe to
the aforesaid recommendation for exoneration of the respondent.

Evidence which are documentary in
character appearing in the records of this case reveal that indeed respondent
misbehaved.  A certification, dated
September 12, 1973, issued by the chief of police of Paniqui,
Tarlac, shows that in the police blotter of September
9, 1973 “at around 2:30 PM Atty. Gregorio Bautista, Deputy Clerk of Court
at CFI, Branch IV, Paniqui, Tarlac
created a public disorder at the Office of the Municipal Secretary while under the influence of liquor.”

Then, when respondent was summoned to appear in the Office of the
National Bureau of Investigation, Tarlac, Tarlac, to explain his side in connection with the
complaint of Assistant Provincial Fiscal Cesar Sotero,
Senior NBI Agent Cesar B. de Leon
reported: “It is noteworthy to mention in this connection that Subject
(respondent) was afforded a chance to defend himself.  However, instead of complying with the NBI
summons addressed to him, he appeared in the Office disgracefully drunk and was
not at all in a physical state to explain.”

The foregoing documentary proofs, which remain unrebutted, coupled with respondent’s admission that on
“three occasions only between August 16, 1971 which is the date of the effectivity of my appointment herein and September 11, 1973
wherein I was a little bit drunk in going to the office and all of these took
place after lunch time — the reason being that I failed to resist the tempting
offers for drink by the company with whom I
was then with (sic) in taking my lunch on these occasions,” unerringly
reveal that indeed respondent misbehaved. 
There is, therefore,
reasonable ground to believe that he is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service and unbecoming an officer of the court) (The
affidavit of desistance executed by the wife of complainant, Marjorie R.
Sotero, on October 7, 1976, which was submitted by
the respondent for the purpose of dismissing this administrative case, becomes
immaterial to this case.  To condition
administrative action upon the will of every complainant, who may, for one
reason or another, condone a detestable act, is to strip the proper authorities
of their power to discipline persons in the public service.  More so, if WE consider that administrative
offenses affect not only rights of private individuals but also those of the
public, and where, as in the instant case, the charge can be proved by other
evidence independent of the stand of the complainant and his wife) (Apropos to
state, in this connection, is the fact that respondent’s position as branch
clerk of court calls for constant contact with the public, and naturally any
indecorous or censurable act such as drunkenness during office hours adversely
affects public opinion concerning the courts as a whole.  Respondent is duty bound to maintain a high
degree of respectability at all times. 
Such is the norm of conduct impose as a condition of employment in the
government service.)

WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT ATTY. GREGORIO BAUTISTA, DEPUTY
CLERK OF BRANCH IV OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF PANIQUI, TARLAC, IS HEREBY
DIRECTED TO PAY A FINE EQUIVALENT TO TWO (2) MONTHS SALARY WITH A STERN WARNING
THAT THE COMMISSION OF THE SAME OR SIMILAR OFFENSE WILL BE DEALT WITH MORE
SEVERELY AND DRASTICALLY.

LET A COPY OF THIS DECISION BE ENTERED IN RESPONDENT’S PERSONAL
RECORD.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Muñoz Palma, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.