Facts:

This case involves Judge Abraham D. CaAa, the complainant, against Roberto B. Gebusion, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental. The complaint was filed on March 30, 2000, and it centers around multiple allegations against Gebusion, including habitual drunkenness, misconduct, unauthorized leave of absence, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The complainant detailed a series of incidents demonstrating Gebusion's drinking problem, which had become notorious and public knowledge. Notably, on November 7, 1995, Gebusion entered the Hall of Justice inebriated, leading to a disturbance that required intervention from Judge CaAa and Executive Judge Roberto S. Javellana. Following this incident, Gebusion applied for an indefinite leave of absence without proper approval, which was disapproved by the Clerk of Court, Atty. Mila D. Yap. Despite this, he remained absent for five months without pay.

In addition ...

Facts:

1. Complainant and Respondent:

   • Judge Abraham D. CaAa of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 58, San Carlos City, filed a complaint against Roberto B. Gebusion, Sheriff IV of the same court.
   • Gebusion was accused of multiple violations, including habitual drunkenness, misconduct, unauthorized absences, and conduct prejudicial to the service.

2. Charges Against Respondent:

   • Habitual Drunkenness: Gebusion was frequently drunk during office hours, causing disturbances and conflicts with co-employees.
   • Misconduct: He engaged in disruptive behavior, including picking quarrels and failing to honor his commitments (e.g., resigning and then retracting).
   • Unauthorized Absences: Gebusion went on indefinite leave without approval and was absent without leave (AWOL) for extended periods.
   • Conduct Prejudicial to the Service: His behavior negatively impacted the court’s operations and reputation.
   • Illegal Possession of Firearms: Gebusion was found carrying a .357 revolver without a license during an election gun ban period.

3. Incidents and Evidence:

   • Gebusion’s drunkenness was a matter of public knowledge, and he admitted to having a drinking problem in several letters of apology.
   • On November 7, 1995, he caused a commotion in the Hall of Justice while drunk, leading to his suspension.
   • On May 25, 1998, he was arrested for illegal possession of a firearm and violating the election gun ban.

4. Investigation and Findings:

   • The case was investigated by Executive Judge Edgar V. Garvilles, who found Gebusion guilty of most charges, except for grave threats and illegal possession of firearms, due to insufficient evidence.
   • The Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in government.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Habitual Drunkenness and Misconduct:

   • Gebusion’s habitual drunkenness and disruptive behavior rendered him unfit for public service. His actions caused strain in workplace relationships and disrupted court operations.
   • Despite multiple apologies and promises to reform, Gebusion failed to change his behavior, demonstrating a lack of self-restraint and civility expected of public servants.

2. Unauthorized Absences and Disregard for Office Rules:

   • Gebusion’s prolonged unauthorized absences and failure to follow office rules constituted conduct prejudicial to the service. Such behavior undermines public trust in the judiciary and justifies dismissal.

3. Illegal Possession of Firearms:

   • Gebusion’s possession of an unlicensed firearm during an election gun ban was a serious violation of the law. As a court officer, he was expected to uphold the law, not violate it.

4. Insufficient Evidence for Grave Threats:

   • The charge of grave threats was not proven due to lack of direct evidence. However, this did not affect the overall finding of administrative liability for other proven violations.

5. Public Office as a Public Trust:

   • The Court emphasized that public office is a public trust. Gebusion’s actions discredited the judiciary and demonstrated his inability to fulfill his duties with competence and integrity.