Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > February 2007 Resolutions > [AM OCA I.P.I No. 04-2000-P : February 21, 2007] ATTY. FRANKLIN G. GACAL V. DENNIS A. VELASCO, CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BRANCH 38, ALABEL, SARANGANI :

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 21 FEBRUARY 2007

AM OCA I.P.I No. 04-2000-P (Atty. Franklin G. Gacal v. Dennis A. Velasco, Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 38, Alabel, Sarangani)


In compliance with the Resolution of this Court dated October 2, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) made the following report and recommendation, to wit:

In a Verified Complaint, Atty. Franklin G. Gacal accuses Dennis A. Velasco, COC, RTC, Br. 38, Alabel, Sarangani with grave abuse of authority committed as follows:

About 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon of August 20, 2004, I went to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the above-mentioned RTC to file our Counter-Manifestation copy of which is hereto attached as Annex "A". Said Atty. Dennis Velasco required me to pay P200.00 as filing fee arguing that our pleading is in the nature of a motion that require payment of filing fee under A.M. No. 04-02-04-SC. Re: Proposed Revision of Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court. Our Contra Arguments that manifestation is not a motion has fallen in deaf ears. Because I have no P200.00 that time to pay the filing fee, the said Clerk of Court whimsically refused to accept the filing of our Counter-Manifestation to the damage and prejudice of our client.

In his Comment, respondent denies the accusation against him and contends that complainant did not file any counter-manifestation on 20 August 2006.

According to respondent the incident between him and complainant occurred on 17 August 2006 at around 3:00 p.m. when complainant came to his office and filed a "Manifestation with Prayer" to move for the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused in Criminal Case No. 1136-03 entitled "People of the Philippines versus Faustino Ancheta" pursuant to the Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.G.R.SP No. 78923.

When complainant filed his pleading, respondent informed him that the court already issued an Order dated 16 August 2004 directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused.

Respondent informed complainant that if he still wanted to file the manifestation, he should pay the docket fee in the amount of Two Hundred Pesos pursuant to Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended. He explained to complainant that the manifestation was actually in the nature of a motion because it contained a prayer.

Complainant allegedly argued with him in a loud voice insisting that the manifestation was not a motion and ultimately told him: "Itapon mo na lang yan o sunugin mo na lang yan. I will file a case against you, criminal, administrative and civil, up to the Supreme Court." All that time, respondent remained calm and respectful to complainant. Respondent submitted the Joint Affidavit executed by his co-employees who witnessed the incident attesting to the truth of respondent's averments.

Despite complainant's refusal to pay the corresponding docket fee, the manifestation was admitted and acted upon by the court. Respondent claimed he never refused any pleading filed and those filed without payment of docket fee were referred to the presiding judge for proper disposition.

Respondent alleges that complainant's failure to file the pleading did not prejudice him or his client. The "Manifestation with Prayer to Hold in Abeyance Implementation of Its Order" filed by the accused, which complainant sought to prevent with his counter manifestation, was scheduled for hearing on 7 September 2004.

In a resolution of the Court's First Division dated 7 June 2006, the administrative matter was referred to Executive Judge Emelindo G. Andal, RTC, Branch 27, Tandag, Surigao del Sur for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of records.

In his report dated 30 August 2006, the investigating judge reported that when the case was called on 23 August 2006 at 8:30 a.m., respondent together with two witnesses, namely: Ms. Janet M. Cepe and Ms. Marilou Vargas appeared. Complainant waived his right to be present in the investigation, alleging the following reasons:

The venue of the investigation, Tandag, Surigao del Sur, is several hundreds of kilometers away from General Santos City, the residence of the undersigned complainant. Going to the venue is by land transportation following a route, several hundreds of kilometers of which is a rough road and allegedly along the highway is infested with bad elements. It is likewise too expensive to the undersigned in terms of money and time to be at Tandag for two or more days for the called investigation. The undersigned is already 72 years old and cannot travel alone either by passenger buses or his own car. With due respect to the wisdom for the issuance of the Supreme Court, 1^st Division Resolution dated June 7, 2006 it would have been for the best interest of both parties and justice if this case should have been assigned to any of the RTC Judges of SOCSKSARGEN area for investigation, thus giving the parties the opportunity to fight their legal battle in their own yard.

The only issue involved is whether or not respondent refused to received [sic] the alleged "Counter Manifestation" filed by complainant in Criminal Case No. 1136-03.

The investigating judge doubted the existence of such counter manifestation for the following reasons: First, assuming that complainant filed his counter manifestation and respondent refused to received [sic] it, complainant is not without recourse. He could have availed of the substituted mode of filing the pleading i.e. by registered mail with explanation that respondent refused to receive the pleading when filed personally. In that case, respondent would have no choice but to receive and have it attached to the records of the case. Complainant could have also referred it to the Presiding Judge and complain against the actuations of respondent; Second, complainant actively participated in the hearing of the Urgent Manifestation with Prayer to Hold in Abeyance Implementation of (Court) Order conducted on 7 September 2004 when an Order was issued. Records shows [sic] that complainant did not invite the attention of the court of the fact that a Counter Manifestation was filed and; Third, complainant waived his right to be present and adduced evidence during the investigation, thereby losing his opportunity to prove the existence of his alleged Counter Manifestation by oral testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence.

We support the finding of the investigating judge that respondent did not abuse his authority by refusing to receive the Counter Manifestation.

As correctly found the real incident involving complainant and respondent took place on 17 August 2004, when complainant filed his "Manifestation with Prayer." The two had an argument because complainant refused to pay the two hundred pesos motion fee being charged by respondent. However, despite non payment such motion fee, respondent received the pleading and had it attached to the record of the case.

In addition, the investigating judge observed the demeanor and physical condition of respondent during the investigation of the case. Respondent, who early in his life was diagnosed to be suffering from cerebral palsy, is humble, courteous and unassuming. He speaks with considerable difficulty, and cannot control his hands, which shake involuntarily, and walks with a limp. He could not afford to quarrel with anyone because it is risky for him.

Complainant failed to substantiate the allegation in his complaint. He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence. In administrative proceedings, complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. Substantial evidence in an administrative case consists of that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

Complainant failed to discharge the quantum of evidence -substantial evidence - to fault respondent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail. Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.

Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. He must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept to support a conclusion. Otherwise, the complaint must be dismissed. In the instant case, complainant failed to meet this burden.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISQUISITIONS, the undersigned respectfully recommends to the Honorable Court that the instant administrative case against Dennis A. Velasco, then Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 38, Alabel, Sarangani Province, now Presiding Judge, MTCC, Koronadal City, South Cotabato be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

Finding the foregoing evaluation and recommendation of the OCA to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.^[1]

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Dennis A. Velasco, former Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Br. 38, Alabel, Sarangani, is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Elefant v. lnting, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1938, July 15, 2005, 463 SCRA 457, 461.