Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > June 2008 Resolutions > [OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-2841-RTJ : June 02, 2008] ATTY. DATU OMAR SINSUAT V. JUDGE APOLINARIO M. BUAYA:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 02 June 2008:

OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-2841-RTJ (Atty. Datu Omar Sinsuat v. Judge Apolinario M. Buaya). - This administrative matter arose form a letter dated 18 November 2006 of Atty. Datu Omar Sinsuat, legal counsel of the PNOC-Enerhy Development Corporation, which referred to the Office of the Court Admininstrator (OCA) an urgent manifestation and motion filed by Atty. Francisco H. Esca�o, Jr. in Civil Case No. 3392-0 alleging that based on the information relayed to the National Bureau of Investigation, the Order dated 20 November 2000 issued in the aforementioned case by Judge Apolinario M. Buaya of the Regional Trial Court of Ormoc City, was secured through fraud and is now the subject of an investigation. Atty. Sinsuat invited the OCA�s attention to the supposed fraud so that the officers of the court who participated in the commission thereof or in the misconduct relative to the issuance of the subject order could be investigated.

The OCA directed Judge. Buaya to comment per Indorsement dated 2 January 2006. In his comment, Judge Buaya stated:

The records, already 2032 pages thick, shows (sic) that the parties actively participated in the hearing of the case. The decision of the Hon. Fortunito L. Madrona x x x who penned the decision shows that he meticulously went over the testimonial and documentary exhibits presented before the Court. Plaintiffs PNOC failed to file their Notice of Appeal on time thus their appeal was denied by this Court. The Order of denial of the appeal was raised to the higher courts on Certiorari. Both the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court upheld the ruling in this Court.

Judge Buaya argues that if fraud was indeed employed to secure an outcome favorable to defendants, then it presupposes that both higher courts are also parties to the fraud.

In Atty. Sinsuat�s Comment dated 2 May 2006, he in reaction to Judge Buaya�s comment, stresses that the complaint is anchored on the blatant partiality of Judge Buaya in an attempt to execute a decision which was not yet final and executory since the case was then pending before the Supreme Court. Atty. Sinsuat also reasons that the �fraud which gave rise to the decision was �extrinsic� and as such, there was no way for the PNOC-EDC, the Court of Appeals, or the Supreme Court to have discovered the same, much less to have participated [in it].�

In its Report dated 12 March 2008, the OCA made the following evaluation and recommendation:

EVALUATION: x x x

On the accusation of fraud, we note that the same finds its basis mainly on the Urgent Manifestation with Motion of Atty. Francisco H. Esca�o, Jr. dated March 21, 2005. Atty. Sinsuat�s own letter merely took its cur from said manifestation, and he wanted this Office to work from there. Unfortunately, the only given proof relative to this supposed fraud is contained in the fifth paragraph, which read in full:

5. But most importantly, the National Bureau of Investigation, of Regional Office 8, is conducting an investigation regarding the circumstances of the issuance of the November 27, 2000 Order and the circumstances that led to the denial of the appeal and of the certiorari petition. The Bureau allegedly received information that the November 27, 2000 Order and the dismissal of the appeal were all secured through FRAUD.�
   

This averment did not directly allege fraud; nor did it contain any detail on how the fraud was committed and by whom. It did not even categorically state that the NBI �actually received� information about such matter. Clearly, Atty. Esca�o did not have direct personal knowledge not only of the fraud but also of any complaint received by NBI about it. This makes Atty. Sinsuat�s complaint a case of triple, even quadruple, hearsay, which is abhorred under the rules of evidence, and which this Court cannot entertain without caution. Besides, Atty. Esca�o�s manifestation was not even verified. If anything, his afore-quoted allegation merely proves that the NBI is investigating into supposed tips, the details of which we are at a loss about. It does not even prove that the NBI has verified the �information� to be genuine or to have basis. Faced with this paucity, we are constrained to hold that this particular charge is unsubstantiated. The Court cannot simply barge into the picture with no firm basis to start with.

Section 1, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, set forth stringent requirements on the proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan. A complaint against a magistrate, when instituted by any person, must be verified and duly supported by affidavits of person who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein, or by documents substantiating such allegations.

At any rate, Atty. Sinsuat submitted (in his comment to judge Buaya�s comment), that the fraud was �extrinsic,� such that it could have been discovered within the case, and he acknowledged that the Rules of Court has a relief therefore. Hence, there is a legal remedy in a proper judicial forum, for which an administrative complaint may not be a substitute.

In his comment to Judge Buaya�s comment, complainant raised another issue: �Judge Buaya�s act of trying to execute a decision not yet final and executory not only shows ignorance or willful disregard of the law, but a manifest partiality against PNOC-EDC.� This issue is judicial in nature. The wisdom of allowing the execution of the decision after no appeal was duly perfected pertains to the judgment of the magistrate having jurisdiction over the case. It may not be assailed in an administrative proceedings, unless there was abuse of authority, bad faith or gross ignorance of the law, none of which appears here.

Judge Buaya, guided by his determination that no appeal was seasonably made on the court�s Order of November 27, 2000, granted the motion of execution on March 11, 2005. It appears from his order that he acted consistent with Section 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court, which provides: �Execution shall issue a matter of right, on motion, upon a judgment or order that disposes of the action or proceeding upon the expiration of the period to appeal therefrom if no appeal had been duly perfected.� Short of passing judgment on the propriety of his order, we see no irregularity in it for purposes of administrative investigation. The Decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on October 14, 2004, in fact, paved the way for it by categorically holding that �the Order dated November 27, 2000 already attained finality for failure of herein petitioner to seasonably file the notice of appeal.� While there was a petition for certiorari assailing this decision before the Supreme Court, it is basic such action did not have the effect of staying the questioned decision or order unless in the meantime an injunction was granted. No such injunction was shown in the instant case, hence, the charge of gross ignorance the law has not merit.

Consequently, the allegations of manifest partiality and gross ignorance of the law have no leg to stand on. It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in his or her complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail.

In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of establishing by substantial evidence, the averments of his complaint. Notatu dignum is the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge�s functions, hence bias, prejudice and even undue interest cannot be presumed, specially weighed against a judge�s sacred obligation under oath of office to administer justice without respect to any person and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. In a long line of cases decided by this Court, it was held that bare allegations of bias are not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law without fear or favor. Mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality.

RECOMMENDATION: In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that the charges of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Manifest Partiality against Judge Apolinario M. Buaya by DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Finding the OCA�s evaluation and recommendation to be well-founded and reasonable, the Court hereby adopts and approves the findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation of the OCA in its aforequoted Report. Accordingly, the administrative complaint against Judge Apolinario M. Buaya is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Velasco, Jr., on official leave; Reyes, J., designated additional member pursuant to Special Order No. 504. Carpio Morales, J., on official leave; De Castro, J., designated additional member pursuant to Special Order No. 505.