February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-06-2006 : February 11, 2009] FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 05-2302-RTJ) -ANIFEL QUIJANO-VACUNADOR V. JUDGE ANACLETO L. CAMINADE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, CEBU CITY :
[A.M. No. RTJ-06-2006 : February 11, 2009]
FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 05-2302-RTJ) -ANIFEL QUIJANO-VACUNADOR V. JUDGE ANACLETO L. CAMINADE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, CEBU CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 11 February 2009:
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2006 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2302-RTJ) -Anifel Quijano-Vacunador v. Judge Anacleto L. Caminade, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Cehu City
RESOLUTION
Anifel Quijano-Vacunador (complainant), Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Cebu City, filed a Complaint dated May 19, 2005 against Judge Anacleto L. Caminade (respondent), of (he same branch for sexual harassment.
Complainant alleges that on March 3, 2005, respondent held her arm as he requested her to claim his Landbank ATM card; while she and respondent were walking to the bank, respondent asked her intimate questions about herself and her marriage and. why she and her husband separated;[1] respondent further said that he and his wife don't have sex anymore as his wife is already in the menopausal stage;[2] respondent also invited her for dinner and said that he likes her from the start[3] and that he loves her and she just cannot understand Ms feelings for her because she is still very young.[4] Complainant also avers that respondent was previously found guilty of sexual harassment and was suspended by the Court in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1655 [5] for six months, and it was only on January 24, 2005 that he resumed work after serving his penalty.[6]
Attached to the Complaint are complainant's affidavit,[7] her letter to RTC Executive Judge Simeon Dumdum requesting for transfer, [8] the Court's Resolution in AM No. RTJ-01-1655 dated July 8, 2004[9] and affidavits[10] in support of A.M. No.RTJ-01-1655.[11]
Respondent in Iris Comment dated June 28, 2005, denies that he harassed complainant and uttered the statements contained in the Complaint. He admits however inviting her for a snack after the transactions with the bank. Me suspects that there are people who disliked him who instigated the complaint. [12] Respondent also submitted a letter to the Court on the same date, asking permission to resign claiming that his health was adversely affected by the cases instituted against him.[13] On January 17, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution in A.M. No. 05-12-754-RTC accepting respondent's resignation without prejudice to the outcome of cases filed against him.[14]
The Court referred the case to Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, for investigation, report and recommendation. On the scheduled preliminary conference on October 2, 2008, only Atty. Gloria Lastimosa-Dalawarnpu, counsel of complainant appeared, who manifested that complainant is already in the United States. The preliminary conference was reset to November 5, 2008 and the Investigating Justice directed that the notice be personally served on complainant at her last known address.[15] The occupant thereat refused to receive the order however as complainant is already out of the country. On November 5. 2008, Atty. Dalawampu and respondent appeared and Atty. Dalawampu informed the Investigating Justice that complainant had gone abroad two years before and could have already settled there with her mother. The preliminary conference was reset to November 19, 2008. [16] On said date, only respondent appeared. Despite the vehement opposition of respondent, the preliminary conference was again reset to November 27, 2008 subject to no further postponement.[17] On November 27, 2008. only respondent appeared and due to the repeated absence of complainant, respondent moved for the dismissal of the case for lack of interest on complainant's part to prosecute.[18]
In her Report dated December 4, 2008, the Investigating Justice states:
and therefore recommends the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of interest on the part of complainant to prosecute and for her failure to prove the allegations in the complaint.[20]
The Court finds the recommendation to be proper.
Ordinarily, a complainant's withdrawal or desistance from pursuing the complaint does not entail the dismissal of the administrative case.[21] This is because public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary thus, a complainant's lack of interest in pursuing the complaint does not divest this Court of its power under the Constitution to investigate and decide complaints against erring members of the judiciary, and root out misconduct among its members.[22] In this case however, complainant's failure to appear before the Investigating Justice and attest to the truthfulness of her claims leaves the Court with no basis upon which to hold respondent liable for the offense charged.
Complainant, accuses respondent of sexual harassment, a serious misconduct which carries the penalty of dismissal from the service.[23] However, with complainant's failure to testify before the Investigating Justice and affirm the contents of her Complaint and affidavit, the Court is only left with her letter to the Executive Judge requesting for transfer, and the Court's ruling in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1655 and the affidavits submitted therein. Complainant's letter requesting for transfer merely restated her allegations in her affidavit, while the ruling of the Court in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1655 cannot, by itself, serve as basis for a finding of guilt in complainant's case against respondent.
As the Court has consistently pronounced, while desistance does not operate to divest the Court of its power to investigate a matter involving its members, it is equally Line that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on.[24]
WHEREFORE, the complaint against former Judge Anacleto L. Caminade is DISMISSED for lack of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2006 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2302-RTJ) -Anifel Quijano-Vacunador v. Judge Anacleto L. Caminade, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Cehu City
Anifel Quijano-Vacunador (complainant), Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Cebu City, filed a Complaint dated May 19, 2005 against Judge Anacleto L. Caminade (respondent), of (he same branch for sexual harassment.
Complainant alleges that on March 3, 2005, respondent held her arm as he requested her to claim his Landbank ATM card; while she and respondent were walking to the bank, respondent asked her intimate questions about herself and her marriage and. why she and her husband separated;[1] respondent further said that he and his wife don't have sex anymore as his wife is already in the menopausal stage;[2] respondent also invited her for dinner and said that he likes her from the start[3] and that he loves her and she just cannot understand Ms feelings for her because she is still very young.[4] Complainant also avers that respondent was previously found guilty of sexual harassment and was suspended by the Court in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1655 [5] for six months, and it was only on January 24, 2005 that he resumed work after serving his penalty.[6]
Attached to the Complaint are complainant's affidavit,[7] her letter to RTC Executive Judge Simeon Dumdum requesting for transfer, [8] the Court's Resolution in AM No. RTJ-01-1655 dated July 8, 2004[9] and affidavits[10] in support of A.M. No.RTJ-01-1655.[11]
Respondent in Iris Comment dated June 28, 2005, denies that he harassed complainant and uttered the statements contained in the Complaint. He admits however inviting her for a snack after the transactions with the bank. Me suspects that there are people who disliked him who instigated the complaint. [12] Respondent also submitted a letter to the Court on the same date, asking permission to resign claiming that his health was adversely affected by the cases instituted against him.[13] On January 17, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution in A.M. No. 05-12-754-RTC accepting respondent's resignation without prejudice to the outcome of cases filed against him.[14]
The Court referred the case to Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City, for investigation, report and recommendation. On the scheduled preliminary conference on October 2, 2008, only Atty. Gloria Lastimosa-Dalawarnpu, counsel of complainant appeared, who manifested that complainant is already in the United States. The preliminary conference was reset to November 5, 2008 and the Investigating Justice directed that the notice be personally served on complainant at her last known address.[15] The occupant thereat refused to receive the order however as complainant is already out of the country. On November 5. 2008, Atty. Dalawampu and respondent appeared and Atty. Dalawampu informed the Investigating Justice that complainant had gone abroad two years before and could have already settled there with her mother. The preliminary conference was reset to November 19, 2008. [16] On said date, only respondent appeared. Despite the vehement opposition of respondent, the preliminary conference was again reset to November 27, 2008 subject to no further postponement.[17] On November 27, 2008. only respondent appeared and due to the repeated absence of complainant, respondent moved for the dismissal of the case for lack of interest on complainant's part to prosecute.[18]
In her Report dated December 4, 2008, the Investigating Justice states:
As borne out by the records, complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the extant case. This is manifested by tier repeated failure to attend the scheduled preliminary conference and/or hearings despite notices. It should be remembered that an order to appear before Hie investigating justice was even personally served to complainant at her last known address. Such effort, however, was futile. Further, she failed to furnish this Court or the Supreme Court her new address or notify the latter of her whereabouts so that she could be notified of the investigation and the status of the case. She did not even inform her counsel of record where she could be contacted for purposes of this case. Her own lawyer is groping in the dark as where she could be located to ascertain if she is pursuing this case. In view of such failure, it would be impossible for the investigating justice to obtain evidence to bolster her claim against respondent. The affidavits attached to her complaint are not enough to warrant disciplinary action against respondent. The undersigned has no way of verifying the truthfulness of the allegations contained therein absent any other proof supporting them. Lacking such evidence, documentary or oral the investigating justice is constrained to rule for the dismissal of the administrative complaint. and therefore recommends the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of interest on the part of complainant to prosecute and for her failure to prove the allegations in the complaint.[19]
and therefore recommends the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of lack of interest on the part of complainant to prosecute and for her failure to prove the allegations in the complaint.[20]
The Court finds the recommendation to be proper.
Ordinarily, a complainant's withdrawal or desistance from pursuing the complaint does not entail the dismissal of the administrative case.[21] This is because public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary thus, a complainant's lack of interest in pursuing the complaint does not divest this Court of its power under the Constitution to investigate and decide complaints against erring members of the judiciary, and root out misconduct among its members.[22] In this case however, complainant's failure to appear before the Investigating Justice and attest to the truthfulness of her claims leaves the Court with no basis upon which to hold respondent liable for the offense charged.
Complainant, accuses respondent of sexual harassment, a serious misconduct which carries the penalty of dismissal from the service.[23] However, with complainant's failure to testify before the Investigating Justice and affirm the contents of her Complaint and affidavit, the Court is only left with her letter to the Executive Judge requesting for transfer, and the Court's ruling in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1655 and the affidavits submitted therein. Complainant's letter requesting for transfer merely restated her allegations in her affidavit, while the ruling of the Court in A.M. No. RTJ-01-1655 cannot, by itself, serve as basis for a finding of guilt in complainant's case against respondent.
As the Court has consistently pronounced, while desistance does not operate to divest the Court of its power to investigate a matter involving its members, it is equally Line that reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on.[24]
WHEREFORE, the complaint against former Judge Anacleto L. Caminade is DISMISSED for lack of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Specifically, complainant claims thai respondent said "Wouldn't he (your husband) have sex with you at times you wanted to? [Gawas ana. imsapa man? Di ba diaysiya mudo'g nimo sapanahon nga ganahan ka? "];"Do you have a boyfiiend"[Naa ba kay boyfriend?]; "If I were you, while you are still here (before going to the United States), have a boyfriend, justt "hit and run. " My advice is for you to indulge in sexual intercourse- Just like "hit and run" [Ako pa nimo, samtang naapa ka diri, uyab-uyab lang. Hit and run ba. " "Akong advice nimo, jingle-jingle lang gud. Hit and run lang gud.]
[2] "Sa tinuod lang Peewee, no, wala nagyudmisa akong asawa. Kahibawna ka, si Mrs. menopausal na. Mao nang ako, wa na g'yud"
[3] Sige na. Dinner ta";"Abi nimo Peewee, sa tinuod lang, nakagusto ko nimo."; "Bitaw, Sukad pa sa sinugdan.nakagusto ko nimo.
[4] Di man gud ka kasabot sa akong feelings kay batapa man gud ka."
[5] Entitled "Atty. Grace M. Veloso and Ma. Joeyfynn B. Quinones v. Judge Anacleto M. Caminade, RTC, Branch 6, Cebu City''
[6] Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[7] Dated March 7,2005. id at 3-6.
[8] Id. at 1-9.
[9] Id.at 10-19.
[10] Affidavits of Grace M. Veloso dated March 15,2001, Maria Joeylynn B. Quinones dated March 29, 2001 and July 25,2001 and Enxlda D. Rosales dated July 24,2001.
[11] Rollo, pp. 20-29.
[12] Rollo, pp. 31-32.
[13] Id. at 33.
[14] See OCA Report dated May 8,2006, id. at 133.
[15] Id. at 196.
[16] Id. at!98.
[17] Id at 200.
[18] Id. at 201.
[19] Rollo, p. 211.
[20] Id. at 212.
[21] Dadula v. Ginete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1500, March 18, 2005, 453 SCRA 575, 585; Manaois v. Leomo, 456 Phil. 920,929-930(2003); Unitrust Development Bank v. Caoibes, 456 Phil. 676,683 (2003).
[22] Lastimosa-Dalawampu v. Judge Yrastorza, Sr. 466 Phil. 600, 606 (2004); Dadula v. Ginete, supra note 21; Manaois v. Leomo, supra note 21, at 930; Philtrust Development Bank v. Caoibes, supra note 21.
[23] Paiste v. Momenta, Jr., 459 Phil. 10,27 (2003); Dawa v. Judge De Asa, 354 Phil. 708,732 (1998).
[24] Sierra v. Judge Tiamson, 473 Phil. 722,727 (2004).
