ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. OCA IPI 01-1053-MTJ.January 16, 2002]
CELESTINO, SR., vs. JUDGE LINDO
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 16 2002.
A.M. No. OCA IPI 01-1053-MTJ (Emmanuel Celestino, Sr. vs. Judge Francisco S. Lindo, MeTC-Br. 55, Malabon.)
In a letter dated 9 February 2000, Emmanuel Celestino Sr. charged Judge Francisco S. Lindo, MeTC, Br, 55, Malabon, with Violation of Adm. Circ. No. 1 dated 28 January 1988 on Raffling of Cases relative to nine (9) ejectment cases. [1] cralaw
Celestino, who claims to be the President of the Lourdes Market Tenants Association, averred that nine (9) ejectment cases were filed against him and some members of the Association. He contended that without conducting any raffle, all the nine (9) cases were immediately assigned to Br. 55 presided by Judge Lindo in violation of Adm. Circ. No. 1.
The letter-complaint was referred to Judge Lindo [2] cralaw and in his comment [3] cralaw he strongly denied the claim that no raffle was conducted. As proof, he attached copies of the Notice of Raffle and the Minutes of Raffle held on 13 May 1999, 1 June 1999 and 19 August 1999. [4] cralaw
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the Notices of Raffle and the Minutes of Raffle submitted by Judge Lindo belied Celestino's claim that no raffle was conducted. Thus, it recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and for failure of complainant to substantiate his allegations. [5] cralaw
When the case was referred back to OCA for further study and evaluation, it reiterated its earlier recommendation to dismiss the instant case for lack of merit. [6] cralaw
We adopt the recommendation of OCA. Indeed, the documentary evidence presented by Judge Lindo consisting of copies of the Notice of Raffle and Minutes of Raffle necessarily prevails over the bare assertions of complainant. Aside from his unsubstantiated claim, complainant did not even present any piece of evidence to prove his claim.
It is not unlikely for all the nine (9) ejectment cases filed against complainant to be raffled and assigned to Br. 55 considering that there are only two (2) branches of MeTC in Malabon with seats thereat. [7] cralaw In this regard, suffice it to state that respondent-judge has in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties which complainant failed to rebut.
In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence. In the case before us, complainant miserably failed to discharge his burden.
ACCORDINGLY , the instant case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 1.
[2] cralaw Id., p. 2.
[3] cralaw Id., p. 4.
[4] cralaw Id., pp. 6-11.
[5] cralaw Id., pp. 13-14.
[6] cralaw Id., pp. 16-17.
[7] cralaw Branches 55 and 56; BP Blg. 129, Sec. 28.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
