ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1347-MTJ. January 17, 2005]
MANEJA vs. DE CASTRO-PANGANIBAN
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 17 2005.
R E S O L U T I O N
A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1347-MTJ (Clarita Q. Maneja vs. Judge Elvira De Castro-Panganiban, Presiding Judge of Branch 58, Metropolitan Trial Court, San Juan.)
Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated November 2, 2004, to wit:
REASON FOR AGENDA: On 11 December 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator received the complaint-affidavit filed by Clarita Maneja wherein she charges Judge Elvira De Castro-Panganiban with (1) Gross Ignorance of the Law; and (2) Violation of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in relation to the untimely demise of her husband Romeo Maneja.
BACKGROUND: Complainant Clarita Maneja is the widow of Romeo Maneja who - until his death on 16 November 2002 - was employed as process server at Branch 58 of the Metropolitan Trial Court, San Juan, presided by herein respondent Judge Elvira De-Castro Panganiban.
Sometime in 2002, Romeo Maneja was advised by his physician to go on sick leave as his condition had taken a turn for the worse. However, on 11 November 2002, Maneja still reported for work despite the fact that he was already on a duly-approved sick leave with pay up to 30 November 2002 and on sick leave without pay until 31 December 2002.
Clarita Maneja claims that her husband was also forced to report for work on 12, 13, 14 and 15 November 2002 at the behest of Judge Panganiban. As his condition deteriorated, Romeo Maneja eventually succumbed to his chronic illness on 16 November 2002.
In blaming Judge Panganiban for the death of her husband, Clarita Maneja alleges that the respondent committed the following "crimes":
1. Ignorance of the Law, for requiring Romeo Maneja to report for work and secure a medical certificate from the Supreme Court Clinic despite the fact that he was already on a duly-approved sick leave. This, complainant Maneja claims, also amounts to a violation of the rules of the Civil Service Commission and the Supreme Court; and
2. Violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for "promoting and advancing her personal interests." Complainant Maneja claims that Judge Panganiban required Process Server Romeo Maneja to work to aggravate his condition and pave the way for his replacement by Francisco Isidro, the utility worker of the branch. Under the scheme, Isidro's vacant position would then be given to the house helper of the judge.
In her consolidated Comment, Judge Panganiban denies the allegations of Clarita Maneja and advances the following counter arguments:
1. Romeo Maneja reported for work during the days reckoned on his own volition. The logbook of the court shows that he reported for work only during the mornings of 11, 12, 13 and 14 of November 2002;
2. Maneja was not given any strenuous assignment during the said period of time that he reported for work;
3. It was Maneja's insistence on working despite his illness that prompted Judge Panganiban to require the former to secure a medical certificate from the Supreme Court Clinic. The only intention of Judge Panganiban was to fully ascertain Maneja's physical fitness to resume his chores as process server; and
4. The allegation that Judge Panganiban wanted to aggravate the condition of Maneja to pave the way for the arrival of her house helper at the branch is baseless as the former is fully aware of the rules against nepotism.
EVALUATION:
We find the instant administrative complaint against Judge Panganiban to be bereft of merit.
A thorough perusal of the allegations raised by Clarita Maneja in her complaint against Judge Panganiban shows that she failed to adduce proof to substantiate them. In administrative complaints, the complainant has the burden of proof to establish by substantial evidence that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained [of] even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. (Liguid vs. Camano, Jr., 387 SCRA 1)
In the instant case, Clarita Maneja fails to establish the alleged actuations of Judge Panganiban as the proximate cause of her husband's death. Other than presenting copies of the pertinent pages in the logbook that attest to her husband's presence at the station on the days when he was supposedly on sick leave, Clarita Maneja fails to present any other evidence to solidify her insinuations. That Romeo Maneja actually affixed his signature on the logbook on the days when he was supposed to be on sick leave even supports the claim of Judge Panganiban that the former voluntarily showed up for work.
The claim that Judge Panganiban forced Maneja to report for work to aggravate his condition and pave the way for the arrival of her house helper at the branch also stands on shallow ground. Clarita Maneja admits in her complaint that she only got to know of such a "scheme" from a conversation between the judge and an employee of the branch which she "overheard" during the wake of her husband.
While this Office sympathizes with the plight of Clarita Maneja, it cannot hold the respondent judge administratively liable in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, as administrative cases are penal in character. (Court Administrator vs. Paredes , 154 SCRA 574)
RECOMMENDATION:
We respectfully submit for consideration the recommendation that the administrative complaint filed by Clarita Maneja against Judge Elvira De Castro-Panganiban of Branch 58, Metropolitan Trial Court, San Juan, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The findings and recommendation of the OCA are well taken.
Indeed, the Court commiserates with the complainant for the unfortunate death of the complainant's husband. However, her allegation that the respondent Judge was somehow responsible for such death cannot prevail, considering that the complainant failed to adequately substantiate the same. It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Such evidence must be competent and derived from direct knowledge. [1] cralaw Thus, charges based on mere conjectures and suppositions cannot be given credence [2] cralaw and shall forthwith be dismissed.
Considering the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative case for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilio B. Legaspi, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Br. 22, 405 SCRA 514 (2003).
[2] cralaw Leonides T. Cortes v. Sandiganbayan Justices Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada and Rodolfo G. Palattao, A.M. No. SB-04-11-J, February 13, 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
