ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. MTJ-05-1597.� July 6, 2005]
DALAPO vs. CAIN
FIRST DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 6 2005.
Administrative Matter No. MTJ-05-1597 (Formerly Administrative Matter OCA IPI No. 05-1719-MTJ] (Eduardo Dalapo [Victim of Highest Bidder Decision and Concerned Citizen] vs. Judge Alfredo S. Cain, 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental. )
For resolution is the unsworn letter complaint [1] cralaw dated June 21, 2004 of Eduardo Dalapo charging respondent Judge Alfredo S. Cain, Presiding Judge, 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental, with Misconduct and Unethical Behavior, Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Corruption.
Complainant claimed that he is one of the victims of the "highest bidder" or "for a price decision" of respondent judge. He alleged that respondent judge pressures his "victims" to amicably settle their case without the presence of their counsels and thereafter, a certain Eliza Canatoy would prepare an Affidavit of Desistance for his "victims" to sign in order to lend a color of legitimacy to the agreement. He further averred that respondent judge and his wife use the courtroom and its facilities as their sleeping/living quarters at the taxpayer's expense.
In the 1st Indorsement [2] cralaw dated September 3, 2004, respondent judge denied the allegations of extortion against him. He however admitted that he passed the night in the courtroom on several occasions when he had to meet some deadlines but claimed that he has ceased doing so and now stays elsewhere.
In the Agenda Report [3] cralaw dated April 7, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator found that complainant failed to present concrete evidence to prove respondent's alleged 'extortion activities', thus:
A perusal of the first charge lead us to conclude that the same will fail for lack of concrete proof to establish that respondent indeed resorted to the illegal practice of "case fixing" in his sala. The gravity of the accusation naturally requires an equally grave and profound evidence to pin liability on respondent. In the instant complaint however, complainant merely provided loose averments, general and all-encompassing allegations not worthy of credence and consideration.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that complainant was indeed a victim of "case fixing", ordinary prudence dictates that he should have enumerated the chronological events and other specific details surrounding the incident to convince us that his allegations were all true. Yet, he failed to controvert the basic rule of presumption of regularity in the performance of respondent's judicial duties. [4] cralaw
The OCA however found that respondent judge violated Administrative Circular No. 1-99 which prohibits all officials and employees of the Judiciary from using their offices as a residence or for any purpose than for court or judicial functions.
Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars is classified as a less serious offense [5] cralaw punishable by either suspension from office without salary or other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. [6] cralaw
However, in view of respondent's admission to the second charge which is considered mitigating, the OCA recommends that respondent be reprimanded with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA. As held in the recent case of Caroline B. Pangan v. Clifton U. Ganay, et al. [7] cralaw
Furthermore, even in an administrative case, the Rules of Court require that if the respondent Judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge. The judiciary to which the respondent belongs demands no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, competent evidence should be presented, especially since the charge is penal in character.
Indeed, while it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against Judges and other court personnel, it is also our duty to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Alfredo S. Cain, Presiding Judge, 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Balingasag-Lagonglong, Misamis Oriental, is hereby REPRIMANDED for violation of Administrative Circular No. 1-99 which prohibits all officials and employees of the Judiciary from using their offices as a residence or for any purpose than for court or judicial functions. He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.
The Court Resolves to REDOCKET the instant administrative* case as a regular administrative matter.
Carpio, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo p. 9.
[2] cralaw Id. at 9-14.
[3] cralaw Id. at 1-7.
[4] cralaw Id. at 4-5.
[5] cralaw Section 9(4), Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court.
[6] cralaw Section 11(B), id.
[7] cralaw A.M. No. RTJ-04-1887, 9 December 2004.
* REVISION: Note ADDED.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
