ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2393-RTJ. August 23, 2006]

STEPHEN ALCANTARA v. JUDGE RAUL E. DE LEON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 258, PARA�AQUE CITY

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 23, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2393-RTJ (Stephen Alcantara v. Judge Raul E. De Leon , Regional Trial Court, Branch 258, Para�aque City)

Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated May 8, 2006, to wit:

In a COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT dated November 21, 2005, complainant Stephen B. Alcantara charged Judge Raul E. De Leon with CONDUCT UNBECOMING OF A JUDGE for allegedly receiving two (2) air-conditioner units in exchange for a favorable decision on a case pending adjudication then before his sala.

Herein complainant[,] Stephen Alcantara y Batara is the respondent in Civil Case No. 03-0381 against therein plaintiff Elias Alano, then being heard at the sala of Honorable Judge Raul Escudero De Leon of RTC, Branch 258, Para�aque City.

In an AFFIDAVIT dated June 28, 2005, complainant alleges that Mr. Elias Alano, plaintiff in the above-mentioned civil case confided to him that he would give two (2) air-conditioner units to RTC-Para�aque, Branch 258 in order to obtain a favorable decision for the Motion for Reconsideration plaintiff Alano had filed. Subsequently, complainant further claims that plaintiff Alano openly boasted of the two (2) air-conditioner units he gave to Branch 258 which allegedly resulted to the grant of his Motion for Reconsideration.

Thereafter, plaintiff claims that during the hearing of the MOTION FOR INHIBITION on July 8, 2005 filed by the complainant against respondent judge in the said civil case, Judge De Leon provoked plaintiff's counsel, Atty. Roberto Diokno, Jr. with an imposing tone and in an emphatic manner. Judge De Leon allegedly stated therein that if plaintiff Alano will not take action against complainant for executing the above-mentioned AFFIDAVIT, Judge De Leon will be the one to file it. Complainant claims that such actuations by respondent judge precipitated the perjury case plaintiff Alano filed against complainant on September 2, 2005 before the Para�aque City Prosecutor's Office.

However, respondent Judge in his COMMENT dated 27 February 2006 vehemently denies having received much less asked any air-conditioner from Mr. Alano. Respondent judge claims that the allegations in the complaint are purely imagined conclusion. Judge De Leon asserts that the manner by which he propounded the questions to the parties during the July 8, 2005 hearing were merely direct, frank, and only for the purpose of unearthing the truth. Respondent judge further claims that he was merely dragged into the fray between the complainant and Mr. Alano.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION

1.������ Respondent Judge Raul E. De Leon filed a COMPLAINT dated September 27, 2005 for Gross Misconduct against Atty. Juan B. Cabredo IV, counsel of herein complainant Stephen B. Alcantara before the [IBP] Commission on Bar Discipline.

2.������ The MOTION FOR INHIBITION filed against respondent judge was denied on August 8, 2005 since the decision on the civil case has already become final.

3.������ On January 30, 2006, Elias Alano, among others, executed their respective AFFIDAVITS belying the allegations of the complainant.

EVALUATION:

We find the instant administrative complaint against Judge De Leon to be bereft of merit.

A thorough perusal of the allegations raised by the complainant in his COMPLAINT against Judge De Leon shows that he failed to adduce proof to substantiate them. Settled is the rule in administrative proceedings [that] the burden of proof that respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant (GOTGOTAO v. MILLORA, A.M. No. P-05-2005, June 8, 2005). Complainant must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion (LIGUID v. CAMANO, Jr., 387 SCRA 1). In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent[s] have regularly performed their official duties. (Licudine v. Saquilayan, 396 SCRA 650, 656)

In the instant complaint, other than the bare assertions of the complainant, he failed to present other evidence to solidify his accusations/insinuations. The claim that Judge De Leon received two (2) air conditioner units in exchange for a favorable decision also stands on shallow ground. Complainant identified his source but failed, however, to present any sworn statement or affidavit of the said source. Neither did complainant present or submit any witness or documentary evidence to support his claim that respondent judge received the two (2) air-conditioner units nor was he able to show the existence of the said two (2) air-conditioner units.

It should be stressed that in administrative proceedings, the allegations in the complaint must be proven by substantial evidence. Such evidence should be competent and derived from direct knowledge (SIERRA v. TIAMSON, 434 SCRA 560). Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence. As against the bare allegations of misconduct with no cogent proof thereon, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, the latter shall prevail.

In view of the foregoing, we cannot hold the respondent judge administratively liable in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, as administrative cases are penal in character (COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. PAREDES, 154 SCRA 574).

RECOMMENDATION:

Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant case against JUDGE RAUL E. DE LEON of Branch 258, RTC-Para�aque City be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The findings and recommendation of the OCA are well taken.

It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Bare allegations, surmises, suspicions and rhetorics will not suffice, as competent evidence must be presented to prove the charges. [1] cralaw Thus, charges based on mere conjectures and suppositions cannot be given credence [2] cralaw and shall forthwith be dismissed.

Indeed, the Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon court employees and magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [3] cralaw

Considering the foregoing, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative complaint against Judge Raul E. De Leon for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Legaspi, 453 Phil. 459, 464 (2003).

[2] cralaw Cortes v. Chico-Nazario , A.M. No. SB-04-11-J, February 13, 2004 , 422 SCRA 541, 550, citing Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 42 (1997).

[3] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003 , 415 SCRA 377, 383, citing Cruz v. Iturralde, 450 Phil. 77 (2003).


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com