ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. No. OCA I.P.I. 05-1758-MTJ. July 26, 2006]

MELY � ALPAS AND EDITA REFUGIO v. JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, LILOY-TAMPILISAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 26, 2006 .

A.M. No. OCA I.P.I. 05-1758-MTJ (Mely � Alpas and Edita Refugio v. Judge Alejandro T. Canda, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte.)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

Through their counsel, Atty. Paulo V. Briones, Mely Alpas and Edita Refugio filed on January 7, 2005 before the Office of the Ombudsman a verified complaint against Judge Alejandro T. Canda, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte, for extortion.

The complaint dated December 22, 2004 was endorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by 1st Indorsement of January 17, 2005. [1] cralaw The Court Administrator, which docketed the complaint as A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1758-MTJ, referred the complaint, after receiving, on its request, a carbon original of the complaint, for comment of respondent, by 1st Indorsement of August 24, 2005. [2] cralaw

A charge for robbery was filed against GR Alpas and Lilliano Refugio, respective children of herein complainants, before the MCTC for preliminary investigation, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2321. Respondent thereafter issued warrants for the arrest of the two.

On motion of the accused, respondent reduced the bond of each of them from P70,000 to P10,000. The accused thereupon posted a bailbond of P10,000 each. Complainants claim that on respondent's demand from each of them to give him P1,000 so that he would release their sons-accused, each of them gave him P1,000 without him issuing a receipt therefor. Hence, arose the complaint for extortion against respondent.

In his Answer dated September 26, 2005, [3] cralaw respondent brands the complaint as "pure and simple harassment case and the handiwork and maneuver of Atty. Briones," [4] cralaw he detailing therein the incidents that occurred between him and Atty. Briones - bases of his claim of harassment.

On the merits of the charge, respondent denies it and proffers that a total of P200 was required from complainants as "bailbond fee" for which a receipt was issued. Attached to the Answer are photocopy of said receipt, Official Receipt No. 13281414 dated April 28, 2004, [5] cralaw and separate Affidavits [6] cralaw of three court personnel corroborating respondent's claim that the amount of P200 paid by herein complainants represented "Bail Bond Fee in Crim. Case No. 2321."

Copy of respondent's Answer appears to have been furnished Atty. Briones but, to date, Atty. Briones has remained silent thereon.

The OCA came up with the following Evaluation of the case:

EVALUATION: The facts of the case are not sufficient to find respondent guilty of the crimes of Extortion and/or Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It needs to be stressed that in the instant case, respondent judge is being administratively held to account for an alleged grave misconduct in office. The charge of serious misconduct warrants submission of reliable evidence competent and credible enough to merit a penalty of dismissal for respondent. In the instant case, Mely Alpas, who claimed to be with her friend Melaluna Bulac when she allegedly handed

the P1,000.00 to respondent judge, failed to provide the corroborating testimony from Bulac. Said evidence could have strengthened her (Alpas) claim considering that the latter may be viewed as a disinterested third party. Further, the sworn statements of court personnel Tomasa A. Villamil, Gonzala T. Saracho and Nerita D. Tenefrancia who were all physically present to vouch the exact and actual incidents has negated complainants' allegations, which standing alone, deserves scant consideration.

For a judge to throw away his life and career to brazenly extort a measly P1,000.00 from a litigant in front of his personnel is highly preposterous and incredible. It is inconsistent with human nature and experience. The fact that herein complainants have filed a motion for reduction of bail at respondent's sala which the latter granted out of mercy and compassion simply bespeaks of a financial difficulty that respondent has been made aware of beforehand.

It also bears stressing that in charges like this, it is of paramount importance that we should consider as essential factor the date of the commission of the alleged crime. The said incident purportedly happened in April 2004, yet complainants filed instant complaint only [i]n December 2004 or approximately eight (8) months after it happened . For an aggrieved party to endure in silence for eight (8) months her "sad and oppressive" experience before they were able to file a complaint is beyond this Office's comprehension. Delay in reporting, without justifiable reason and explanation, the alleged wrongdoing of respondent judge by itself undermines the credibility of complainants. For settled is the rule that mere imputation of judicial misconduct in the absence of sufficient proof to sustain the same, should not be countenanced.

Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effect are by their nature highly penal, such that the respondent judge stands to face the supreme sanction of dismissal or disbarment. (Mataga vs. Judge Rosete 440 SCRA 218). Hence, if a judge should be disciplined for misconduct, the evidence against him should be competent. In the instant case, we find the evidence insufficient and unworthy of credence and belief. [7] cralaw (Italics in the original; Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

In light thereof, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the case for lack of merit.

The evaluation and recommendation of the OCA are well-taken. As respondent's documented explanation controverts complainants' mere allegations, the complaint must be dismissed.

When an administrative charge against a Judge or court personnel has no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect them against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes. In short, this Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon all employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [8] cralaw (Underscoring supplied)

WHEREFORE, the complaint against Judge Alejandro T. Canda is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

� Also named Nelly or Nely in some parts of the rollo.

[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 5.

[2] cralaw Id. at 14.

[3] cralaw Id. at 15-18.

[4] cralaw Id. at 15.

[5] cralaw Id. at 22.

[6] cralaw Id. at 25-30.

[7] cralaw Id. at 37-39.

[8] cralaw Tan Tiac Chiong v. Hon. Cosico, 434 Phil. 753, 764 (2002).


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