Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > February 2007 Resolutions > [OCA-IPI No. 06-2503-RTJ : February 07, 2007] DR. HEINZ R. HECK V. JUDGE DENNIS Z. ALCANTAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 44, INITAO, MISAMIS ORIENTAL. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 7 February 2007:

OCA-IPI No. 06-2503-RTJ - (DR. HEINZ R. HECK v. JUDGE DENNIS Z. ALCANTAR, Regional Trial Court, Br. 44, Initao, Misamis Oriental)

For consideration is the Complaint ^[1] for grave misconduct filed by Dr. Heinz Heck (complainant) against Judge Dennis Z. Alcantar.

The complaint stemmed from a civil complaint for damages docketed as Civil Case No. 2004-222 filed by complainant before the RTC of Misamis Oriental against respondent.

Complainant avers that respondent clearly used his position as a judge to influence and prevent Atty. Reynaldo Vitorillo to enter his appearance as counsel of complainant in Civil Case No. 2004-222.

Complainant engaged the services of Atty. Vitorillo as adviser and counsel. Complainant alleges that he informed Atty. Vitorillo of the hearing, through a text message, a day before its schedule. Complainant claims that Atty. Vitorillo replied in this wise:

"Sorry. Can't oblige. Have given my words 2 judge. Pls. Understand."

He concluded that the "judge" referred to in the text message is Judge Alcantar. Apparently, Atty. Vitorillo had already explained to complainant his concern over the outcome of cases pending before respondent if he were to represent complainant in the said case for damages.

In his Comment dated 15 May 2006, respondent denies all the accusations against him. He regards the alleged text messages as hearsay evidence. He asserts that there is no factual and logical connection to the non-appearance of Atty. Vitorillo to the conclusion that respondent influenced the latter.^[2]

In the Answer to Comment, complainant further alleges that respondent thanked Atty. Vitorillo in a gathering for not taking the case. This incident was intimated to him by Atty. Vitorillo himself.

In its Report dated 27 December 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The OCA found that records merely showed that Atty. Vitorillo was the legal adviser and counsel of complainant at the inception of the claim for damages against respondent, but he reconsidered when he was required to make an entry of appearance. It further noted that while there is a vague insinuation in the text message that Atty. Vitorillo was influenced by respondent to withdraw from the case, an implied act of misconduct is not sufficient to hold respondent administratively liable.^[3]

We agree with the recommendation of the OCA.

Complainant based his complaint solely on the text message sent to him by Atty. Vitorillo, which mentioned a "promise" Atty. Vitorillo supposedly made to the judge. Verily, the information was not personally known to complainant; thus, considered hearsay.

In an administrative case, the rules demand that if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge of the witness.^[4] The records are bereft of any substantial evidence to support the charge of grave misconduct.

WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-5.

^[2] Id. At 22.

^[3] Id. At 54.

^[4] Dadizon v. Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1760, 15 January 2004.